A lei de improbidade administrativa e os agentes políticos

Abstract

This paper analyzes in depth the aspects of Law No. 8.429/1992 and to verify , in a specific way and the light of understanding of the Supreme Court given in the records of epic Constitutional Complaint No. 2.138/DF the responsibility of politicians when they commit acts ímprobos and are subject to the Law of Crimes Responsibility. The understanding that prevailed in the Supreme Court when the trial of the said Constitutional complaint was that the Administrative Misconduct Act does not apply to politicians submitted to Law 1079 of 1950 , since acts of administrative misconduct have legal infractions political administrative mingling with the acts defined in the Crimes Act Liability which also have the same legal status . In this case , the application of both statutes on the same fact represent true bis in idem , which is forbidden in our legal system . However, no political agent can be immune to the law of Impropriety , since this law defines behavior in a much more specific than the conduct described in the Crimes Act Liability , plus much more severe sanctions . Acts of administrative misconduct not be confused with so-called crimes of responsibility , because those have legal civil infractions and these are political admnistrativas . So there is no plausibility to be legally prohibited actions coexistence of administrative misconduct and action motivated by the crime of responsibility , given the difference in legal and constitutional possibility of communicability of instances . Given the above, it turns out that it is perfectly possible that the same fact meets the political agent by act of administrative misconduct and criminal liability , there is no need to speak of double punishment.