MONOCRATIC JUDICIAL  DECISION IN NUMBERS: EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE USE OF MONOCRATIC PROVISIONAL MEASURES IN CONCENTRATED JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESSES IN THE BRAZILIAN FEDERAL SUPREME COURT

Abstract

This article presents empirical research on the use of monocratic judicial decisions to grant provisional measures in the concentrated judicial review processes in the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. Adopting the perspective of the deliberative democracy theory, which implies that Constitutional Courts are deliberative institutions whose role is to rule through a deliberative, rational, and verified decision-making process. The hypothesis is that monocratic judicial decisions, representing an exception to this deliberative and collegiate profile, should be an exceptional and provisional technique in the Constitutional Courts’ decision-making process. Thus, this study investigates this hypothesis in the Brazilian Court’s judicial practice by applying an empirical method based on data from the court’s official data platform, “Corte Aberta”. Additionally, the research employs a bibliographic methodology to analyze the empirical data obtained. This article uncovers three main points. First, it analyzes the importance of having a deliberative and collegiate decision-making process in Constitutional Courts through the lens of deliberative democracy theory. Second, it discusses the role and the characteristics of provisional monocratic decisions in concentrated constitutional reviews. Third, it presents the results of the empirical research analyzing how provisional monocratic decisions operate in judicial practice, first, focusing on the frequency with which this technique is used – with the purpose to verify its exceptionality –, then, focusing on how long it remains in effect – to verify its provisionality.