| dc.description.abstract | This research seeks to understand which constitutional principles are used by STF when deciding about social security. The Judiciary, especially its top body, is a key player in the development/construction of public policies in Brazil. In the case of social security public policy, the Supreme Court has been called to give their opinion on various aspects: from the pension reform, when amendments to the constitution were questioned in Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade; to policy details that influence the exercise of rights by the recipients citizens. The main judicial way of access to the Supreme Court by the citizens, in general, is through the appeal system. The Recurso Extraordinário aims to settle doubts to possible offenses against the Constitution in decisions of other courts in sole or last instance. One of his admissibility requirements is the general repercussion (repercussão geral), which aims to be a filter that enables the STF judge to choose only those cases that have legal, political, social or economic significance. The research, therefore, had as object of analysis twelve general repercussion themes whose parties are the insured and the INSS (Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social) in already decided social security matters. The objective was to understand whether the Brazilian Supreme Court is an ally of the Executive branch in the judicial review of the social security policy and what explains this. Using theories that define the explanatory models of decision-making and research that studied the legalization of politics in the post-1988 STF, analysis of themes showed that the Supreme Court is likely to decide in accordance with the preferences of the Executive and Legislative branchs, basing their decisions on procedural or social security constitutional principles as the financial and actuarial balance of the system. | eng |
