Promotor de Justiça MPDFT common mistakes
Promotor de Justiça MPDFT · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
On constitutional-control questions, the candidate treats a norm as unconstitutional and stops there, without choosing between diffuse and concentrated review, without addressing the cláusula de reserva de plenário (art. 97 CF), and without stating the effects of the decision in time and space.
Exam prep tends to drill 'is this norm constitutional?' as a yes/no flashcard, so candidates never rehearse the procedural chain that a Promotor must articulate; under time pressure they write the conclusion and skip the reasoning the grader is actually scoring.
What to do instead
Build a fixed four-step template for every control question: (1) parameter and competence; (2) via (difuso with full court or Turma under art. 97, or concentrado with legitimation and object); (3) technique of decision (interpretação conforme, nulidade parcial sem redução de texto, modulação under art. 27 Lei 9.868); (4) effects (erga omnes, vinculante, ex tunc or ex nunc). Write the template out from memory weekly until it is automatic.
The candidate answers administrative improbidade or licitação questions by reciting article numbers and caput text but never applies the subjective element, the dolo específico requirement after the 2021 reform of Lei 8.429/92, or the distinction between nullity and mere irregularity in Lei 14.133/21.
Improbidade and licitação are statute-heavy, so candidates memorize structure and headlines; the newer statutes changed mental-element and sanction rules, and outdated study material leaves them applying repealed logic with confidence.
What to do instead
For each of Lei 8.429/92 and Lei 14.133/21, keep a one-page 'what changed and what it means' sheet: mental element per type, sanction ranges, prescrição, and the irregularity/nullity line. Practice by drafting a short parecer on a hypothetical conduta, forcing yourself to name the type, prove the element, and justify the sanction.
In civil and business law questions the candidate identifies the correct institute (e.g., desconsideração da personalidade jurídica, vício redibitório, responsabilidade do sócio) but fails to state the legal basis, the presuppositions, and the procedural route, or confuses the Civil Code regime with the CDC or the Falências regime.
Civil law is taught as a system of concepts, and candidates trust that naming the concept earns the mark; exams for the Ministério Público reward the norm, the presupposition, and the consequence, and the regimes genuinely diverge in ways candidates blur.
What to do instead
For the twenty most tested institutes, write a card with four fields: base legal, pressupostos, efeitos, and regime especial (CDC, Lei 11.101/05, Lei 13.874/19). Then answer past-style questions in full sentences naming the article, so the habit of citing survives time pressure.
The candidate writes a processual civil answer that reaches the correct outcome but ignores competence, prazos, recorribilidade, and the effects of the decision, and mixes the CPC with the Juizado Especial or Fazenda Pública regimes.
Processual civil is learned as a sequence of acts, so candidates narrate the story of the process instead of analyzing the norms that govern each act; the special regimes are studied separately and never contrasted.
What to do instead
Answer every processual question through a checklist: ato, prazo, competência, forma, preclusão, recurso cabível, efeito. For the special regimes, make a comparison table (CPC vs. Lei 9.099/95 vs. Lei 12.153/09) covering prazos, recursos, provas, and Fazenda Pública. Rehearse by labeling each step of a hypothetical with the governing norm.
In criminal law the candidate labels the crime by its popular name and stops, without delimiting the type, the element, the iter criminis, the concurso de pessoas, and the concurso de crimes, and applies the wrong theory of imputation (e.g., confuses dolo eventual with culpa consciente).
Criminal law is memorized as a catalogue of names and penalties; the exam, especially for a Promotor, tests the boundary cases where the type is contested, and candidates have rehearsed the easy center of each type but not its edges.
What to do instead
For the highest-yield types, write a boundary sheet: element, distinguishing fact, and a one-line contrast with the nearest type (furto vs. roubo vs. apropriação indébita; estelionato vs. furto mediante fraude; homicídio doloso vs. lesão seguida de morte). Practice classifying short fact patterns and justify the choice by element, not by name.
In processual penal the candidate confuses the roles and limits of the inquérito, the ação penal (pública incondicionada, condicionada, privada), the medidas cautelares, and the prazos, and proposes a denúncia without checking justa causa, materialidade, and autoria.
