The Role of Audit Courts in Reviewing Accounts and Their Effects on Ineligibility as Provided for in Subparagraph 'G' of Article 1 of Supplementary Law 64/90: An Analysis of the Review of the Lists of Ineligible Candidates

Abstract

When addressing the role of the Courts of Auditors, it is crucial to highlight their hybrid nature, which distinguishes them from the Judiciary. This is since, in addition to auditing public accounts, they also have the authority to assess the accounts of administrators, exercising internal control over public management. This combination of responsibilities — auditing and judgment — allows the Courts of Auditors to play a key role in financial administration, complementing the Judiciary's task of verifying the legality and morality of administrative actions. Regarding auditing, the Courts of Auditors are responsible for gathering data, evidence, and documents, always aiming to substantiate their judgment. Among the situations that can lead to the declaration of ineligibility for managers, the case of rejected public accounts due to irreparable irregularities stands out, with these irregularities being characterized as willful acts of administrative misconduct. Ineligibility arises from an unappealable decision of the Court of Auditors, as established by Article 71, II, of the Federal Constitution, which applies to all those responsible for expenses, with no exceptions for those acting in a mandate capacity. Finally, ineligibility remains in effect until suspended or annulled by the Judiciary, ensuring the persistence of the decision until any eventual judicial review.