“IN THE TERMS OF THE RAPPORTEUR'S OPINION”: CONSIDERATIONS ON THE COLLECTIVE REASONS OF THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS

Abstract

In this article we examine the rapporteur’s role in the emergence of collective judgments in the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). Our point of departure is a series of interviews Virgílio Afonso da Silva conducted with Justices and former Justices of the STF, regarding the rapporteur’s role in the process of formulating the court’s decisions. After introducing the interviews, we propose a number of conceptual premises regarding the nature of group judgments. We then consider a particular aspect of the STF’s decision-making process: the regular use, in the syllabi, of the expression “in the terms of the rapporteur’s opinion”. We argue that the most compelling interpretation of this expression is that the court’s decision attributes the collective reasons for deciding to the rapporteur’s opinion. Finally, we identify three possible alternatives to the interpretation of the collective component of the STF decisions. We conclude there is sound evidence for assuming that the court’s understanding of itself, as expressed in its decisions, confirms the hypothesis that the court attributes its own reasons for making the decision to the rapporteur’s opinion.