Road block determined by Governor and (or) Mayor

The Governor is prohibited from closing the boundaries of the Federation Unit and the Mayor is prohibited from closing the Municipality limits.

I understand that this is the interpretation that can be extracted from the reading of the decision issued on March 25th, 2020 at 9:55 am by the Minister of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) Marco Aurélio (Precautionary Measure in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality #6,343 from Federal District).

I highlight the following excerpt from the text of the aforementioned decision: "The changes promoted in Law #13,979/2020 must be kept in force, until the sieve of the National Congress, under penalty of potentializing political-party views to the detriment of the public interest".
 

It seems to me that, in spite of "taking care of health" (which is constitutional - Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil 1988 (CRFB-1988), article 23, item II), the heads of state and municipal executives ended up invading an exclusive competence of the Union: to legislate about transit and transport (CRFB-1988, article 22, item XI). It seems to me that it is unconstitutional for the Heads of State and Municipal Executive Powers to prevent and (or) restrict locomotion within the national territory (which would be legislating about transit and transportation). So much so that the measure to restrict entry and (or) locomotion within the national territory was conditioned to the technical and reasoned recommendation of the National Health Surveillance Agency (Federal Ordinary Law #13,979, of February 6, 2020, article 3, item VI). It seems to me the regular exercise of the private legislative competence provided for in article 22, item XI, of the Federal Constitution, in terms of traffic and transportation.

Jamenson Ferreira Espindula de Almeida Melo

Lawyer (since July 7, 2011) working in the Metropolitan Region of Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, South America..

.

Constitutional nature of the matter prevents analysis of Bahia's request to adopt sanitary barrier at airports

Due to the eminently constitutional character of the matter, the president of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), Minister João Otávio de Noronha, was unaware of a request from the government of Bahia to suspend a preliminary injunction that prohibited the implementation of a sanitary barrier at airports, in order to inspect national flights from São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and international flights as a measure to prevent the new coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19).

The state even obtained a favorable injunction in the first instance, but there was an appeal and the Regional Federal Court of the 1st Region (TRF1) granted the anticipation of guardianship to suspend the effects of the contested decision. When requesting the suspension of the TRF1 decision, the state government claimed that the matter has an infraconstitutional character, which would imply the STJ's competence to examine it.

In addition, he argued that he intends to work together with the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa), but he cannot be prevented from exercising sanitary control in his own territory, and the absence of this control may put the Bahian population at risk in the face of the pandemic. .
Suspicion rules

Minister João Otávio de Noronha recalled that, according to the legislation on the counter-caution regime, it is incumbent on the STJ presidency to suspend the effects of decisions by federal state or regional courts that, in a single or last instance, grant a mandatory order, grant injunction or urgent protection in cases brought against the public authorities or whoever represents them.

However - observed Noronha -, who filed the original demand was the government of Bahia, a situation that prevents the knowledge of the suspension request.

Even if this obstacle was overcome, the minister stated that it would not be possible to analyze the request due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court for the cause, since the issue is constitutional.
Powers of the STF

"In this case, the discussion of the case records refers to the definition of competence - whether of the state or federal entity - for administrative action and regulation of the health police power in the current pandemic situation, recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO), an issue based on the Constitution ", he explained.

According to the minister, the constitutional character of the matter is evidenced not only in the decision of the TRF1 and in the initial petition, but also in the recent decision by Minister Marco Aurélio, of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality 6,341, in which discusses the competence of federative entities in relation to measures to combat coronavirus.

According to the president of the STJ, although the action of the government of Bahia is also based on infraconstitutional provisions, "the constitutional status of the merit discussion of the original feat is undeniable, the STF being responsible for the ultimate and centralized analysis of the issues related to competence federative entities to take normative and administrative measures in the management of the pandemic ".

Source: STJ News. Available at <http://www.stj.jus.br/sites/portalp/Paginas/Comunicacao/Noticias/Natureza-constitucional-da-materia-impede-analise-de-pedido-da-Bahia-para-adotar-barreira-sanitaria-em-aeroportos.aspx>. Viewed on: march 26th, 2020.

.