## Facts

- A Brazilian political party filed an abstract constitutional challenge against a 1967 statute governing press activity, enacted during an authoritarian period.
- The challenged statute regulated press offenses, imposed special civil and criminal liability rules for journalists and media outlets, and set procedures tailored to press disputes.
- The petition argued the statute conflicted with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression, access to information, and the constitutional regime for social communication, while also implicating protections of honor, privacy, and image.
- The case proceeded in the national constitutional court’s plenary session through a “subsidiary” concentrated-review mechanism meant to prevent or remedy violations of fundamental constitutional precepts when no other effective remedy exists and when courts face conflicting applications.
- Although the petition initially targeted specific provisions, the litigation centered on the statute’s overall compatibility with the post-authoritarian constitutional order.
- The court’s ruling had general, binding effect on lower courts.

## Issues

1. Whether the constitutional review mechanism was available to challenge a pre-constitutional statute allegedly violating fundamental constitutional precepts.
2. Whether the 1967 press statute remained in force under the 1988 Constitution or was incompatible and therefore not retained.
3. Whether constitutional protection for freedom of journalistic information and related expressive freedoms permits statutory schemes enabling prior restraints or content-based controls.
4. If the press statute was invalid, what legal tools remain to address harms to honor, privacy, and image caused by journalistic activity.

## Decision

- The court held the claim was procedurally proper to contest a pre-constitutional law where fundamental precepts were implicated and judicial decisions applying the law were in conflict.
- The court declared the 1967 press statute not retained by the 1988 Constitution and therefore inapplicable in its entirety.
- The court held that freedom of the press (treated as coextensive with freedom of journalistic information) bars prior censorship by any branch of government.
- The court rejected a specialized statutory “press code” that conditions or restricts expression, holding that limits must come, if at all, from the Constitution and post-publication accountability mechanisms.
- The court maintained that injuries to personality rights are addressed through ex post measures, including a right of reply and civil, criminal, or administrative liability under generally applicable law.

## Legal Principles

- A subsidiary form of concentrated constitutional review may be used to prevent or remedy injury to fundamental constitutional precepts, including by challenging pre-constitutional statutes when no other effective remedy exists and controversy is marked by conflicting decisions.
- A pre-constitutional statute remains effective only if compatible with the new constitutional order; global incompatibility warrants non-retention and total inapplicability.
- Constitutional freedom of journalistic information and related expressive freedoms prohibit prior censorship, whether judicial, administrative, or legislative.
- Conflicts between press freedom and personality rights are resolved by protecting publication against ex ante restraints while allowing ex post remedies (right of reply and proportionate liability) for proven harms.
- After invalidation of a specialized press statute, disputes involving the media are governed by constitutional protections and generally applicable civil and penal norms rather than a separate press regime.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the 1967 press statute in full as incompatible with the 1988 constitutional framework, establishing that journalistic freedom is protected against prior restraints while preserving post-publication remedies—such as reply and proportionate liability—to address harms to honor, privacy, and image.


Democratic Labor Party v. President of the Republic & National Congress, Claim of Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) No. 130 (Braz. 2009)