Post by shiha520 on Feb 11, 2024 5:28:39 GMT -5
Due to the violation of the principle of separation of Powers and the usurpation of the exclusive initiative of the Executive to legislate on the organization and administration of public institutions, the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of a law in Rondônia that reserved 5% of vacancies in public agency parking lots for lawyers. The virtual trial ended this Monday .
evening_tao/freepik According to state law, 5% of vacancies in public bodies were reserved for lawyers evening_tao/freepik Last year, the governor of Rondônia, Marcos Rocha (União), questioned the rule through a direct action of unconstitutionality. He argued the occurrence of unjustified privilege for lawyers Canada Email List and invasion of the Executive's competence, since the law originated in the state Legislative Assembly. All ministers followed the vote of the rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes.
The judge recalled that, according to the court's jurisprudence, "the reserve of legislative initiative by the head of the Executive goes beyond the creation of an administrative body, but also includes the imposition of rules that modify the functioning of already existing bodies". Gilmar cited several STF decisions contrary to parliamentary initiative laws that created responsibilities and responsibilities for state public bodies. The questioned law changed the functioning of state public administration bodies. According to the rapporteur, this could only have happened on the governor's initiative.
evening_tao/freepik According to state law, 5% of vacancies in public bodies were reserved for lawyers evening_tao/freepik Last year, the governor of Rondônia, Marcos Rocha (União), questioned the rule through a direct action of unconstitutionality. He argued the occurrence of unjustified privilege for lawyers Canada Email List and invasion of the Executive's competence, since the law originated in the state Legislative Assembly. All ministers followed the vote of the rapporteur, Gilmar Mendes.
The judge recalled that, according to the court's jurisprudence, "the reserve of legislative initiative by the head of the Executive goes beyond the creation of an administrative body, but also includes the imposition of rules that modify the functioning of already existing bodies". Gilmar cited several STF decisions contrary to parliamentary initiative laws that created responsibilities and responsibilities for state public bodies. The questioned law changed the functioning of state public administration bodies. According to the rapporteur, this could only have happened on the governor's initiative.