Interpretation of the possibility of extensive clause IX article 103 of the Federal Constitution by collective protection of procedure

Abstract

The aim of this study is to analyze the broad interpretation of the rule present in article 103 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution (CF), specifically in section IX, which in its entirety provides an exhaustive list that gives legitimacy to the use of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality. In this context, which raises doubts to the practicality of having access to courts – specifically for those who have substantial interest in the matter – the claim of the IBDFAM (Brazilian Institute of Family Law), a fair provocation of the Supreme Court, raises the question whether the taxation of child support is income tax and if its practice is unconstitutional. Moreover, seeking the core of the tribute in question, the fact of which is that the increase of equity, or acquisition of the economic or legal availability of income and earnings of any nature, does not prove correct in violating the dignity of those who provide and receive child support. Therefore, this discussion has general repercussions that can affect significantly the Brazilian populace. As can be seen, the inspiration for this work comes from the recent ADI IBDFAM filing, dated November 25, 2015, an opportunity, which set in motion this discussion, as it covered the procedural aspect of the parts’ legitimacy, since it is discussed whether the IBDFAM is considered a class entity of national scope, thusly fulfilling the requirement of art. 2, IX, of Law 9,868 of 1999, and consequently article 103 of the CF. In this chain, IBDFAM was inspired by the IDECON (Consumer Law Institute), which filed the ADI n. 5291 that seeks consumer claims and argues for active legitimacy, with a view to its representativeness at the national level.