RAMALHO, R. F.; RAMALHO, Rayane Fernandes.
Resumen:
The formation of the Supreme Court of Justice in Brazil, initially faced several difficulties over
the years that resulted in several changes in the number of members that constituted the
Supreme Court. Seeking to achieve a balance between powers, the Federal Constitution of 1988
adopted the Theory of Separation of Powers in order to assign prevalence to the three powers,
making sure that no power overlaps the other. Despite this, the current composition of the
Supreme Court has been the subject of debates that propose the issue of changing the number
of justices as a hypothesis for reforming the STF, expanding the Court's justices from 11 to 15,
as well as, there are already bills that are being processed in Congress in this regard.
Considering that the autonomy of the Supreme Court in Brazil had its history marked by the
arbitrariness of the Executive Branch, which on several occasions dared to interfere in the
number of ministers to favor the perpetuation of authoritarian regimes in power, this monograph
seeks to analyze what would be the ideal number of members to compose the Supreme Court,
considering the historical moments in which this idea was practiced in order to unravel, if a
change in the number of Justices of the STF, considering the Brazilian political, administrative
and legal situation, could or could not, cause the rupture of the constitutional order. To carry
out the analysis, comparative and historical procedure methods and the deductive approach
method were used, in addition to indirect bibliographic and documentary research techniques.
The present research used the qualitative method, aiming to demonstrate, through evidence and
information, the case in depth, analyzing the context of the change in the number of Justices of
the Supreme Court in a broad way. Through the analysis, it was found that the countries that
adopted the idea of changing the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, either for more or
for less, experienced authoritarian regimes and this measure was used to favor heads of the
Executive Branch to maintain undemocratic regimes, in addition to In addition, it was found
that this discussion about changing the number of ministers is something that has been gaining
visibility in the Brazilian political context. Regarding the quantitative data collected, it was
demonstrated that there is no exact number to compose the Supreme Court, because according
to the countries presented in the research there are different forms of organization and the
number varies from one country to another, in addition, the Supreme Court has more or fewer
ministers does not mean that it will be efficient, but the stability in the number proves to be
efficient. After the analysis, it is concluded that proposals to change the number of Justices of
the Supreme Court can easily break the current constitutional democratic order, whereas in the
past, this change for more or less was never beneficial for democracy. In this sense, it is
necessary that the issue of changing the number of Justices of the Supreme Court be studied
and disseminated by academic research for the legal and political community, and for society
in general, reinforcing the constitutional order.
