ABSTRACT
Resumo Em democracias, conselhos, órgãos colegiados atuantes no Sistema de Justiça possuem diferentes finalidades: reforçar a independência do Poder Judiciário e do Ministério Público (MP), incrementar a accountability em relação a juízes e promotores e/ou aprimorar a gestão da Justiça. Este artigo analisa o Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) e o Conselho Nacional do Ministério Público (CNMP), considerando principalmente os dois primeiros aspectos. No momento da criação desses órgãos, acreditava-se que ambos seriam instrumentos para aumentar a transparência e possibilitar que juízes e promotores pudessem responder por suas ações e escolhas. Nossa hipótese é que essa expectativa não se realizou. Para testá-la, analisaremos o desenho institucional do CNMP e do CNJ, apontando como a composição e a distribuição de cargos incentivam mais a independência que a accountability e apresentaremos também dados relativos ao comportamento dos Conselhos frente às denúncias disciplinares. A conclusão é que, em virtude da composição majoritária do CNJ e do CNMP por integrantes internos do Judiciário e do MP e da atuação pouco expressiva em relação à punição de juízes e promotores, os órgãos reforçam ainda mais a expressiva independência dessas instituições no Brasil.
Resumen En las democracias, los consejos, órganos colegiados que operan en el sistema de justicia, tienen diferentes finalidades: fortalecer la independencia del Poder Judicial y del Ministerio Público (MP), incrementar la accountability con relación a jueces y fiscales, y/o mejorar la gestión de la justicia. Este artículo analiza el Consejo Nacional de Justicia (CNJ) y el Consejo Nacional del Ministerio Público (CNMP), considerando principalmente los primeros dos aspectos. Al momento de crear esos órganos, se creía que ambos serían instrumentos para aumentar la transparencia y permitir que jueces y fiscales pudieran responder de sus acciones y opciones. Nuestra hipótesis es que esa expectativa no se ha cumplido. Para probarla, analizaremos el diseño institucional del CNMP y del CNJ, señalando cómo la composición y distribución de cargos fomentan más la independencia que la accountability y también presentaremos datos relacionados con el comportamiento de los consejos ante denuncias disciplinarias. Nuestra conclusión es que, debido al hecho de que el CNJ y el CNMP están compuestos mayoritariamente por miembros internos del Poder Judicial y del MP y al desempeño insignificante con relación al castigo de jueces y fiscales, los órganos refuerzan aún más la significativa independencia de estas instituciones en Brasil.
Abstract Councils acting in the Justice System in democracies have different purposes: to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and the public prosecutor's office, to increase accountability of judges and prosecutors, or/and to improve justice management. This article analyzes the Brazilian National Council of Justice (CNJ) and the National Council of the Brazilian Public Prosecutor's Office (CNMP), particularly regarding their purpose as instruments of accountability. The study shows that these bodies were created as instruments to increase transparency and compel judges and prosecutors to be held accountable for their actions and choices. The hypothesis tested in this research is that the two councils did not meet this expectation. The CNJ and CNMP were analyzed for their institutional design, discussing how the composition and distribution of positions at the council encourage independence of the judges and prosecutors rather than accountability. In addition, the article offers data on the councils' decisions when accusations were presented. Finally, the analysis revealed that CNJ and CNMP are mainly composed of internal members of the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor's Office, and identified a lack of expressive punishment applied to judges and prosecutors. Therefore, the hypothesis that the councils do not work as instruments of accountability was confirmed.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Social Responsibility , Judiciary , Public AttorneysABSTRACT
This article deals with the autonomy, discretionary power, and wide range of attributions allotted to the Public Prosecutor's Office in Brazil by the 1988 Constitution. One of the objectives is to analyze whether this combination is not alien to the democratic principle that state institutions, and even those that do not choose their members by direct elections, should be accountable to the public for their acts. The author draws on the neo-institutionalist literature on bureaucracy to analyze the Public Prosecutor's Office in Brazil. The conclusion is that there has been a quasi-abdication by politicians in relation to the institution in question, a rare occurrence in Brazil and in other democracies.
Dans cet article, on examine l'autonomie, le pouvoir discrétionnaire et le large éventail d'attributions du Ministère Public au Brésil figurant dans la Constitution de 1988, afin de savoir si cet assemblage ne s'oppose pas au principe démocratique selon lequel les institutions d'État, y compris celles qui n'utilisent pas le système d'élections directes pour l'admission de leurs membres, doivent rendre compte de leurs actes devant le peuple souverain. Dans ce but, on part de la littérature néo-institutionnelle concernant la bureaucratie afin d'étudier le Ministère Public au Brésil. En conclusion, on voit que les hommes politiques se servent très peu de l'institution, ce qui est plutôt rare au Brésil ainsi que chez d'autres pays démocratiques.