THE VAQUEJADA CASE AND THE BACKLASH EFFECT: AN ANALYSIS OF THE STF POSITION AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT No. 96/2017

Abstract

This essay approaches the unconstitutionality of the vaquejada practice, without, however, underestimating the historical roots and cultural relevance of this northeastern expression. Thus, after briefly outlining a historical perspective and considerations on the recognition of this practice as a cultural manifestation, the opinion of the justices in the judgment of the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (DAU) No. 4.983 is analyzed, which had as its object Law No. 15.299 of the state of Ceará, which regulated the activity of vaquejada. In this context, it can be seen that the differences between the votes of the justices boiled down to a clash involving issues of environmental law and the exercise of cultural rights, and after deliberation, in a tight decision, the result was upheld for the unconstitutionality of the Ceará rule, which provoked an exasperated reaction from the Legislative Power. In this context, finally, we see the so-called backlash effect, with the approval of Constitutional Amendment 96/2017, which legitimized the vaquejada practice as a non-cruel cultural manifestation, in contradiction to the STF's understanding, which in turn generated new questions that culminated in the filing of DAUs 5.728 and 5.772 with the purpose of achieving recognition of the unconstitutionality of the legislative act, and therefore of the vaquejada itself.