Author: Gilmar Mendes

Source: Folha de S. Paulo - São Paulo / SP - OPINION - 28/03/2010

WHEN the Brazilian courts decided to set a goal to phase out the stock of lawsuits in February 2009, the most common reaction was disbelief. There were even those who considered the measure utopian.

A year later, the result of the already celebrated goal 2 - common, until the end of 2009, all the processes filed before 2006 - translated into convincing numbers the reaction of the magistrates and civil servants to the challenge: more than 2,7 million processes, more than 60% of the residual set.

In addition to the gains in speed and credibility, this mobilization resulted in an effect that, in a certain aspect, proved to be more important in the long run: the self-knowledge of the Brazilian Justice, a determining factor for the precise mapping of the difficulties of each body.

In the effort to achieve the goal, the Judiciary not only raised the number of cases that needed to be decided, but also carried out a fundamental diagnosis on the obstacles to the solution of disputes.

In this context, for example, many inventories stopped due to the inertia of the interested parties and pension cases that, although urgent, cannot be resolved in the absence of doctors to carry out the necessary expertise.
On the other hand, the collective commitment to “tidying up the house”, removing bureaucracy to preserve the right, enabled greater transparency in all stages of the justice service, allowing for more and better control, both by society and by itself Judiciary, in a continuous movement of feedback.

In this phase of modernization, strategic planning has proved to be decisive, as well as the complete computerization of all agencies, also a shortcut to the achievement of the leveling goals of forums across the country, in order to standardize - one step up - the quality of justice service.

The Judiciary's response to the call for responsibility, facing such a complex struggle in a pragmatic way - in order to effectively resolve it - has been deconstructing old paradigms, which can be explained by game theory, according to which the choices of players interested in maximizing gains themselves interfere with or depend on the options of other individuals.

Yes, because it has long been known that many are betting on the delay in the Justice to delay the payment of certain debts or to capitalize such values ​​in the financial market. So it is no wonder that large banks and multinational companies are among the biggest litigants. What is really surprising is that state agencies such as the INSS appear on this list, just to mention one of the most assiduous.

This culture of frank disposition to litigation, of opting for confrontation, as an alternative to composition, has represented a shot in the foot of the State itself, whose purse is unique. Hence it does not make any sense that minuscule issues involving public entities are brought to court when they could be dealt with administratively with less cost.

In good time, the Judiciary, with determination and even a certain boldness, was able to bring to itself the task of reshaping itself to the features required by Brazilian society. If modernization is pursued almost obstinately, there is no doubt that this process will continue to surprise.

Very soon, it will no longer be worthwhile to bet on procedural slowness: after all, the costs of filing a lawsuit will outweigh the speculative profits.
Nevertheless, the journey will be less painful if the entire Brazilian State is to act in an integrated, proactive and, thus, efficient way, in a harmonious concert, at the center of which will be the well-being of the Brazilian citizen.
At this stage, it will be almost obvious to say that access to the law does not necessarily lead to the portals of Justice, as is only the case in countries where the democratic rule of law, more than a constitutional premise, more than a doctrinal canon, is full experience - and the most everyday.

GILMAR FERREIRA MENDES, 54, master from UnB (University of Brasilia) and doctor of State law from the University of Münster (Germany), is president of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and CNJ (National Council of Justice).

Articles published with a subscription do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication follows the purpose of stimulating the debate on Brazilian and world problems and to reflect the various trends of contemporary thought. debates@uol.com.br