This research focuses the trial of “ADIN 4.029” by the Supreme Court. The case is
characterized by a very atypical of shift of direction by Supreme Court. The case
involved examining the constitutionality of Law n. 11.516/07 which created the
Brazilian Biodiversity and Conservation Institute. The legislation was contested
with the allegation that it did not observe all formal requirements of its legislative
process. The argument was accepted by the Supreme Court, which declared the
law incompatible with the Constitution. However, apparently the Tribunal was not
aware that there were hundreds of Laws in the same situation. The situation was
critical. A great deal of the country‟s most important legislation was also
compromised for the same reason: the lack of due legislative process. To avert
chaos that would take place if all the defective legislation were to be declared void,
the Court changed its previous deliberation and declared the creation of the
Biodiversity and Conservation Institute legal despite the fact that it was created
without due legislative process. This consequentialist and improvised manner of
deliberating exposed the fragility of the Court‟s understanding of Brazilian
Legislative Process and the use of pragmatic argumentation in damage control
situations.

Author: Bruno Furtado Vieira