| dc.description.abstract | Reports of divergences about the connections between law and morality go back to Roman times. Some scholars believe that moral rules and legal rules belong to the same order, that is, that there is, in fact, a merger between Law and Morals. Some philosophers argue that this connection is at the level of principles, such as Ronald Dworkin, who argues that in complex or difficult decisions, judges appeal to moral ("extra-juridical") principles to justify their decisions. This role of morality in legal decisions is sometimes made explicit in positive law itself. According to our Federal Constitution of 1988, one of the fundamental principles observed is precisely the so-called "principle of morality." This principle prescribes an administrative order based primarily on trust, good faith, honesty, and probity. In this way, ethics, or the "ethical principle", is remembered, being this principle linked to the principle of morality. The principle of political morality is appreciated from the legal determination of the observance of ethical principles produced by society. This then determines a fundamental basis for administrative morality; this is based on the correct use of the instruments of a defined legal order. With regard to the question of morality in the public administration, a position of great attention is precisely that of the Presidency of a Republic, a position which must be a faithful example of these principles that permeate the juridical and public order of a nation. The modern concept of democracy presupposes these principles, since democracy represents a balance of powers based on probity and morality in public administration. When the major ruler of a country, in the position of President of the Republic, acts in such a way as to proceed contrary to the principles of morality and ethics of the legal, political and public order, the rules of the Federal Constitution of 1988 establish terms of administrative punishment. The impeachment process, that is to say, the dismissal of the office of President of the Republic, is only feasible when political offenses and crimes of responsibility are observed, deliberated in at least two main stages: first, admission of the complaint of the crime of responsibility by the House of Representatives. Deputies and, subsequently, the judgment of the complaint as proceeds by the Federal Senate. In this way, if crimes of responsibility are verified, then the dismissal of the President of the Republic can follow the public order of a nation and in compliance with the precepts of morality and the law of a people. In this dissertation, it is intended to show that the debates about the occurrence of a crime of responsibility that occurred in the legislature during a process of impeachment represent examples of legitimate appeals to considerations not only legal but moral, against (or in favor) of the accused, in this case, the representative of the largest office of the country, the President of the Republic. The example of impeachment thus retains similarities with the examples that Dworkin, proving the thesis that political morality is inseparable part of the law itself. | en |
