DOES ANYTHING GO IN CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION? SUPERINTERPRETER, SHOW YOUR FACE: an analysis of the (coup-oriented) superinterpretation of Article 142 of the Constitution through the works of Umberto Eco and Genaro Carrió.

Abstract

This article examines the phenomenon of “superinterpretation” of Article 142 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, focusing on the internal limits of normative language and the hermeneutic parameters of contemporary constitutionalism. It critically analyzes the misuse of Article 142 as an alleged legal foundation for coup-related discourses and practices—particularly since 2013, when public demonstrations began invoking military intervention based on a distorted reading of the constitutional text. The central objective is to demonstrate the incompatibility of such interpretations with the 1988 constitutional framework, showing that Article 142 does not authorize institutional rupture. Methodologically, the study draws on linguistic theory (Saussure, Eco), constitutional hermeneutics (Grimm, Streck), and political theory (Arendt), while also examining historical documents such as Institutional Act No. 1 to understand how authoritarian narratives mobilize ostensibly legal arguments to legitimize states of exception. The theoretical foundations indicate that the intent of the 1988 Constitution explicitly prohibits any reading that transforms the Armed Forces into a moderating power capable of authorizing intervention. These interpretations are classified as “superinterpretation” in the sense proposed by Umberto Eco, and the article argues that coup-oriented discourses are illegitimate, relying on discursive manipulation. The conclusion asserts that the coup narrative surrounding Article 142 constitutes an extrapolation devoid of systematic grounding, aimed at justifying the breakdown of democratic order—directly contradicting the constitutional project of 1988.