A positivação do dever de fundamentação das decisões judiciais
Carregando...
Arquivos
Data
2021-12-03
Autores
Paulino, Gabriel Marcolongo
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
O presente trabalho tem por objetivo verificar se houve avanços no atual ordenamento jurídico brasileiro com a positivação do dever de fundamentação das decisões judiciais pela Constituição Federal de 1988, no art. 93, inc. IX, bem como se a recente promulgação do Código de Processo Civil de 2015 (destaca-se especialmente o art. 11 e os incisos do §1º do art. 489) contribuiu para a melhor motivação das decisões judiciais e a definição de seus limites. Visando a melhor compreensão do trabalho, serão analisadas as considerações da doutrina e da jurisprudência a respeito dos termos “fundamento” e “motivo”, além de explorar seus significados, suas origens e funções que assumem explicita e implicitamente nas decisões judiciais. Será exposto breve relato histórico sobre a forma pela qual a argumentação jurídica das decisões do Poder Judiciário foi tratada pelas legislações, doutrinas e jurisprudências antes e depois do advento do Novo Código de Processo, buscando situar o leitor sobre como se chegou ao entendimento esposado pelos artigos mencionados acima. Para aprofundar o estudo, serão feitas considerações sobre a relação entre o dever de fundamentação e as garantias processuais do Estado Democrático de Direito, trançando ainda um paralelo com a legitimação das decisões e de seu controle através da utilização de súmulas, jurisprudências e precedentes dos tribunais superiores. Debruçando-se ao âmago da fundamentação das decisões judiciais, serão identificados os elementos essenciais para se considerar uma decisão plenamente fundamentada, cenário em que as partes do processo podem entender as razões que levaram à decisão, discordando ou moderando-as, conforme o sistema recursal. Nesse ponto, os incisos do §1º do art. 489 do CPC serão esmiuçados, bem como será visto como a jurisprudência tem tratado o tema. O método que será empregado para a elaboração do trabalho será o dedutivo, conforme a análise das diversas fontes bibliográficas de referência, juntamente com as jurisprudências consolidadas dos tribunais superiores. Após a análise, conclui-se que, apesar de haver disposições expressas acerca de decisões mal fundamentadas, atualmente, ainda há fundamentações que pouco guardam relação com o caso em concreto ou, quando muito, são decisões genéricas, que poderiam ser utilizadas em qualquer outro caso. Tal problemática ainda é mais latente em sede de recurso, vez que os julgadores, provavelmente devido à grande quantidade de processos em tramitação, proferem decisões que não combatem os argumentos dos recursos. Há, desta feita, ainda grande espaço para o debate e a busca por maneiras mais eficientes e melhores de decidir, ante, ressalto novamente, à realidade de um Judiciário cada vez mais atuante e, consequentemente, com processos mais complexos e numerosos.
This paper aims to verify whether there have been advances in the current Brazilian legal system with the positivization of the duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions by the Federal Constitution of 1988, in article 93, item IX, as well as if the recent enactment of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (especially article 11 and the subitems of §1º of article 489) has contributed to the better motivation of judicial decisions and the definition of their limits. For a better understanding of the work, we will analyze the considerations of the doctrine and jurisprudence regarding the terms "fundament" and "motive", besides exploring their meanings, their origins and the functions they assume explicitly and implicitly in judicial decisions. A brief historical report will be presented on how the legal argumentation of the Judiciary's decisions was treated by the legislations, doctrines and case law before and after the advent of the New Procedural Code, seeking to situate the reader on how the understanding espoused by the aforementioned articles was reached. In order to deepen the study, considerations will be made about the relationship between the duty to state reasons and the procedural guarantees of the Democratic State of Law, also drawing a parallel with the legitimization of the decisions and their control through the use of precedents, jurisprudence and precedents of the higher courts. Turning to the core of the reasoning of judicial decisions, the essential elements will be identified in order to consider a decision fully reasoned, a scenario in which the parties to the process can understand the reasons that led to the decision, disagreeing or moderating them, according to the appeal system. At this point, the sections of §1º of article 489 of the CPC will be examined in detail, as well as how the jurisprudence has dealt with the theme. The method used to prepare the paper will be deductive, according to the analysis of the various bibliographical reference sources, together with the consolidated jurisprudence of the superior courts. After the analysis, it can be concluded that, despite the existence of express provisions about ill-founded decisions, currently, there are still foundations that have little to do with the case in question or, at best, are generic decisions that could be used in any other case. This problem is even more latent in appeals, since the judges, probably due to the large number of cases in progress, render decisions that do not combat the arguments of the appeals. There is, therefore, still great room for debate and the search for more efficient and better ways to decide, given, I emphasize again, the reality of an increasingly active Judiciary and, consequently, with more complex and numerous cases.
This paper aims to verify whether there have been advances in the current Brazilian legal system with the positivization of the duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions by the Federal Constitution of 1988, in article 93, item IX, as well as if the recent enactment of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (especially article 11 and the subitems of §1º of article 489) has contributed to the better motivation of judicial decisions and the definition of their limits. For a better understanding of the work, we will analyze the considerations of the doctrine and jurisprudence regarding the terms "fundament" and "motive", besides exploring their meanings, their origins and the functions they assume explicitly and implicitly in judicial decisions. A brief historical report will be presented on how the legal argumentation of the Judiciary's decisions was treated by the legislations, doctrines and case law before and after the advent of the New Procedural Code, seeking to situate the reader on how the understanding espoused by the aforementioned articles was reached. In order to deepen the study, considerations will be made about the relationship between the duty to state reasons and the procedural guarantees of the Democratic State of Law, also drawing a parallel with the legitimization of the decisions and their control through the use of precedents, jurisprudence and precedents of the higher courts. Turning to the core of the reasoning of judicial decisions, the essential elements will be identified in order to consider a decision fully reasoned, a scenario in which the parties to the process can understand the reasons that led to the decision, disagreeing or moderating them, according to the appeal system. At this point, the sections of §1º of article 489 of the CPC will be examined in detail, as well as how the jurisprudence has dealt with the theme. The method used to prepare the paper will be deductive, according to the analysis of the various bibliographical reference sources, together with the consolidated jurisprudence of the superior courts. After the analysis, it can be concluded that, despite the existence of express provisions about ill-founded decisions, currently, there are still foundations that have little to do with the case in question or, at best, are generic decisions that could be used in any other case. This problem is even more latent in appeals, since the judges, probably due to the large number of cases in progress, render decisions that do not combat the arguments of the appeals. There is, therefore, still great room for debate and the search for more efficient and better ways to decide, given, I emphasize again, the reality of an increasingly active Judiciary and, consequently, with more complex and numerous cases.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito Processual Civil, Hermenêutica, Fundamentação, Decisões Judiciais, Art. 93, inc. IX da CF/1988 e Art. 489, §1º do CPC/2015, Civil Procedural Law, Hermeneutics, Justification, Judicial Decisions, Article 93, item IX of CF/1988 and Article 489, §1º of CPC/2015