The handling of public affairs requires respect for all administration at all levels of the Federation. Civil servants generally do not have the freedom that the principle of legality has conferred on individuals, and their conduct is not only based on the law, but also respects the various principles governing administrative activity. In the Federal Constitution, there is a well-known article “The manifestation of free thought is anonymity”. The sentence means that freedom of expression is guaranteed, but that the anonymity of the author is prohibited, i.e. he must be identified. Custom can therefore be used by law enforcement authorities as a tool for understanding and interpreting legal texts. In so doing, the judge would not violate the principle of legal coercion, since customary law would serve only to interpret criminal law, without creating criminal offences or penalties. Mr. Assis Toledo goes even further by indoctrinating: it is therefore undeniable the relevance of legal customs for the specialist in criminal law, who should not predispose them on the grounds that the principle of legality prevents the consideration of any aspect of customary law in the application of the penal norm; On the contrary, it is an effective tool for a fair way for legal interpreters.

These principles are implicitly condensed in art. 5, XXXIX, CRFB mentioned above, but it is necessary to understand the content of each of them separately in order to formulate a clear concept of legality. Sealed can also be used with the closed sense, in relation to something that is sealed. It can also mean that it is covered with a wall or siding. Aníbal Bruno ensures that the principle of legality fulfils various guarantee functions, including that “[…] There is no crime or punishment without prior law, and then the principle of retroactivity is opposed to the offending penal norm and provides the necessary precision and certainty to the law. [6] In other words, the principle of legality can be said to be a genuine constitutional guarantee. By this principle, we try to protect the individual from the capacity to act committed by the state and even from the capacity to act committed by others. Thus, individuals have ample freedom to do what they want, as long as it is not an act, behaviour or activity prohibited by law. This principle, traditionally expressed in the nullum crimes nulla poena sine lege and generally enshrined in the introductory provisions of the modern penal code, has its roots in the Magna Carta of England (1215) and the Petitions of Rights of the United States, but was precisely formulated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution: “No one may be punished except by virtue of a law established, promulgated and applied by law before the crime” (art. 8). [4] It is precisely in this case that the executive deals with issues of criminal law, typification and punishment of conduct by interim measure, failing which it would fall within the jurisdiction of the legislature and violate the principle of separation of powers.

With the promulgation of Constitutional Amendment No. 32, this discussion ended in its art since the Federal Constitution of 1988. 62, § 1, point I, paragraph b”[9], thus concealed the fact that interim measures are limited by criminal law. Therefore, the principle of legal reserve must always be understood as a consequence of the principle of legality. Whenever the Federal Constitution stipulates that the “law” governs a particular matter, the principle of legal constraint is configured, with the legislature being responsible for promulgating appropriate measures to regulate matters reserved to it. Before examining this other consequence of the principle of legal constraint, it becomes necessary to define the concept of analogy and then to distinguish between analogy in malam départ and analogy in bonam depart. The Zafaronni doctrine that “… As a necessary consequence of the principle of legality, so-called ex post facto laws will be abolished”[7], which confirms what has been said about this principle, whose content lies precisely in its function of guaranteeing citizens` freedoms vis-à-vis state power. As regards the principle of legal constraint, we only conclude that the reservation of rights remains a form of control, or even of division of legislative powers.