The discipline is studied as a procedural chronology, so candidates learn the sequence of acts but not the conditions of each; the Promotor's core task, evaluating whether to denounce, arquivar, or request diligências, is precisely the part least rehearsed.
What to do instead
Write a decision tree for the end of the inquérito: materialidade, indícios de autoria, justa causa, tipicidade, and the resulting choice (denúncia, arquivamento, diligências, desvio). For each cautelar, record base legal, pressupostos, prazo, and revisão. Then simulate three fact patterns and produce a short denúncia or promoção de arquivamento.
On labor and processual labor questions the candidate applies CLT rules without checking the constitutional and Súmula layer (e.g., terceirização, responsabilidade subsidiária da Administração, prescrição, competência da Justiça do Trabalho), and mixes the CLT regime with the Lei 8.112/90 regime when the employer is the public administration.
Labor law is dense with reform-era changes and Súmulas, and candidates study the CLT text while skipping the binding jurisprudence that actually decides the case; the public-administration overlap is rarely drilled.
What to do instead
Maintain a table of the twenty most tested labor Súmulas and OJs with their holding and a one-line fact trigger. Build a separate sheet for the Administration as employer: regime, competência, responsabilidade subsidiária, and prescrição. Practice by taking a news-style fact pattern and writing which norm and which Súmula decide it.
On criança e adolescente questions the candidate answers from general intuition about what is 'best for the child' instead of applying the ECA's specific regimes: medida de proteção vs. medida socioeducativa, conselho tutelar vs. Ministério Público, and the constitutional priority rules.
The subject feels morally obvious, so candidates trust common sense and skip the statute; the ECA's architecture (proteção integral, prioridade absoluta, and the division of institutional roles) is exactly what the exam tests, and intuition gets the roles wrong.
What to do instead
Draw the institutional map: who does what among Conselho Tutelar, Ministério Público, Juiz, and Conselho de Direitos, with the legal basis for each. Then make a two-column table separating medidas de proteção (art. 101) from medidas socioeducativas (art. 112), with pressupostos and competência. Answer every question by locating the actor on the map first.
On environmental law the candidate treats the subject as a list of crimes and fines and fails to connect the constitutional duty (art. 225), the licensing regimes (Lei 6.938/81 and complementary norms), the civil liability for dano ambiental (strict, propter rem, imprescritível), and the administrative, civil, and criminal spheres as independent.
Environmental law is studied in fragments across three disciplines, so candidates never assemble the triple-responsibility picture; the exam tests precisely the interaction and the autonomy of the spheres.
What to do instead
Build a three-column matrix for the same fact pattern: administrative, civil, and criminal, with base legal, pressuposto, sanção, and prescrição for each. Add a licensing flow (EIA/RIMA, licença prévia, instalação, operação) with the competent entity. Practice by taking one fact pattern and writing all three analyses side by side.
On eleitoral and tributário questions the candidate answers from general principles and skips the specific statutory mechanics: for eleitoral, prazos, inelegibilidades, and the abuso de poder regimes; for tributário, the lançamento, the crédito tributário, and the constitutional limits on competence.
Both disciplines are low-frequency in daily study, so candidates rely on broad principles and hope; the exams test concrete prazos, hipóteses, and the repartição de competências, where principle alone cannot produce the answer.
What to do instead
For eleitoral, make a calendar of prazos and a table of inelegibilidades (LC 64/90) with the triggering fact and the term. For tributário, make a competence map (art. 145-162 CF) and a lançamento/crédito flow with suspensão, extinção, and exclusão. Review both weekly in short spaced sessions rather than in one block.
On institutional questions the candidate describes the Ministério Público in generic terms ('defensor da sociedade') and fails to name the constitutional articles, the principle of unidade/indivisibilidade/independência funcional, the instrumentos (inquérito civil, ação civil pública, TAC), and the limits of the Promotor's autonomy and accountability.
Candidates prepare institutional content last and treat it as easy prose; the exam for a Promotor weighs it heavily and expects article-level precision on the very institution the candidate seeks to join.
What to do instead
Write a one-page institutional sheet: arts. 127-130 CF, the principles with a definition each, the instrumentos with base legal and pressupostos, and the limits (corregedoria, CNMP, controle externo). Rehearse a two-minute oral answer to 'what is the Ministério Público and what are its limits' until the articles come without hesitation.