The first part of this paper is devoted to explaining the reasons why the legitimacy of the definition of the Constitutional Court as a “permanent constituent” can only rest on the existence of a theory of interpretation developed by this same body. To this end, it will try to demonstrate that the mutations of the functions attributed to the organs of constitutional jurisdiction depend both on the meaning that the term “Constitution” acquires in each historical context, and on the existing relationship between sovereignty, constituent power and modalities of reform of the Fundamental Norm. Starting from this premise, I will try to show that the legitimization of the work of the High Courts can only be achieved through the individualization of some internal legal parameters, suitable to bind the decisions of the supreme interpreter of the Constitution, and, consequently, through the individualization of some interpretative criteria that, when used in the framework of a certain theory of the Constitution, can be applied to the interpretation of the Constitution, used within the framework of a given theory of the Constitution and not randomly, can ascend to the status of legal parameters with which it would be possible to evaluate the decisions of the body charged with being the mediator between the constitutional text and the reality to which said text must be applied.
Read complete articlePublished in the Journal Direitos Sociais e Políticas Públicas (UNIFAFIBE)
Dr. Claudia Storini Ph.D.
Dr. Claudia Storini Ph.D.Invited professor of the Master's Degree in Constitutional Law, classroom modality.
