INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION: THE "WEAK" CONTROL OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL OMISSIONS

Abstract

The interpretation of the Constitution must occur in a participatory way, involving all the powers of the State in a dialogical process. This model avoids the centralization of constitutional interpretation in a single body or individual. The study analyzes institutional dialogues and their importance for democracy. It seeks to evaluate the writ of injunction as a mechanism to promote a more collaborative constitutional interpretation. This work uses a qualitative approach with bibliographic and documentary analysis. Doctrines, jurisprudence of the STF and practical cases of the writ of injunction are studied. The results show that the model of institutional dialogues strengthens democracy by allowing different organs of the State to contribute to the interpretation of the Constitution. This approach expands the legitimacy of legal decisions, as it prevents the compatibility of norms with the Constitution from being restricted to the understanding of a single power. In Brazil, the writ of injunction proves to be an effective legal instrument to enable these institutional dialogues, by correcting legislative omissions that prevent the exercise of fundamental rights. Institutional dialogues represent a more democratic and plural alternative for the interpretation of the Constitution, allowing different organs of the State and society to play an active role in defining the scope of constitutional norms. The writ of injunction stands out as a relevant mechanism for this model, as it encourages interaction between the powers and contributes to the realization of fundamental rights. The research reinforces that institutional dialogues are essential for strengthening democracy and constitutional legitimacy. The improvement of the writ of injunction and the improvement of communication between the powers can contribute to a more efficient application of this model in Brazil.