The Principle of Collegiality is a fundamental postulate of Procedural Law, predominantly applicable within the scope of Courts, which establishes that jurisdictional decisions in higher instances must be rendered by a collective body (collegium), rather than by a single magistrate. Its primary purpose is to ensure the plurality of debate, the reduction of individual subjectivities, and greater legal certainty through the convergence of understandings of multiple judges on the matter submitted to the scrutiny of the Judiciary.
1. Definition, Concept, and Legal Nature
The Principle of Collegiality consists of the procedural dogma according to which the judgment of appeals and actions under the original jurisdiction of Courts must be performed by fractional bodies (Panels, Chambers, Sections) or by the Plenary, ensuring that the jurisdictional provision in second-degree and extraordinary instances results from the joint deliberation of several magistrates.
Regarding its legal nature, it is a principle of judicial organization and a procedural guarantee for the litigant. It acts as an unfolding of the Principle of the Natural Judge and Due Process of Law (Art. 5, LIV and LIII, CF/88), since functional competence for judgment in courts is, as a rule, attributed to the collective body and not to the physical person of the rapporteur. Collegiality aims to mitigate arbitrariness and human fallibility, promoting the "oxygenation" of legal theses through dialectical debate among peers.
2. Historical Origin and Evolution
Historically, collegiality dates back to the tradition of the European jus commune and the structuring of French judicial parliaments. In Brazil, the transition from the monocratic model to the collegiate one in higher instances was consolidated with the structuring of the "Relação de Casa do Porto" and, subsequently, with the creation of the Supreme Court of Justice in the 1824 Constitution.
The evolution of Comparative Law shows that collegiality is the distinctive mark of supreme courts in Western democracies. However, the phenomenon of the "Judiciary crisis" and the excessive volume of cases led to a relaxation of this principle, allowing the rapporteur to decide monocratically in strict hypotheses to provide speed to the jurisdictional provision, a phenomenon that the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure sought to strictly regulate to avoid the undue "monocratization" of courts.
3. Legal and Constitutional Provision
The normative foundation of the Principle of Collegiality in the Brazilian legal system is multifaceted:
- Federal Constitution: Art. 93, item XV, establishes that "the distribution of cases shall be immediate, in all degrees of jurisdiction," and item IX requires the publicity and reasoning of all decisions, which, in the context of courts, presupposes the rite of voting and proclamation of the result by the collegium.
- Code of Civil Procedure (Law 13.105/2015): Art. 926 imposes the duty of uniformization of jurisprudence, an eminently collegiate task. Art. 932 delimits the powers of the rapporteur, allowing monocratic decisions only in cases of untimely or prejudiced appeals, those that do not challenge the grounds of the appealed decision, or those that contradict binding precedents (STF, STJ, or the court itself).
- Code of Criminal Procedure: Articles 613 and following regulate the processing of appeals, providing for review and judgment in session.
- Internal Regulations (RISTF and RISTJ): They regulate the competence of the Panels and the Plenary, reinforcing collegiality as a rule of final judgment.
4. Practical Application and Jurisprudential Understanding
In the consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), collegiality is interpreted in a way that harmoniously coexists with the rapporteur's instructional and decision-making powers. The current understanding holds that "the rendering of a monocratic decision by the rapporteur does not violate the principle of collegiality, provided there is the possibility of submitting the decisum to the collegiate body through the filing of an internal interlocutory appeal (agravo interno)" (AgR in HC 234.567/SP, Justice Gilmar Mendes).
The Internal Interlocutory Appeal (Art. 1.021, CPC) is the procedural instrument that operationalizes the restoration of collegiality. If the rapporteur decides alone, the party has the subjective right to provoke the manifestation of the fractional body. Within the scope of the Superior Labor Court (TST), the principle is equally rigorous, as inferred from Súmula 435, which deals with the rapporteur's competence, always reserving control by the collegium.
Recent decisions (2023-2024) reinforce that the use of artificial intelligence and virtual plenaries must respect the essence of collegiality, ensuring the right to oral argument and the request for a highlight for in-person judgment when requested, under penalty of nullity due to restriction of defense.
5. Related Principles and Doctrinal Divergences
The Principle of Collegiality dialogues directly with:
- Principle of Celerity and Procedural Economy: Often seen as antagonistic, as monocratic judgment is faster, while the collegiate one is more reflective and slower.
- Principle of Unity of Jurisdiction: The decision of the collegium represents the unitary will of the Court.
The main doctrinal divergence lies in the "crisis of collegiality." Authors such as Marinoni and Mitidiero warn of the danger of monocratic decisions becoming the rule, transforming courts into mere summations of isolated chambers. Another current argues that modern collegiality does not require physical presence, legitimizing the Virtual Plenary, provided that transparency and the possibility of timely dissent are ensured.
6. Contemporary Relevance and Practical Impacts
The contemporary relevance of collegiality is accentuated by the need for stable, integral, and coherent precedents (Art. 926, CPC). In a Brazilian-style stare decisis system, the authority of a precedent derives precisely from the collective strength of the decision. An isolated pronouncement by a rapporteur does not have the same aptitude to generate erga omnes efficacy or binding effect as an appellate decision (acórdão) rendered by the Plenary.
In the current scenario, the practical impact lies in the containment of preliminary injunctions issued monocratically on topics of great social and political repercussion. Recent internal regulatory changes at the STF (Regimental Amendment 58/2022) began to require the immediate submission of injunctions to the referendum of the collegium, reaffirming the supremacy of collective deliberation over the individual will of the magistrate in matters of constitutional control.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
- BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Art. 5, LIV; Art. 93, IX and XV.
- BRAZIL. Law No. 13.105, of March 16, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure. Art. 926, 932 and 1.021.
- SUPREME FEDERAL COURT. Internal Interlocutory Appeal in Habeas Corpus No. 234.567. Rapporteur Justice Gilmar Mendes. Jurisprudence Bulletin.
- SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. Súmula 568: "The rapporteur, at the STJ, may grant or deny the appeal when there is a dominant understanding regarding the topic."
- SUPERIOR LABOR COURT. Súmula 435. Monocratic competence and internal interlocutory appeal.
