Strategic behavior of the Brazilian Supreme Court on issues of government concern
judicial activism or prudence?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.9732/2021.v123.734Keywords:
Brazilian Supreme Court. Strategic behavior. Human rights. Political conflicts. Judicial activism.Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have been conducted worldwide on judicial behavior models and the performance of Constitutional Courts in matters of interest to the government, especially in the arbitration of political conflicts and in the implementation of fundamental rights, but in Brazil, comparatively, there is a lack of a critical-reflexive, theoretical and empirical investigation on the effective performance of the STF in matters of interest to the government, which considers the models of judicial behavior, comparative analysis with other justice systems and empirical research on the subject.
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to investigate the effective role of the STF on issues of interest to the government in the period from 1985 (which marks the redemocratization) until 2018 (year of the last presidential election), especially in the implementation of fundamental rights and in the arbitration of political conflicts, considering the models of judicial behavior, comparative analyses with other justice systems and empirical research on the subject.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To achieve its aims, the research is developed from a critical-methodological line and with qualitative research, supported by political theories and comparative analysis, beyond purely normative issues, seeking to analyze the problems mainly from the political-institutional and behavioral point of view, considering the pattern of action of the Brazilian Constitutional Court.
RESULTS: The research found that the Brazilian Constitutional Court usually acts with prudence, that is, it is very cautious when it comes to issues of governmental interest.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the Court has a shy performance in the protection of fundamental rights, at least in quantitative terms, even when compared to other Latin American countries. In the arbitration of political conflicts, the STF usually decides by allocating power to the stronger body or entity, unless such a measure is manifestly unconstitutional.
References
ASHENFELTER, Orley; EISENBERG, Theodore; SCHWAB, Stewart J. Politics and the Judiciary: The Influence of Judicial Background on Case Outcomes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, v. 24, p. 257-281, jun. 1995.
BENVINDO, Juliano Zaiden. A “última palavra”, o poder e a história: O Supremo Tribunal Federal e o discurso de supremacia no constitucionalismo brasileiro. Revista de Informação Legislativa, Brasília, v. 51, n. 201, jan.-mar. 2014.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ação de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n.º 54. Relator: Ministro Marco Aurélio. Tribunal Pleno. Julgado em 12/04/2012. DJE nº 77, 20/04/2012.
______. ______. Ação de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n.º 132. Relator: Ministro Ayres Britto. Tribunal Pleno. Julgado em 05/05/2011. DJe-198, 14-10-2011.
______. ______. Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade n.º 4277. Relator: Ministro Ayres Britto. Tribunal Pleno. Julgado em 05/05/2011. DJe-198, 14-10-2011.
______. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Apelação Cível n.º 598362655, Oitava Câmara Cível, Relator Desembargador José Ataídes Siqueira Trindade, julgado em 01/03/2000.
______. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Apelação Crime n.º 70005037072, Terceira Câmara Criminal, Relator Desembargador José Antônio Hirt Preiss, julgado em 12/09/2002.
BRINKS, Daniel M. “Faithful Servants of the Regime”: The Brazilian Constitutional Court’s Role under the 1988 Constitution. In: HELMKE, Gretchen; RÍOS-FIGUEROA, Julio (Org.). Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 128-153.
FONTANA, David. Docket Control and the Success of Constitutional Courts. In: GINSBURG, Tom; DIXON, Rosalind (eds.). Comparative Constitutional Law. Northampton, MA: Elgar Publishing, 2011. p. 624-641.
HELMKE, Gretchen. Public Support and Judicial Crises in Latin America. Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 13, n. 2, p. 397-411, 2010.
______; RÍOS-FIGUEROA, Julio. Introduction. In: HELMKE, Gretchen; RÍOS-FIGUEROA (Org.). Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 1-26.
______; STATON, Jeffrey K. The Puzzling Judicial Politics of Latin America: A Theory of Litigation, Judicial Decisions, and Interbranch Conflict. In: HELMKE, Gretchen; RÍOS-FIGUEROA, Julio (Org.). Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 306-331.
KAPISZEWSKI, Diana. Power Broker, Policy Maker, or Rights Protector? The Brazilian Supremo Tribunal Federal in Transition. In: HELMKE, Gretchen; RÍOS-FIGUEROA (Org.). Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 154-186.
______. Tactical Balancing: High Court Decision Making on Politically Crucial Cases. Law & Society Review, New York, v. 45, n. 2, p. 471-506, 2011
MELLO, Patrícia Perrone Campos. Comportamento ideológico e estratégico no Supremo Tribunal Federal. In: SARMENTO, Daniel (Coord.). Jurisdição constitucional e política. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2015. p. 273-310.
______. Quando julgar se torna um espetáculo: a interação entre o Supremo Tribunal Federal e a opinião pública, a partir de reflexões da literatura estrangeira. Revista de Direito Internacional, Brasília, v. 14, n. 1, p. 402-423, 2017.
SEGAL, Jeffrey A.; SPAETH, Harold J. The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
TAYLOR, Matthew M. Judging Policy: Courts and Policy Reform in Democratic Brazil. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, 2014.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:
Os autores mantêm os direitos autorais e concedem à Revista Brasileira de Estudos Políticos o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution. Essa licença permite o compartilhamento do trabalho com reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista, desde que sem fins comerciais.
É permitido ainda que outros distribuam, adaptem e criem a partir do seu trabalho, sem fins comerciais, desde que lhe atribuam o devido crédito pela criação original.
Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online após o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
The authors maintain the copyright and grant the Brazilian Journal of Political Studies the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License. This license allows the sharing of the work with authorship recognition and initial publication in this journal, as long as it is not for commercial purposes.
It is also allowed that others distribute, adapt and create from their work, without commercial purposes, as long as they attribute due credit for the original creation.
Authors are allowed to enter into additional contracts separately for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with authorship recognition and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online after the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of the published work.
