Abstract
This article seeks to answer whether a collaboration agreement signed by the police authority after a contrary statement by the Prosecution could be judicially approved. The research was carried out using the deductive method, through a bibliographical review and jurisprudential analysis. The importance of the subject is justified by the expansion of the understanding of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. In 2018, in ADI 5.508, the Court recognized the constitutionality of Law n. 12.850/2013 providing that the police chief would be one of those legitimated to sign the agreement, having been debated and decided, by a majority among the ministers that despite the legal requirement of manifestation by the Prosecution, this manifestation would not be binding. In 2021, however, in the judgment of AgRg in Pet 8.482, the STF nullified a collaboration agreement signed by the Federal Police, without the consent of the Federal Prosecution’s Office, establishing the need for agreement by the Prosecution for the deal to take effect. To approach the theme, it started with identifying the legal and doctrinal scenario on the thematic focus, then proceeded with a comparative study of the grounds that led the STF to issue both decisions. Afterward, in view of the established theoretical and practical premises, it was considered not possible for the police authority to sign a collaboration agreement with the Prosecution’s disagreement, under penalty of emptying the institute, generating legal uncertainty, both for the collaborators and third parties accused.
Keywords
Collaboration agreement; Entitled parts; Police authority; Prosecution; Motivated refusal