A ampla defesa e o contraditório são garantidos no processo administrativo, conforme disposição constitucional (art. 5º, LV). A Súmula n° 343 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça surgiu de forma a pacificar o entendimento quanto à necessidade da presença de advogado em todas as fases do processo administrativo disciplinar, sob o fundamento de que sua ausência acarretaria o cerceamento de defesa e, dessa forma, nulidade processual. Contudo, pouco tempo depois, foi editada a súmula vinculante nº 5 do Supremo Tribunal Federal, dispensando a obrigatoriedade de defesa técnica por advogado no processo administrativo disciplinar. Devido a ambas as súmulas possuírem entendimentos contrários, acabaram por gerar discussões maiores entre os operadores do Direito, o que se tornou objeto de estudo deste trabalho, que apresentará conclusões dos autores quanto a problemática enfrentada
The legal defense and adversarial proceeding are granted in administrative procedure,
according to Brazilian Constitution (article 5th, LV). The binding precedent n° 343 from Brazilian Supreme
Court of Justice, was raised to pacify the understanding about the need of a layer in each stage of
Administrative Procedure, founded in the idea that his absence would generate the denial of the right to be
heard, and, on this way, procedural nullity. However, few times later, the Binding Abridgment n° 5, was
edited by Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, refusing the obligation of layer technical defense in disciplinary
administrative procedure. Due to both - binding precedent and biding abridgment – having opposite
understandings, it were originated major debates between law professionals, and that became the subject of
this very study, which will present possible conclusions about these questions.
