Repercussão geral e arguição de relevância: uma análise de comparação sob a perspectiva de aprimoramento

Abstract

The aim of this article was to show a theory and a historical evolution of two instruments created with the intention of relieving the Federal Supreme Court – STF, so that he could exercise the main function - Guardian of the Constitution. The instruments are: Arguition of Revelation and General Repercussion. In view of the fact that they will encounter many differences and similarities regarding the two in order to improve the current repercussion, observing the key principles for this transformation. Initially, the general repercussion differs greatly from the previous institute, the question of relevance, given the authoritarian and secret character of the latter, in contrast to the evaluative and non-discretionary character of the current institute. The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, historically, has always been concerned with rationalizing and reducing the volume of cases, the current figure of general repercussion, foreseen in article 102 § 3 of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil - CRFB and its historical background that is little studied, the relevance argument. However, there are marked differences between both figures, and some similarities that were crucial to the understanding and the importance of some more democratic changes. The purpose of this article is to carry out a historical analysis of the General Repercussion x Arguition of Relevance in the Supreme Federal Court, its characteristics being the main points to be debated.