Constitutional Evidence

Abstract

This article aims to show how knowledge about facts is decisive in the judicial review. In order to do this, it uses the category of legislative facts as a more forward looking approach when compared to the traditional doctrine on evidence which privileges the areas of civil and common law by focusing on what happened in the past. It also works with the judicial review’s premise that there must be a correspondence between the facts underlying the constitutional norm, the statutes and the precedents—derivative norms. There are two consequences to this: the proof of the facts serves as a justification for the restriction of freedom and as a limit to the legislator’s will. Thus, it can be concluded that the standards of proof in constitutional law can guarantee legitimacy on judicial review.