SUPREMO CONCILIADOR?

ANÁLISE DOS CASOS ENCAMINHADOS À CONCILIAÇÃO NO ÂMBITO DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL

Abstract

The article aims to analyze the reasons that influence the referral of cases for conciliation (and mediation) by the Supreme Federal Court and the role that consensual methods have played within the court. To this end, an empirical analysis of the data made available in the "Panel of Civil Agreements" of the Consensual Conflict Resolution Center of the Supreme Federal Court was conducted, through a qualitative analysis of the procedural documents of each case. Initially, there was a predominance of constitutional actions involving topics related to federative conflicts, public policies, and other issues with significant socio-political repercussions. Among the functions attributed to conciliation and mediation mechanisms, their use was observed in attempting to address conflicts in which an adjudicated solution would imply significant interference by the Judiciary in the Executive branch in budgetary and political terms. In complex and structural conflicts, negotiation emerges as a strategy for opening dialogue with technical bodies and political sectors, albeit with limitations regarding social participation. In cases of constitutional review, it is noted that the Court subjects not the assessment of constitutionality itself to negotiation, but rather tangential issues and the conjunctural circumstances that led to the questioning brought through the constitutional process.