The Federal Supreme Court upheld the unconstitutional (ADI) direct action and upheld the understanding that it is a crime against federal principle for one federal entity to administer goods or services to another federal entity.
By consensus, the court excluded Article 15, item XIII of the Unified Health System (SUS) Organic Law, an interpretation that allows the administrative application of public goods and services owned by other federal agencies.
In the proceedings, the Democrats (DEM) party argued that the device was the basis of a 2005 order by the federal government to intervene in Rio de Janeiro’s hospitals. Subject to the petition, it is unconstitutional, which only allows, in the event of imminent danger, the acquisition of private property, and not the public, as in the case of the intervention in Rio de Janeiro.
In a judgment vote, Minister Alexander de Morris explained that the contested device was related to the attribution of SUS and therefore the possibility of application in the context of joint eligibility between federal agencies.
The hypothesis, according to him, presents a situation of collective, urgent and temporary need, which will affect all levels of federal institutions, and the need for horizontal coordination between them.
In this regard, it is not possible for the Minister to extend the assumption of Article 5, Item XXV, of the Constitution of the Republic, which provides for the administrative demand for private goods in the event of a public threat to relations. Between federal agencies, which should be characterized by horizontal and collaborative.
In his view, the union’s intervention in the goods and services of its subsidiaries was recognized by the constituency only in exceptional cases of federal intervention and siege, and the interpretation that allowed it in the context of institutional norms. Is. Extraordinary perspective of the CoVID-19 epidemic.
Alexander recalled the recent decision of the Original Civil Action (ACO) 3,463, in which the plenary endorsed a precautionary measure to allow the union to request supplies for the development of a vaccine against the corona virus obtained from the state of Sao Paulo. To prevent State Sovereignty ..
For the Minister, the possibility of demand by the Union of Public Goods for the performance of the competence of various federal agencies affects the constitutional distribution of administrative competence, which undermines the sovereignty and balance of the federal agreement. Therefore, clearly unconstitutional.
Representative of the case, Minister Dias Tofoli, had voted in the last session to dismiss the petition, but he adjusted his vote to follow Alexander de Morris’ understanding, according to the court’s recent jurisprudence. With information from STF Advisory.