## Facts

- Two Brazilian political parties—the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) and the Democratic Labor Party (PDT)—were identified as purported petitioners in a direct action of unconstitutionality (ADI) said to have been filed in 1993 against the National Congress.
- A targeted search of publicly accessible legal sources did not produce a corresponding Supreme Federal Court (STF) decision, docket entry, or secondary account matching the combination of: ADI No. 830, PSB and PDT as petitioners, the National Congress as respondent, and a 1993 filing.
- Because no verifiable judicial document or reliable summary was located, the challenged normative act, procedural posture, disposition, and constitutional reasoning cannot be stated without speculation.
- As general background, ADIs are abstract constitutional review proceedings brought directly to the STF by entities with constitutional standing, including political parties with representation in the National Congress.

## Issues

1. Whether a case identified as “ADI No. 830 (1993)” brought by PSB and PDT against the National Congress can be verified from accessible STF records or reliable legal reporting.
2. If the case cannot be verified, whether a merits holding, rationale, or legal rule may be summarized without risking fabrication.
3. What minimum information is required to produce an accurate ADI case summary (e.g., contested act, constitutional provisions invoked, dispositive outcome, and relator).

## Decision

- No merits decision or procedural disposition could be confirmed for the specified action as described.
- Without an authentic docket record, judgment (acórdão), or dependable secondary source, no legally reliable holding or reasoning can be presented.

## Legal Principles

- Accurate case summaries require verifiable identification of the proceeding and its authoritative disposition; absent that, stating a holding or rule is not supportable.
- In Brazilian constitutional procedure, an ADI is an abstract review action decided by the STF concerning the constitutionality of a statute or normative act, and it depends on constitutionally defined standing and a clearly identified challenged norm.
- When essential case identifiers (docket, parties, challenged act, and decision text) cannot be confirmed, the proper editorial approach is to report non-verifiability rather than infer outcomes.

## Conclusion

Because the specified “ADI No. 830 (1993)” with PSB and PDT as petitioners against the National Congress could not be corroborated in accessible STF materials or reliable summaries, a substantive brief stating facts, issues on the merits, holding, and reasoning cannot be produced without speculation.


Braz. Socialist Party & Democratic Labor Party v. Nat’l Cong., Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) No. 830 (S.T.F. 1993)