Vaquejada and the STF

Analysis of the (in)constitutionality of vaquejada and the backlahs effect

Abstract

This work presents and discusses the issue of vaquejada within the scope of the Federal Supreme Court and the Legislative reaction triggered by the National Congress through the enactment of Law nº 13.364/16 and Constitutional Amendment nº. 96/2017, which took place with the aim of reversing jurisprudence of what I decided by the STF in the Judgment of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality ADI nº. 4,983/CE, also known as the “vaquejada case”, in which it declared the Ceará Law nº. 15,299/2013, which aimed to regulate vaquejada as a sporting and cultural practice, being recognized by the Supreme Court as an intrinsically cruel practice and, therefore, prohibited for violating art. 225, § 1, VII of the Federal Constitution. And, it is in this conjecture that it is investigated, how did such legislative reactions impact the prohibition of cruel practices against non-human animals? In addition, it is inferred, how does the backlash effect in the vaquejada case represent a threat to the legal certainty of the STF precedents?. And, for a better understanding of the theme, the present study was structured in the following chapters: the first is dedicated to analyzing the issue of vaquejada in the STF through the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality nº 4.983; therefore, the second chapter examines the legislation created after the Supreme Court's position, after recognizing the unconstitutionality of the Ceará Law on vaquejada and aims to examine Law nº 13.364/16 and Constitutional Amendment nº. 96/2017 and the final topic reflects on the backlash effect in the case of vaquejada. Therefore, for the development and structuring of the research, the method of approach applied was the inductive one and the procedure adopted was the exploratory research, as well as, the research technique was used through the bibliographic and documentary resource, thus, in order to In order to achieve the proposed objectives in the construction of the theoretical framework, we consulted current studies, qualified scientific journals and judgments of the Federal Supreme Court that deal in a forceful way about the proposed theme. From this, it is concluded that it is essential to establish a uniform interpretation of the rights of animals consistent with the norms constitutional laws and that are in line with precedents already established by the Supreme Court, since it brings in its core the prohibition to any practice that may be cruel to animals, since, it cannot be left to the heart of the Law to assign a different meaning to the concept of cruelty, for It is an intrinsic value and the necessary respect for the semantic limits of the word, and it cannot be left to the legislator's pleasure to create normative commands that assign different meanings, only with the intention of legitimizing certain practices, even if admittedly cruel, that is, because, it is necessary legal certainty, in order to respect the Federal Constitution that prohibits the practice of cruelty and values ​​the guarantee of the dignity of non-human animals.