Discorre sobre efetividade da Constituição a partir da jurisdição constitucional, que ainda não superou a dicotomia supremacia do legislativo ou do judiciário. Analisa a teoria do diálogo institucional e apresenta a postura do Supremo Tribunal Federal acerca das “atribuições institucionais da jurisdição constitucional brasileira”.; The fight for constitutional enforcement through judicial review has not overcome
the doubts related with the old dichotomy of the legislative supremacy versus judicial
supremacy. However, new alternatives have been presented in order to guarantee a
democratic definition of fundamental rights through judicial review; alternatives that explore
new institutional relations as a solution to overcome the matter of the decision's legitimacy.
The article will explore the terms in which is enunciated the debate about legislative
supremacy versus judicial supremacy, from the perspective suggested by Jeremy Waldron. It
will then examine the proposals enounced by the dialogical theories specially the Canadian
conception about institutional dialogue. These new theories demonstrate that constitutional
enforcement can be built, not from an institutional design that operates with the idea of a
"final word" titleholder in the matters of rights; but on the contrary; that a democratic practice
can result from a permanent dialogue between the formal power institutions. At the end, the
article demonstrates that the Brazilian Supreme Court's practice, still inspired by an old
understanding of the checks and balance system, has not yet incorporated, in a significant
way, the dialogical dimension in solving the questions of fundamental rights.
