Brazilian Supreme Court, judicial self-restraint, and educational policy: the homeschooling case (RE 888815)
| Autor | José Mário Wanderley Gomes Neto, Luis Felipe Andrade Barbosa, Luís Henrique Gonçalves de Azevedo Pinto |
| Cargo | Doutor em Ciência Política pela Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (2015) / Doutor e Mestre em Ciência Política pelo PPGCP da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) / Mestrando em Direito dos Contratos e da Empresa pela Universidade do Minho (UMINHO) |
| Páginas | 178-205 |
Brazilian Supreme Court, judicial
self-restraint, and educational policy:
the homeschooling case (RE 888815)
Supremo Tribunal Federal, autorrestrição judicial e política
educacional: o caso do homeschooling (RE 888815)
José Mário Wanderley Gomes Neto*
Universidade Católica de Pernambuco, Recife – PE, Brasil
Luis Felipe Andrade Barbosa**
Centro Universitário ASCES/UNITA, Caruaru – PE, Brasil
Luís Henrique Gonçalves de Azevedo Pinto***
Universidade do Minho, Braga – Portugal
1. Introduction
In 2018, the duty to solve a constitutional dispute related to a relevant issue
of educational public policy came to the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF):
the hypothesis that parents of a child could (or not) choose to not enroll
her in a school and to educate her in the family environment (the practice
of homeschooling) against the interests of the public officers, which denied
permission and required a link to the formal education system, whether by
* Doutor em Ciência Política pela Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (2015). Mestre em
Direito pela Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (2003) Professor do PPGD da Universidade
Católica de Pernambuco (UNICAP). E-mail: jose.gomes@unicap.br.
** Doutor e Mestre em Ciência Política pelo PPGCP da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
(UFPE). Professor de Direito na ASCES/UNITA e pesquisador do PRAETOR - Grupo de estudos
sobre Poder Judiciário, Política e Sociedade (UFPE). E-mail: lfelipeandrade.adv@gmail.com.
*** Mestrando em Direito dos Contratos e da Empresa pela Universidade do Minho (UMINHO),
em Portugal. Graduado em Direito pela Universidade Católica de Pernambuco (UNICAP),
tendo realizado parte da graduação na Universidade de Coimbra (UC), em Portugal. E-mail:
luishenriqueazevedo.adv@gmail.com.
Direito, Estado e Sociedade n.62 p. 178 a 205 jan/jun 2023
179
Direito, Estado e Sociedade n. 62 jan/jun 2023
a public or private institution. The parents’ lawyers argued - in their appeal
to the Supreme Court - that the denial act was against the provisions of the
Brazilian Federal Constitution (articles 5, VI; 205; 206, II, III, IV; 208; 210;
214; 226; 227 and 229) by simply restricting the meaning of the word “ed-
ucate” to formal instruction in a conventional educational institution. They
also added to their arguments that the denial by the municipal education
department would violate educational freedom, pluralism of pedagogical
concepts, and family autonomy.
Conversely, the education department of the municipality of Canela (RS),
the Federal Union and the Attorney General’s Office (Procuradoria Geral da
República - PGR) claimed that: a) the Federal Constitution imposes mandatory
formal basic education; b) students not enrolled in schools are deprived of
basic elements of socialization and the pedagogical processes proper to the
school environment, an appropriate place for the development of tolerance,
solidarity, and ethics; c) in short, that schooling is the pedagogical standard
adopted by the Constitution.
Several entities acted as amicus curiae (Federal Union, the National As-
sociation of Home Education - ANED, the Conservative Institute of Brasilia,
and the States of Acre, Alagoas, Amazonas, Goiás, Espírito Santo, Maranhão,
Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Piauí,
Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondônia, Santa
Catarina, São Paulo, Sergipe and the Federal District) defending technical,
political and legal positions and arguments, respectively, against or in favor,
of the intention to declare (or not) the constitutionality of home education.
Since the year 2016, all other lawsuits in Brazilian territory that dealt
with the matter related to home education were suspended, awaiting the
decision to be rendered in the aforementioned precedent (RE 888815) to
define the future of all other claims of the same nature.
From then on, the task of the Justices of the Brazilian Supreme Court in
their role as arbitrators of a constitutional conflict was to decide which is the
proper interpretation of the Brazilian Federal Constitution, in terms of edu-
cational policy, defining which position was under the constitutional order.
However, a peculiar characteristic of that judgment deserves to be high
-
lighted: despite relevant information on educational public policies brought
by both litigants and the vast technical-legal experience of the Justices, in
the decision-making process carried out there, the judicial behavior char-
acterized as judicial self-restraint stood out, in which elements external to
Brazilian Supreme Court, judicial self-restraint, and educational policy:
the homeschooling case (RE 888815)
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO