Everything is (ill)lawful to me, but not everything is suitable to me

supremocracy in institutional self-defense

Abstract

Supremecracy is understood, based on Oscar Vilhena Viera's proposal, as the peculiar institutional model adopted by Brazil through the Federal Constitution of 1988, which ambitiously granted several functions to the Supreme Federal Court, such as that of Constitutional Court, the highest body of the Judiciary, and a specialized forum. In Brazil, this phenomenon has been widely debated in light of the context of the Inquiry into antidemocratic acts and its consequences, with decisions being observed in the STF for its own institutional self-defense. In this sense, the research seeks to investigate: Is it possible to understand a new aspect of the Supreme Court based on the actions of the STF in combating antidemocratic acts? To this end, a qualitative approach and bibliographic procedure are used, based on direct and indirect documentation, through deductive and analytical-descriptive methods. As partial results, a series of decisions of the Supreme Court were recorded that, directly or indirectly, use questionable mechanisms from a constitutional point of view for their self-defense in the democratic arrangement.