A (in)aplicabilidade da lei 8.429/92 de improbidade administrativa aos prefeitos municipais.

Abstract

Taking into account that the Federal Constitution of 1988 shows a strong concern in preserving and curbing acts against the Public Administration and its principles foreseen on article 37, features the intentness of norms that have the impetus of ensuring morality, legality, and probity within the Public Administration. From these two institutes, the Constitution dictates the prohibition of administrative impropriety acts, on § 4 of article 37, to be committed by public agents, considered in acts that violate morality and legality, as well as determining the crimes of responsibility to political agents, besides a unique regime of responsibility, and an increase of the responsibility given to these agents. Law nº 8.429/92 regulates the means of the Constitution on administrative impropriety, otherwise stated at Law nº 1.079/50 that register crimes of responsibility. The Supreme Court opt through Complaint 2.138-DF, which pleaded defence of a Minister of State convicted of administrative impropriety, that the applicability of both laws to political agents causes bis in idem, regarding that the aforementioned laws are of paired legal nature and purpose. That being so, after the aforementioned decision, all political agents, including Municipal Mayors, who have a sizeable demand for civil action for administrative impropriety, sought the Supreme Court to elongate the effects of the decision to all similar cases involving agents politicians. Of late, there is an ongoing paradigm in the Supreme Court, Extraordinary Appeal nº 976566, identifying the widespread repercussion, to decide on the Mayors, although the Supreme Court has not yet reach a decision, the Attorney General Office has manifested itself in said Extraordinary Appeal, through stance nº 2323/2014, bringing pertinent altercation and basis on the subject, considering that the Mayors are subject to Decree-Law nº 201/67 in respect of responsibility crimes.