THE “SENTENCING LAW” IN DISPUTE: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS IN THE ADIs CONCERNING LAW No. 15,402/2026

Abstract

This article analyzes the so-called “Sentencing Law” (Law No. 15,402/2026) based on the constitutional controversy brought before the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. The objective is to identify and analyze the constitutional arguments advanced in the initial petitions of the Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality challenging the law, particularly those concerning the legislative process, individualization of punishment, equality, proportionality, and the protection of the Democratic Rule of Law. The study adopts a qualitative, documentary, and empirical approach, based on content analysis of the initial petitions in ADIs No. 7,966, 7,967, 7,968, and 7,969, combined with legislative and bibliographic research. The theoretical framework draws on contributions from penal guarantism, critical criminology, and the literature on legislative rationality and constitutional review of criminal legislation. The results reveal strong convergence among the actions at the formal level, particularly regarding the alleged violation of bicameralism, and relative diversification at the substantive level, with different articulations involving individualization of punishment, equality, proportionality, separation of powers, protection of democratic institutions, and the prohibition of insufficient protection. The study concludes that the controversy goes beyond sentencing in the technical sense and involves broader disputes concerning criminal policy choices and the constitutional limits of legislative action in criminal matters.