The expression ipsis litteris, of Latin origin, translates to "by the same letters" and constitutes a hermeneutic technique for the literal transcription of normative texts, contractual provisions, or excerpts from judicial decisions. In Law, its purpose is to preserve textual integrity, ensuring absolute fidelity to the original source, and it is widely applied in Procedural, Civil, and Constitutional Law to avoid interpretative distortions in citations and legal reasoning.
Concept and Foundation
The phrase ipsis litteris transcends mere textual citation; it represents an imperative of technical-legal rigor. In the exercise of hermeneutics, the use of this expression denotes that the reproduction of a statement, whether legal or jurisprudential, was performed without any alteration, omission, or adaptation, aiming to ensure the purity of the norm or precedent invoked. The legal nature of the institute lies in legal certainty and fidelity to the will of the legislator or the judge, which are essential elements for the stability of the legal system.
Historically, the practice dates back to the tradition of Roman Law, where precision in the transcription of the "Twelve Tables" and praetorian edicts was an indispensable condition for the validity of a legal act. With the evolution of Civil Law systems, the requirement for ipsis litteris citation became consolidated as a mechanism for controlling interpretative discretion, ensuring that the legal practitioner does not deviate from the literal content (mens legis) contained in the original text.
Practical Application and Jurisprudence
The application of the term is ubiquitous in the drafting of petitions, appellate decisions, and legal opinions. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Supreme Federal Court (STF) frequently use the expression when transcribing headnotes of leading cases or constitutional provisions to support constitutional review or the standardization of jurisprudence.
Within the scope of Civil Procedure, the technique gains relevance in the interpretation of contractual clauses and the transcription of testimonies, where the meaning cannot be altered under penalty of nullity or error in judgment. The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, in its article 489, § 1, item VI, by requiring the judge to address all arguments deduced in the process capable of invalidating the adopted conclusion, reinforces the need for fidelity in the citation of precedents, often cited ipsis litteris to demonstrate adherence to the system of binding precedents.
Related Principles and Doctrinal Divergences
The institute is directly correlated with the Principle of Strict Legality and the Principle of Legal Certainty. However, modern doctrine, influenced by post-positivism, raises caveats. Authors such as Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy, when dealing with the distinction between rules and principles, argue that purely ipsis litteris interpretation can lead to exegetical "literalism," which, in specific cases, may conflict with material justice or proportionality.
The doctrinal divergence lies in the balance between literalism (certainty) and teleological interpretation (effectiveness). While the classical exegetical school defends strict interpretation, contemporary hermeneutics admits that, although the transcription must be ipsis litteris, the application of the transcribed provision must consider the axiological dimension of the system.
Contemporary Relevance
In the era of digital Law and artificial intelligence applied to legal analysis, the rigor of ipsis litteris citation becomes even more critical. Precision in feeding jurisprudence databases depends on the fidelity of the reproduced texts. Failure in literal transcription can compromise the accuracy of search systems and, consequently, the administration of justice itself.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
- 1988 Federal Constitution: Art. 5, item II (Principle of Legality).
- Law No. 13.105/2015 (Code of Civil Procedure): Art. 489, § 1, VI (Duty of reasoning and citation of precedents).
- Supreme Federal Court: General Repercussion Precedents (e.g., Theme 339) which require the exact transcription of grounds for the configuration of contradiction or omission in motions for clarification.
- Superior Court of Justice: Precedent (Súmula) 380 (applicable to the interpretation of contracts, where the literalness of the clauses is the starting point for the analysis of abusiveness).
- Doctrine: MENDES, Gilmar Ferreira; BRANCO, Paulo Gustavo Gonet. Curso de Direito Constitucional. 18th ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2023.
