This paper examines the judicial reform process in Brazil through the lens of global legal reform strategies. It explores key constitutional amendments — including the introduction of binding precedent (súmula vinculante) and proposals for a writ of certiorari — and evaluates their effects on judicial independence, court efficiency, and access to justice. Drawing on comparative experiences from Latin America, the paper outlines four principal reform objectives and contrasts incremental versus radical reform approaches. It argues that effective judicial change cannot be separated from the broader political and economic context of the country, and that balancing judicial credibility with impartiality remains a long-term challenge for Brazil.
Brazil has emerged as a prominent country on the world stage and is among the first nations to stimulate global economic growth and foreign investment. Earlier this year, the government of Brazil introduced new restrictions aimed at preserving long-term foreign direct investment. The politics of Brazil have played a key role in shaping the judiciary. This was recently demonstrated by the current president, who dismissed various judiciary officials on allegations of irregularities and corruption. While these firm political decisions angered many, they also gained support within the judicial community (Nunes, 2010). Against this political backdrop, the following sections describe the judicial reform process in Brazil, following a standard approach to judicial and legal reform.
Beyond obscure debates about the contributions of the rule of law to economic development, many reformers have adopted diverse global strategies seeking to redesign judicial frameworks in Brazil. Issues related to the evaluation of legal change are further complicated by the absence of operational and consensual definitions of key concepts such as accountability, judicial independence, and the rule of law (Fabri & Contini, 2009). The democratic and judicial decay in Brazil has created a deficiency in the developing literature on the comparative study of judicial reform politics. This body of work offers a platform for assessing techniques of legal change while proposing key indicators of reform performance.
Just recently, Congress implemented a constitutional amendment aimed at producing changes within the judicial system. Almost all sections of the Brazilian constitution have been reformed. Most of these reforms were enacted through a constitutional amendment known as Reforma do Judiciário — that is, the Judiciary Reform (Ryan, 2012).
An improved framework of binding precedent was introduced to help harmonize judicial decisions on issues of constitutionality and law. However, surveys of Brazilian judges found that roughly half of them opposed binding precedent. They argued that it petrifies the legal order, hindering lower courts from fulfilling the dynamic basic needs of society (Brinks, 2009). A constitutional amendment proposal by the executive to create a binding precedent prompted judges to denounce the effort. They considered it an arbitrary attempt to curtail the liberty of each judge to remain independent from hierarchical restrictions. In response to these heightened protests, the government endorsed a new amendment that provided an improved framework for binding precedent.
Each súmula vinculante had to address the efficacy, interpretation, and validity of laws that provoked the proliferation of lawsuits and legal uncertainty. Any judicial ruling or administrative act contradicting a súmula vinculante was to be nullified. Similarly, any judge of the lower court who declined to comply with this provision was subject to administrative punishment (Ryan, 1998). Before this amendment, only the Supreme Federal Tribunal (STF) had authority over direct actions relating to declarations of unconstitutionality and constitutional binding precedent actions.
Contrary to judges in the American Supreme Court, STF judges lack a writ of certiorari that would permit them to select the cases they consider worth their time. This absence of certiorari obliges judges in Brazil to decide a caseload of frivolous cases every month. As a result, judges within Brazil's judiciary have expressed concern that the nation's highest court has been reduced to functioning as a small claims court. Brazil's constitution is a convoluted and lengthy document, and for this reason the Brazilian judiciary should establish a writ of certiorari. This would provide judges with the authority to prioritize the most relevant cases — those considered worth the effort and time of Brazil's highest court (Ryan, 2012). Given the broad nature of the judiciary, the writ of certiorari represents a sensible and natural solution to this challenge. Such a reform would likely help reduce the perception among Brazilians that, to be impartial, every case must be decided at the highest level of the judiciary.
By comparing the experiences of El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, scholars have surveyed the objectives and methods of judicial reform along two primary axes of inquiry: one addressing the goals of judicial change, and the other evaluating the global strategy employed. This comparative framework outlines the contributions of institutional design and constitutional engineering to either strengthening or weakening the rule of law (Gargarella, 2013). The four principal objectives of judicial reform are:
(i) improving the impartiality and independence of the judiciary; (ii) enhancing the effectiveness of the courts; (iii) expediting access to justice; and (iv) reinforcing judicial accountability.
The two primary reform trajectories are the incremental and successive methodology and the radical and concurrent approach. Prillaman argues that all dimensions of legal reform are oriented toward strengthening institutional capacities, but they may produce unintended negative interactions — and while "there may be no acceptable maps for success, there are numerous paths to failure." A strategy of simultaneous reform on all fronts, such as that embraced by Chilean reformers, is generally more effective at eliminating undesirable outcomes than the alternative approach of staggered gradualism (Barrington, 2012). Without a general theory of legal change, reformers have tended to rely on a technocratic methodology, often mechanically transplanting the legal frameworks of more advanced nations. They have typically monitored a narrow range of variables while attempting to consolidate individual developments before proceeding to the next in a sequential and orderly manner — a unilinear style in which each desired change is assumed to lead naturally to the next.
Implicit in the standard methodology is the assumption that the judiciary itself should lead the reform process. A notable feature of the Brazilian situation is the degree to which the judicial hierarchy has been the most consistent opponent of reform. This technocratic approach has clearly demonstrated its limits. The process of isolating a single dimension of legal reform and improving it independently of other structural deficiencies is ultimately misleading — one positive restructuring does not necessarily accelerate another (Pozas-Loyo & Rios-Figueroa, 2007).
Moreover, finding the right balance between the main dimensions of judicial credibility and impartiality is a long-term challenge. Studies focusing on judicial reform often presume the existence of a virtuous cycle or positive synergy across the various dimensions of reform. Few reformers have anticipated the potential trade-offs and tensions between them. Without doubt, the most damaging aspect of judicial reform failure in Brazil has been the inability to achieve a workable balance among the different dimensions of judicial credibility. Judicial reform cannot be separated from the broader political and economic currents of the country (Rowat, 2011). Judicial change is fundamentally a political rather than a technical process, involving political judgments at every stage. Furthermore, the distinct dimensions of judicial soundness must be assessed in relative rather than absolute terms against exogenous measures. Legal change is contingent and must account for initial conditions; variables such as judicial independence, accountability, and efficiency are essentially continuous rather than dichotomous in nature (Pozas-Loyo & Rios-Figueroa, 2007).
"Proposed certiorari to prioritize high-court cases"
"Comparative reform axes and trade-off analysis"
Ryan, M. (1998). Global strategy views: Where and why of global strategy. Journal of International Business Studies.
Ryan, M. (2012). Judiciary: How long to get the national courts to enforce a contract or settle a contract dispute?
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.