## Facts

- The Governor of Rio Grande do Sul filed an abstract constitutional challenge (ADI No. 815) before Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court sitting en banc.
- The challenge targeted original constitutional text governing representation in the Chamber of Deputies: (i) the minimum/maximum number of deputies per State and the Federal District (8 to 70), and (ii) the fixed number of deputies elected by each Territory (four).
- The Governor sought a partial invalidation of (i) the clause imposing the 8–70 limits and (ii) the number “four” for Territories.
- The Governor argued these quotas distort proportional representation and conflict with constitutional commitments to equality, equality of the vote, popular sovereignty, citizenship, and federalism (including entrenched limits on constitutional amendments).
- The petition advanced a theory that some constitutional principles (including entrenched clauses) are hierarchically superior to other constitutional provisions, permitting a court to declare parts of the original constitutional text unconstitutional.
- No preliminary injunction was granted, and the Court proceeded to a merits-stage admissibility determination.

## Issues

1. Whether an ADI may be used to subject provisions in the Constitution’s original text to constitutional review on the theory that some original constitutional norms are hierarchically superior to others (or to suprapositive principles).
2. If such review were available, whether the challenged representation limits violate constitutional principles of equality, equal suffrage, democracy, citizenship, and federalism.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously dismissed the action without reaching the representation merits, holding the request was legally impossible in this procedural posture.
- The Court held that abstract review does not permit invalidation of norms contained in the Constitution’s original text.
- The Court rejected the premise of a hierarchy among original constitutional norms that would allow one original provision to be struck down as unconstitutional in relation to another.
- The Court reasoned that entrenched clauses operate as limits on the amendment power (derived constituent power), not as standards authorizing invalidation of original constitutional provisions.
- The Court emphasized its role is to guard the Constitution as a whole, not to act as a reviewer of the original constituent power for compliance with suprapositive principles.

## Legal Principles

- In a rigid constitutional system, provisions in the Constitution’s original text are not subject to being declared unconstitutional through abstract constitutional review based on conflict with other original provisions.
- There is no judicially enforceable hierarchy among original constitutional norms that authorizes invalidation of one original provision by reference to another.
- Entrenched clauses function as limits on constitutional amendments and revisions (derived constituent power), not as grounds to invalidate original constitutional text.
- Apparent tensions among original constitutional provisions are addressed through harmonizing interpretation consistent with the unity of the Constitution, not by striking down original text.

## Conclusion

The Court refused to entertain an abstract challenge seeking to invalidate parts of the Constitution’s original text, holding that original constitutional provisions share equal hierarchical status and are not reviewable for unconstitutionality in relation to other original norms, entrenched clauses, or suprapositive standards.


Governor of Rio Grande do Sul v. National Congress, Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade No. 815 (S.T.F. 1996)