ABSTRACT
Populists use constitutional change to perform three functions: deconstruct the former constitutional order, develop a substantial project rooted in criticism towards such order and consolidate their power. The great paradox that comes from these matters is that, while possibly facing populist legislative or executive powers, the constitutional courtrooms will be those that, at the end of the day, will defend political liberalism and the democratic system by interpreting the powers and rights in a political and legal field. How do the Courts apply the exercise of their political power? Can the constitutional jurisdiction exercise an “abusive judicial review” and legitimize undemocratic practices to consolidate the populist regime such as the criminalization of politics? This paper goes on to analyze the performance of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in the responses to Allegations of non-Compliance with Fundamental Precepts (ADPFs) between March 2020 and February 2021 to verify if the political path of the exercise of power by the STF in the Covid-19 pandemic intends to consolidate or legitimize abusive practices of the powers or play an important role in the protection of democracy under the threat of regression. The investigation is based on the following elements: doctrine, documents, and official decisions issued by the STF and on the constitutions and case studies applied in the comparative field. The methodology emphasizes Comparative Law and can be defined as political-legal scientific research. © 2022 Centro Universitario de Brasilia. All rights reserved.