This present work has as its central focus the institute of judicial supervision in criminal
investigations within the Brazilian legal system, with a special focus on investigations
involving individuals with privileged jurisdiction and the need for legislative regulation of
this matter by the State of Tocantins. We analyze the evolution of criminal investigation in
Brazil, which historically did not require judicial authorization for investigatory actions not
covered by the reservation of jurisdiction, implying a lack of communication to the Judiciary
before the filing of criminal charges. However, the Federal Supreme Court established the
mandatory nature of judicial supervision, even for preliminary actions not covered by the
reservation of jurisdiction, resulting in controversies and debates about the constitutionality
of this procedure, leading some state Courts of Justice to regulate judicial supervision in their
Internal Regulations and even the issuance of Constitutional Amendments to State
Constitutions. It is worth noting that until the beginning of the 21st century, only judges
required judicial supervision in cases of criminal investigations involving them. However, in
2007, with the mandatory imposition by the Federal Supreme Court in Petition
3.825-QO/MT, numerous debates arose regarding the rationale behind this decision, with
some ministers arguing that if the Federal Constitution establishes the jurisdiction in the
Supreme Court, activities related to judicial supervision should be controlled by the Court.
Thus, to avoid disagreements among Supreme Court ministers, the Court issued Regimental
Amendment No. 44, on June 2, 2011, granting abstractness to the previous understanding and
making it part of the internal regulations of the Court. This amendment established that in
cases of privileged jurisdiction, the initiation and closure of investigations must occur under
the supervision of the Rapporteur Minister of the Supreme Court. In addition, the amendment
introduced scenarios for the automatic closure of investigations. The regulations governing
judicial supervision in investigations of individuals with privileged jurisdiction in any court
must be in accordance with the constitutional definition of the accusatorial criminal process.
This ensures respect for constitutional guarantees of adversarial proceedings and due process
of law, which are fundamental to Brazilian society. Additional questions arise: is the
extensive interpretation of Article 102 of the Federal Constitution legitimate? Is it possible to
regulate the institute of judicial supervision through Internal Regulations or Constitutional
Amendments, as proposed by the Federal Supreme Court? In our view, yes, there is a need
for legislative regulation in the State of Tocantins to align the justice system with the
jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court. However, the regulation of the institute of
judicial supervision must be carefully crafted to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction with the
Union, as the Federal Constitution grants the Union competence to legislate on criminal
procedural matters (Article 22, Section I, of the 1988 Constitution). State regulations of the
institute, whether through the Internal Regulations of State Courts of Justice or State
Constitutions, raise questions about their constitutionality, as they may conflict with the
jurisdictional norm of the Union and the Federal Constitution itself, as well as with the
principles governing Brazilian criminal procedure. Therefore, this study aims to reflect on the
regulation of the institute of judicial supervision in the State of Tocantins, taking into account
constitutional limits, legislative competence, and the principles guiding criminal procedure in
Brazil. Finally, we recommend a legislative policy to standardize within the State of
Tocantins, through the State Legislative and/or the State Court of Justice, and ensure legal certainty for decisions issued by the honorable Court of Justice, thus achieving the desired
social peace in legal relations.
|
