Responsabilidade dos agentes políticos por atos de improbidade administrativa

Abstract

On June 13, 2007 the Supreme Court ended the Trial of the Complaint 2.138-6, understanding that political actors would not be subject to the system of the Law No. 8.429/92, once they answer for criminal practice of responsibility, which legal nature would be identical to the acts of administrative impropriety. In the first chapter we verify that political actors are public servants in positions of highlights within the Public Administration, and are responsible for policy decisions that guide the work of the Government. Despite this prominent position, the importance of their decisions and of the differential treatment granted by the Constitution for some forms of their accountability, political actors have civil liability, administrative liability, criminal liability, political liability and any others that exist. The Administrative Misconduct Act expressly provides that all public servants are subordinate to it, and has foundation in article 37, § 4 of the Constitution, having, in our view, an autonomous nature, that cannot be confused with the political-administrative nature of the crimes of responsibility. Thus, we believe that political actors can be held accountable for acts of administrative impropriety, by operation of Law No. 8.429/92, in order that such acts represent an autonomous sphere of liability by Constitution determination, and all its penalties can be applied to the political actors by the first instance sentence, since the Constitution did not establish jurisdiction by prerogative of duty to his judgment