The Public Prosecution Service in Defense of Its Institutional Prerogatives

Abstract

The article analyzes the judicial defense of the institutional prerogatives of the Public Prosecution Service of the Federal District, with the aim of supporting the institution’s standing to file a writ of mandamus intended to protect its right to sit at the table beside and to the right of the presiding judge during hearings and sessions, as well as to oppose acts that violate its functional dignity. It adopts a legal-doctrinal and case-based methodology grounded in the examination of an express provision of the Code of the Public Prosecution Service of the Federal District, of the Constitution then in force, of procedural legislation, and of Supreme Federal Court precedent concerning subjective public rights and the procedural standing of non-personified state bodies. It argues that the seating right of members of the Public Prosecution Service derives directly from a specific legal rule and constitutes an institutional prerogative linked to the dignity of the office, which cannot be set aside by a discretionary act of the presiding judge of the Jury Court under the pretext of protocol or deference to invited guests. The article further contends that the Public Prosecution Service has standing to file a writ of mandamus in defense of its institutional prerogatives because it holds procedural personality and exercises a legal power protected by the Constitution, and it also considers irregular the appointment of an ad hoc prosecutor to act in the case in substitution for the institutional leadership. It concludes that the protection of the prerogatives of the Public Prosecution Service is required by the legal order itself and by the harmony among state functions, making the writ of mandamus the proper remedy to restore legality and offended institutional dignity.