| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.76 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Trata o presente trabalho de um estudo relativo à sobrecarga processual do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ao longo de sua história, desde quando o controle de constitucionalidade foi instituído no Brasil, com a Constituição de 1891, o STF veio acumulando competências originárias e recursais, competências que se traduziam em um volume cada vez maior de processos. Após a Constituição de 1988, atingiu-se o ápice desse movimento, uma vez que, de acordo com o texto constitucional, o Tribunal funciona tanto como Suprema Corte quanto como Corte Constitucional. Com o Supremo recebendo anualmente mais de uma centena de milhar de casos, passou-se a discutir alternativas para mitigar o atravancamento processual do STF. De início, maximizou-se os instrumentos de controle abstrato de normas, regulamentando-se a Adin e a ADPF e criando-se a ADC. Mesmo essa providência, contudo, não foi suficiente, pois os recursos extraordinários, os habeas corpus e as reclamações constitucionais continuavam a chegar aos milhares à Corte. Foi quando se concebeu a idéia de abstratizar-se os efeitos do controle concreto de constitucionalidade, especialmente através de dois instrumentos: a súmula vinculante e a repercussão geral em recurso extraordinário. Para além destes, o Supremo passou a conferir eficácia erga omnes às decisões proferidas em mandado de injunção e a transformar o habeas corpus em modalidade anômala de controle de constitucionalidade. Apesar de experimentar algum sucesso inicialmente, nenhuma dessas iniciativas conseguiu resolver o problema que se propunham a resolver: a sobrecarga processual do Supremo Tribunal Federal. Se entre 2006 e 2010 o volume de processos efetivamente veio a se reduzir, a partir de 2011 o número voltou a subir, alcançando em 2017 novamente o patamar de 100 mil processos anuais. Pretende-se, portanto, abordar tanto esses novos mecanismos como a prática jurisprudencial do STF, a fim de saber se ambos estão de acordo com o texto constitucional e, caso contrário, propor alternativas para a resolução do problema.
This work deals with a study on the procedural overload of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. Throughout its history, since the constitutional judicial review was instituted in Brazil, within the Constitution of 1891, the STF accumulated original and appeal competencies, which were translated into an increasing volume of cases. After the 1988 Constitution, the apex of this movement was reached, since, according to the constitutional text, the Court functions as both Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. With the Supreme receiving annually more than a hundred thousand cases, we began to discuss alternatives to mitigate the procedural obstruction of the STF. Initially, the instruments of abstract judicial review were maximized, regulating the Adin and the ADPF and creating the ADC. Even this provision, however, was not enough, as extraordinary appeals, habeas corpus and constitutional complaints continued to reach the Court by thousands. It was when the idea of abstracting the effects of concrete judicial review was conceived, especially through two instruments: the “súmula vinculante” and the “repercussão geral” in extraordinary appeal. In addition to these, the Supreme came to confer erga omnes efficacy on decisions issued in the writ of injunction and to transform habeas corpus into an anomalous modality of judicial review. Despite experiencing some initial success, none of these initiatives solved the problem they were proposing to solve: the procedural overburden of the Federal Supreme Court. If, between 2006 and 2010, the volume of processes effectively decreased, in 2011 the number started once more to increase, reaching in 2017 again the level of one hundred thousand annual cases. It is therefore intended to address both these new mechanisms and the jurisprudential practice of the STF in order to know whether both are in accordance with the constitutional text and, if not, to propose alternatives for solving the problem.
This work deals with a study on the procedural overload of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. Throughout its history, since the constitutional judicial review was instituted in Brazil, within the Constitution of 1891, the STF accumulated original and appeal competencies, which were translated into an increasing volume of cases. After the 1988 Constitution, the apex of this movement was reached, since, according to the constitutional text, the Court functions as both Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. With the Supreme receiving annually more than a hundred thousand cases, we began to discuss alternatives to mitigate the procedural obstruction of the STF. Initially, the instruments of abstract judicial review were maximized, regulating the Adin and the ADPF and creating the ADC. Even this provision, however, was not enough, as extraordinary appeals, habeas corpus and constitutional complaints continued to reach the Court by thousands. It was when the idea of abstracting the effects of concrete judicial review was conceived, especially through two instruments: the “súmula vinculante” and the “repercussão geral” in extraordinary appeal. In addition to these, the Supreme came to confer erga omnes efficacy on decisions issued in the writ of injunction and to transform habeas corpus into an anomalous modality of judicial review. Despite experiencing some initial success, none of these initiatives solved the problem they were proposing to solve: the procedural overburden of the Federal Supreme Court. If, between 2006 and 2010, the volume of processes effectively decreased, in 2011 the number started once more to increase, reaching in 2017 again the level of one hundred thousand annual cases. It is therefore intended to address both these new mechanisms and the jurisprudential practice of the STF in order to know whether both are in accordance with the constitutional text and, if not, to propose alternatives for solving the problem.
Description
Keywords
Controle de Constitucionalidade Supremo Tribunal Federal Controle Concreto Abstratização Efeitos