O fenômeno das superinterpretações nas decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal como contribuição para a supremacia judicial : uma análise a partir de Umberto Eco

Abstract

The Supreme Federal Court - STF, within the framework of the 1988 Federal Constitution, has shifted from historically discreet character to the current protagonist of the Brazilian legal system. Beyond legal decisions, the agenda of this apex body shows commitment to political and moral issues. In this scenario, the decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Court arouse curiosity like never before, not only because of their binding force or due to the media-driven nature of the trials, but also because of exaggerated interpretations of the normative text, that is, through overinterpretations. In this context, this monographic essay was dedicated to identifying the phenomenon of overinterpretation in STF decisions, especially in cases of nepotism, anencephalic fetuses, and the fake news investigation, and to presenting how overinterpretive decisions contribute to the idea of judicial supremacy. To achieve these objectives, a deductive method was adopted, analyzing the phenomenon of overinterpretation from Umberto Eco's perspective, applying the concepts that hover over the phenomenon to specific decisions of the Supreme Federal Court. A qualitative approach was used, selecting emblematic decisions widely discussed in legal doctrine, which also reflect the Supreme Court's role in these nearly three decades post-1988 Constitution. In addition, it resorted to the dialectical method, confronting established ideas, especially in interactions arising from superinterpretative decisions with other phenomena. The objective is exploratory, aiming to expand knowledge of judicial interpretation through the phenomenon of overinterpretation. Data collection was primarily bibliographic, using physical and digital books, articles, and monographs, but also included a smaller number of documentary evidence, such as legislation and legal news. After analysis, the thesis presented the following results: several historical, political, and institutional factors drive the current powers of the Brazilian Court; the STF post-1988 Constitution is overinterpretive in its decisions, exceeding the limits of interpretation required by the intention of the work; overinterpretation contributes to judicial supremacy, as it fosters the monopoly of the idea of the final word of the STF on constitutional interpretation, since even decisions that go beyond the text can only be reversed through a constitutional amendment process, which strengthens mistaken judicial decisions. Furthermore, as an alternative to the notion of formal judicial supremacy, it was found that institutional dialogism mitigates the monopolistic idea, as it recognizes the flaws of institutional and democratic capacities of the Courts, expands the space for interpretation to other actors, and enables the reversal of judicial decisions, including through ordinary laws (provided specific criteria are met), which assists the Legislature in de-Christianizing mistaken decisions such as those resulting from overinterpretations.