Author: Francisco Xavier de Sousa Filho *

Source: Jornal Pequeno - MA - GENERAL - 22/11/2009

The Citizen Constitution, of October 1988, orders the public administration to be guided mainly by respect for the constitutional principles of legality, morality, efficiency, publicity and impersonality. In Justice, for the benefit of society, the principles of economics and procedural speed appear to be respected as well. But they are always disrespected. At least if the judiciary and their lawyers were to represent the civil servants in the National Council of Justice (CNJ) or in the Internal Affairs of the Court, due to poor service provision, they would certainly be close to the processes in number of complaints, with the administrative solution only taking only about five minutes.

Well then. On 03.11.09, the substitute director of one of the labor courts did not pay any attention to the lawyer who asked the AR board (since the beginning of August 09) to file the case, in order to bring it to a conclusion. She replied that she was busy typing a certificate, ordering the information to be obtained from the counter. The lawyer argued that it was already the third week that he asked for measures, without success, and said he waited for the typing of the certificate to finish. He promptly resolved the matter, saying that he was providing without even writing down the number of the case and without knowing the claimant's priority under the law of the elderly, forcing the request to the judge. It is a rare case, because the other rods give the necessary and indispensable receptivity, with identical requests.

In other cases, there is a magistrate who does not accept the lawyer to give a summons to respond to the defense or other defense of the opposing party, contributing to the procedural delay, by pushing the process for three or six months for that. In addition to causing administrative and financial losses resulting from the work of servers in the final completion of the order. Because to hinder healthy and healthy justice, which begs for speed, knowing that the director or secretary of the court has already been empowered for mere expedient dispatches.

The most distorting of the legal order, which the reform of the judiciary has neglected, is to wait for the counting of the term for contesting or defending the embargoes, only after the filing of the AR or the summons order, allowing the servers to postpone the completed judicial act , protecting the reverse part. Another unjustifiable bureaucracy is noted when granting the initial quote for more than three months. What in labor claims that the judicial act is completed after 48 hours and already designates the hearing for the distribution of the lawsuit. Of equal binding, the special court does not allow a written reply to the defense, in violation of the law and the constitutional principle of broad defense.  

For all the bureaucracy allowed, the most shameful and unpunished, it can very well be asserted that there is a trial of more recent cases, to the detriment of the oldest ones, leading the National Council of Justice (CNJ) to order the judgment of all actions promoted until 2005, known as Meta 2. It just proves the lack of interest and respect of the judges with the right of the injured parties. It is the absence of Justice, in its essential function, of providing social justice, allowing the person injured also by the delay in effective and agile justice to seek civil and constitutional liability in the repair of damages.

Even in the request for legal aid, there is a judge ordering the party to present a declaration of poverty, signed by the author's own hand, in an unshakable humiliation when the national courts have already established that the simple statement in the initial action already proves the lack of financial conditions for the granting of gratuity. With this inconceivable demand, the judge delays when he also rejects, due to bureaucracy, the proposed action, for no legal reason, without waiting for a challenge to be raised. In fact, in the constitutional duty, the services of jurisdictional provision, of relevant public interest, should only be charged for the expenses of the action, after the final decision, with the application of a high fine for each impertinent and delaying appeal, including with penalties also to public entities. In the first instance, appeals take about three months or more in the summons to offer counter-reasons.

In civil courts, there are missing records, whose servants never give a fair explanation to the party. Now, if they are never punished for such illegality, as a corregidor, they make the issue a dead letter. The right way is to start all over again, with the restoration of the records, benefiting the right-wronging party, which ended in the records, for sure. There is also a certificate of publication of a decision in the diary, without having been, which is strange because they do not always certify. It is not alone. There is also a civil servant of the state court who refuses to ask for the bank attorney's records, whose decision of appeal provided was in favor of the bank and not the other party. They even blame the judge for the trial, for a gross error. Finally, it is the humiliation of the small, not powerful lawyer.

With unfair and criminal appeals, there is only bureaucracy, because, whether repetitive or not, they are generally inadmissible not only because they contradict the law and constitutional rule, but also because there is already jurisprudence conferring the res judicata, in the sentence. And if there has already been a final decision of the judicial decision, the appeal filed by the powerful has more value than the fulfillment of the sentence, although it does not deserve the appellate knowledge of the logo. Especially because there is to be discussed only the amount to be paid, with the debtor always repudiating the calculations of the judicial accountant or arithmetic.

In the end, on the side of the wrong or teratological decision, shame passes through the qualified and competent judges, who, even so, do not reform, in the disrepute of Justice itself in establishing a corporatist, already known in the legal circles. It is no longer a judicial decision to be considered bureaucratic, as there has been no correct application of the law. Bureaucracy also includes the prohibition of oral support in judgments of embargoes, appeals and regulations in the courts, which even violates article 7.º-IX of Law 8.906 / 94. They are not even placed on the trial agenda, forbidding the presentation of memorials and oral arguments on matter of fact in the session.

The bureaucracy then also constitutes an obstacle to a serious, effective, just, efficient, effective, integral and agile justice, overriding the injured person's right, for compromising much more in the wishes of the powerful, with sometimes privileged treatment than to assist the jurisdiction injured in its right. What Divine Justice is well defined: “For you have upheld my right and my cause, you should sit in court, judging justly.” (Psalm 9: 4).

* Lawyer OAB-MA 3080-A and OAB-CE 4399