Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates the significance of habeas corpus and writ of mandamus in administrative law to protect rights and prevent abuse of power.
This study aims to analyze the use of habeas corpus (HC) and writs of mandamus (MS) in administrative disciplinary proceedings (PAD), outlining the constitutional foundations, legal framework, eligibility requirements, limits, and strategies for choosing the appropriate avenue. It draws on articles 5, LXVIII, LXIX, and LV of the Constitution, as well as Law 12.016/2009 and administrative law legislation, to situate the issue within the system of guarantees and control of the legality of state acts. The HC is examined as a remedy aimed at the immediate protection of freedom of movement, including in exceptional circumstances in the PAD, and the MS as an instrument for protecting a clear and certain right against illegality or abuse of power, with an emphasis on pre-established evidence, statute of limitations, and effects. Finally, it proposes practical criteria for adequacy and subsidiarity between HC, MS, and annulment actions, preventing the risks of an inappropriate avenue.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matheus Martins Sant’ Anna (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: