Parquet (Public Prosecution Service)

1. Definition, Concept, and Legal Nature

The Parquet, or Public Prosecution Service, is defined by Article 127 of the 1988 Federal Constitution as a permanent institution essential to the State's jurisdictional function. Unlike other legal systems, in the Brazilian legal framework, the Public Prosecution Service is not part of any of the Three Branches of Government (Executive, Legislative, or Judiciary), enjoying functional, administrative, and financial autonomy.

The legal nature of the Public Prosecution Service is that of an autonomous state body of constitutional extraction. Contemporary doctrine, led by authors such as Hugo Nigro Mazzilli, maintains that the MP acts as a "fourth power" in a material sense, although formally it is an independent institution. Its primary function is the protection of trans-individual interests (diffuse and collective) and the preservation of the integrity of the legal system.

2. Historical Origin and Evolution in Comparative and National Law

The expression Parquet dates back to 14th-century French Law. The term refers to the "floor" or "hardwood" (parquet) of the courtroom where the King's prosecutors (procureurs du Roi) were situated, distinguishing them from the magistrates, who occupied the siège (raised seat). Historically, members of the MP were seen as agents of the Executive Branch within the Judiciary.

In Brazil, the evolution of the institution is marked by significant legislative milestones:

• Philippine Ordinances: Mention of public prosecutors with oversight functions.
• 1934 Constitution: The first to grant constitutional status to the Public Prosecution Service.
• 1967/69 Constitution: The MP appeared under the chapter of the Judiciary or Executive, depending on the interpretation, but with mitigated autonomy.
• 1988 Constitution: Promoted the "total independence" of the body, removing it from subordination to the Executive and consolidating its profile as a defender of society and fundamental rights.

3. Legal Provisions and Organic Structure

The fundamental normative framework of the Public Prosecution Service is found in the following statutes:

• Federal Constitution (Arts. 127 to 130-A): Establishes the principles, functions, and prohibitions for its members.
• Supplementary Law No. 75/1993: Provides for the organization, powers, and statute of the Public Prosecution Service of the Union (MPU), which encompasses the Federal MP, Labor MP, Military MP, and the MP of the Federal District and Territories.
• Law No. 8.625/1993 (National Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service - LONMP): Sets general rules for the organization of the Public Prosecution Services of the States.
• Code of Civil Procedure (Arts. 176 to 181) and Code of Criminal Procedure (Arts. 257 to 258): Regulate the procedural actions of the body.

4. Practical Application and Consolidated Jurisprudential Understanding

The jurisprudence of the Superior Courts has consolidated the expansive role of the Parquet in the defense of public assets and administrative probity. The following understandings stand out:

4.1. Criminal Investigation Power (STF - RE 593.727)

The Supreme Federal Court, in a general repercussion ruling (Theme 184), established the thesis that the Public Prosecution Service has its own competence to promote, by its own authority and within a reasonable timeframe, criminal investigations, provided that the constitutional rights and guarantees of the investigated parties are respected.

4.2. Legitimacy in Homogeneous Individual Rights

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ), through Precedent (Súmula) 601, consolidated that the Public Prosecution Service has standing to act in the defense of diffuse, collective, and homogeneous individual rights of consumers, including in matters involving bank fees or public services.

4.3. Non-Prosecution Agreement (ANPP)

With the advent of Law 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Package), the Public Prosecution Service assumed a leading role in negotiated criminal justice. The STF and STJ have been ruling (e.g., HC 185.913) on the retroactivity of the ANPP (Art. 28-A of the CPP), reinforcing the regulated discretion of the Parquet in proposing the agreement.

5. Institutional Principles and Doctrinal Divergences

Article 127, §1º of the 1988 Constitution lists the fundamental principles of the Public Prosecution Service:

1. Unity: The Public Prosecution Service is one under the aegis of a single leadership, although divided administratively.
2. Indivisibility: Members may replace one another in proceedings without interruption or nullity, as it is the institution that acts.
3. Functional Independence: A member of the MP is not subject to hierarchical orders regarding the content of their legal manifestations, submitting only to the law and their conscience.

Doctrinal Divergence: There is a debate regarding "unity" in the face of the autonomy of state MPs and the MPU. The majority doctrine understands that unity is internal to each branch, but constitutional interpretation points to a unity of principles and purposes throughout the national territory.

6. Contemporary Relevance and Impacts on the Legal System

In contemporary times, the Parquet transcends the role of criminal accuser. Its relevance is manifested in the oversight of public policies, environmental protection, the defense of minorities, and the guarantee of electoral integrity. The amendment to the Administrative Improbity Law (Law 14.230/2021) reaffirmed the exclusivity of the Public Prosecution Service to file improbity lawsuits, although the STF modulated this issue in the judgment of ADI 7042, admitting the concurrent legitimacy of interested legal entities, highlighting the dialectical tension over the monopoly of collective actions.