The investigation undertaken here proposes to examine the arguments used by the theory of law and the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court to describe the legal nature of the regimental norms. This is an exploratory bibliographic and documentary research. It was possible to describe three distinct currents of positioning to then debate the scientifically fallible points diagnosed, in order to arrive at an argumentative logic of better acceptance. A series of STF decisions on the control of the legislative process were explored, covering judicial manifestations dating from the 1980s, until reaching the jurisprudential novelty of the judgment on the merits of Theme 1,120 of General Repercussion, in June 2021. It is concluded that The theory of law needs to rethink the understanding of the nature of the regulations of the legislative houses, and that the indiscriminate use of the argument of the indiscriminateness of interna corporis acts, without presenting minimum parameters for the possibility of effective judicial control is incompatible with the constitutional principle of inexorability of jurisdiction.
