O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: 2017
Autor(a) principal: Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha lattes
Orientador(a): Araujo, Luiz Alberto David
Banca de defesa: Não Informado pela instituição
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
Idioma: por
Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
País: Brasil
Palavras-chave em Português:
Palavras-chave em Inglês:
Área do conhecimento CNPq:
Link de acesso: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/20358
Resumo: The Constitution establishes that people with disabilities that cannot provide their own maintenance nor have it provided by their families have the right to receive a Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 203, V). The constitutional intention of aiding extremely poor individuals with disabilities was restricted by the ordinary legislation regulating this fundamental right, for it has established a very narrow economic standard to define who must receive the Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 20, § 3º, Federal Law n. 8.742/93). Faced with these difficulties, the Judiciary started considering the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution no longer as a norm of limited effectiveness (programmatic norm), but as a constitutional principle (optimization requirement), even though judges do not state this conclusion expressly. As a result, the Judiciary extended the application of the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution, using its own standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. Such interpretation is compatible with a social constitutionalism, engaged with the effectiveness of the constitutional provisions, in particular those establishing fundamental rights, despite the fact that there is still room for improvements so as to ensure access to justice and legal certainty. To work with these ideas, we will analyze the theoretical aspects that involve the Continuous Cash Benefit in its classical conception of a norm of limited effectiveness as well as in the sense of a constitutional principle (a definition that is more in accordance with the contemporary constitutionalism). We will also analyze how the Judiciary has altered its understanding in the matter at hand, either in the Brazilian Supreme Court (which recognized the unconstitutionality of the Article 20, § 3º, of the Federal Law n. 8.742/93), or in the ordinary courts, identifying the judicial standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. At that point, we will be able to assert that the Continuous Cash Benefit no longer maintains a total dependence on the regulative legislation; on the contrary, its normativity derives from its condition of a constitutional principle
id PUC_SP-1_dbd89cba187e9cabeb5b7b7228614b4e
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.pucsp.br:handle/20358
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-1
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP
repository_id_str
spelling Araujo, Luiz Alberto Davidhttp://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K8201550A0Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha2017-09-13T11:39:22Z2017-08-30Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha. O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?. 2017. 205 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017.https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/20358The Constitution establishes that people with disabilities that cannot provide their own maintenance nor have it provided by their families have the right to receive a Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 203, V). The constitutional intention of aiding extremely poor individuals with disabilities was restricted by the ordinary legislation regulating this fundamental right, for it has established a very narrow economic standard to define who must receive the Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 20, § 3º, Federal Law n. 8.742/93). Faced with these difficulties, the Judiciary started considering the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution no longer as a norm of limited effectiveness (programmatic norm), but as a constitutional principle (optimization requirement), even though judges do not state this conclusion expressly. As a result, the Judiciary extended the application of the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution, using its own standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. Such interpretation is compatible with a social constitutionalism, engaged with the effectiveness of the constitutional provisions, in particular those establishing fundamental rights, despite the fact that there is still room for improvements so as to ensure access to justice and legal certainty. To work with these ideas, we will analyze the theoretical aspects that involve the Continuous Cash Benefit in its classical conception of a norm of limited effectiveness as well as in the sense of a constitutional principle (a definition that is more in accordance with the contemporary constitutionalism). We will also analyze how the Judiciary has altered its understanding in the matter at hand, either in the Brazilian Supreme Court (which recognized the unconstitutionality of the Article 20, § 3º, of the Federal Law n. 8.742/93), or in the ordinary courts, identifying the judicial standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. At that point, we will be able to assert that the Continuous Cash Benefit no longer maintains a total dependence on the regulative legislation; on the contrary, its normativity derives from its condition of a constitutional principleO texto constitucional garantiu às pessoas com deficiência que não possam prover a sua própria manutenção ou de tê-la provida por sua família um benefício de prestação continuada correspondente a um salário mínimo (art. 203, V). A intenção constitucional de amparar pessoas com deficiência em estado de miserabilidade restou restrita pela legislação ordinária regulamentadora do direito fundamental em referência, que previu um estreito critério econômico para definir quem faria jus ao seu recebimento (art. 20, § 3º, da Lei n. 8.742/93). Diante disso, o Judiciário tomou a dianteira em considerar o art. 203, V, da Lei Maior não mais como uma mera norma constitucional de eficácia limitada (programática), mas, sobretudo, enquanto um princípio constitucional (mandado de otimização), ainda que por vezes não declare essa conclusão expressamente. Ao encarar o direito fundamental das pessoas com deficiência ao recebimento de um benefício assistencial como um autêntico princípio constitucional, o Judiciário alargou a aplicação que se fazia do art. 203, V, da Constituição, recorrendo a critérios próprios para aferir a miserabilidade do requerente. Tal postura, como teremos oportunidade de assentar no desenvolvimento do presente trabalho, se revela compatível com um constitucionalismo dirigente e engajado com a efetividade das disposições constitucionais, mormente aquelas que albergam direitos fundamentais, não obstante a atual sistemática da concessão judicial do benefício assistencial admita alguns refinamentos, a fim de atender mais decisivamente aos imperativos de acesso à justiça e de segurança jurídica. Para trabalharmos com essas ideias, enfrentaremos os aspectos teóricos que envolvem o benefício de prestação continuada, seja na sua concepção clássica de norma de eficácia limitada, seja na acepção mais condizente com o constitucionalismo contemporâneo que o toma por princípio constitucional. Passaremos em revista como o Judiciário alterou profundamente sua compreensão a respeito da temática em apreço, tanto no âmbito do Supremo Tribunal Federal (que reconheceu a inconstitucionalidade do art. 20, § 3º, da Lei n. 8.742/93), quanto nas instâncias ordinárias, perquirindo os critérios que foram concebidos pela jurisprudência pátria para apurar a real miserabilidade da pessoa com deficiência. Por aí, poderemos atestar como o direito fundamental ao benefício assistencial não mantém mais uma dependência total da legislação integrativa, mas haure sua normatividade de sua própria condição principiológicaapplication/pdfhttp://tede2.pucsp.br/tede/retrieve/43161/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf.jpgporPontifícia Universidade Católica de São PauloPrograma de Estudos Pós-Graduados em DireitoPUC-SPBrasilFaculdade de DireitoDeficientes - Direitos fundamentais - BrasilBenefício de Prestação Continuada (Brasil)Deficientes - Estatuto legal, leis, etc - BrasilPeople with disabilities - Fundamental rights - BrazilContinuous Cash Benefit Programme (Brazil)Disability - Legal status, laws, etc - BrazilCNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITOO benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da PUC_SPinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPTEXTGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdf.txtGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain570995https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/4/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf.txtfc56fd2840f9f1ce6be08f1872b00142MD54LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-82165https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/1/license.txtbd3efa91386c1718a7f26a329fdcb468MD51ORIGINALGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdfGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdfapplication/pdf1450693https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/2/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf5ca81f70dac504cb678523e9f519f6c9MD52THUMBNAILGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdf.jpgGuilherme Fraiha Granjo.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg1943https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/3/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf.jpgcc73c4c239a4c332d642ba1e7c7a9fb2MD53handle/203582024-04-29 09:59:14.04oai:repositorio.pucsp.br: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Repositório Institucionalhttps://sapientia.pucsp.br/https://sapientia.pucsp.br/oai/requestbngkatende@pucsp.br||rapassi@pucsp.bropendoar:2024-04-29T12:59:14Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
title O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
spellingShingle O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha
Deficientes - Direitos fundamentais - Brasil
Benefício de Prestação Continuada (Brasil)
Deficientes - Estatuto legal, leis, etc - Brasil
People with disabilities - Fundamental rights - Brazil
Continuous Cash Benefit Programme (Brazil)
Disability - Legal status, laws, etc - Brazil
CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
title_short O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
title_full O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
title_fullStr O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
title_full_unstemmed O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
title_sort O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?
author Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha
author_facet Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha
author_role author
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv Araujo, Luiz Alberto David
dc.contributor.authorLattes.fl_str_mv http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K8201550A0
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha
contributor_str_mv Araujo, Luiz Alberto David
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Deficientes - Direitos fundamentais - Brasil
Benefício de Prestação Continuada (Brasil)
Deficientes - Estatuto legal, leis, etc - Brasil
topic Deficientes - Direitos fundamentais - Brasil
Benefício de Prestação Continuada (Brasil)
Deficientes - Estatuto legal, leis, etc - Brasil
People with disabilities - Fundamental rights - Brazil
Continuous Cash Benefit Programme (Brazil)
Disability - Legal status, laws, etc - Brazil
CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv People with disabilities - Fundamental rights - Brazil
Continuous Cash Benefit Programme (Brazil)
Disability - Legal status, laws, etc - Brazil
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
description The Constitution establishes that people with disabilities that cannot provide their own maintenance nor have it provided by their families have the right to receive a Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 203, V). The constitutional intention of aiding extremely poor individuals with disabilities was restricted by the ordinary legislation regulating this fundamental right, for it has established a very narrow economic standard to define who must receive the Continuous Cash Benefit (Article 20, § 3º, Federal Law n. 8.742/93). Faced with these difficulties, the Judiciary started considering the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution no longer as a norm of limited effectiveness (programmatic norm), but as a constitutional principle (optimization requirement), even though judges do not state this conclusion expressly. As a result, the Judiciary extended the application of the Article 203, V, of the Brazilian Constitution, using its own standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. Such interpretation is compatible with a social constitutionalism, engaged with the effectiveness of the constitutional provisions, in particular those establishing fundamental rights, despite the fact that there is still room for improvements so as to ensure access to justice and legal certainty. To work with these ideas, we will analyze the theoretical aspects that involve the Continuous Cash Benefit in its classical conception of a norm of limited effectiveness as well as in the sense of a constitutional principle (a definition that is more in accordance with the contemporary constitutionalism). We will also analyze how the Judiciary has altered its understanding in the matter at hand, either in the Brazilian Supreme Court (which recognized the unconstitutionality of the Article 20, § 3º, of the Federal Law n. 8.742/93), or in the ordinary courts, identifying the judicial standards to assess the claimant’s poverty. At that point, we will be able to assert that the Continuous Cash Benefit no longer maintains a total dependence on the regulative legislation; on the contrary, its normativity derives from its condition of a constitutional principle
publishDate 2017
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2017-09-13T11:39:22Z
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2017-08-30
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha. O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?. 2017. 205 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017.
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/20358
identifier_str_mv Granjo, Guilherme Fraiha. O benefício assistencial à pessoa com deficiência sob o enfoque jurisprudencial: avanços ou retrocessos?. 2017. 205 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) - Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2017.
url https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/20358
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv PUC-SP
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv Brasil
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv Faculdade de Direito
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP
collection Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/4/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf.txt
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/1/license.txt
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/2/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf
https://repositorio.pucsp.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20358/3/Guilherme%20Fraiha%20Granjo.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv fc56fd2840f9f1ce6be08f1872b00142
bd3efa91386c1718a7f26a329fdcb468
5ca81f70dac504cb678523e9f519f6c9
cc73c4c239a4c332d642ba1e7c7a9fb2
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da PUC_SP - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv bngkatende@pucsp.br||rapassi@pucsp.br
_version_ 1864285388440338432