THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN STRUCTURAL PROCESSES IN THE FEDERAL SUPREME COURT: PROCEDURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
Public Defender's Office. Brazilian Supreme Federal Court. Structural process. Instrumental and institutional challenges. Empirical research.
This paper analyzes the role of the Public Defender's Office in structural cases pending before the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). It seeks to understand how the Supreme Court has ruled and guided that institution's actions, given the expansion of its constitutional responsibilities and the current rise in structural litigation for the implementation of public policies. Through a descriptive study, all structural or related cases monitored by the STF up to January 1, 2025, were catalogued, focusing on the various forms of participation of the Public Defender's Office. The investigation, conducted through the examination of petitions, documents, meeting minutes, and certificates of the cases monitored, as well as other research and studies related to the topic, fosters empirical legal research, allowing for the mapping of structural actions and a deeper understanding of the Public Defender's role in this type of litigation. It also enables an assessment of whether this participation enhances the democratic legitimacy of the decision-making process and fills gaps in the so-called "Brazilian structural process." Additionally, it examines whether the Public Defender's Office is institutionally and instrumentally prepared to tackle these challenges. The main findings indicate that: i) The expansion of the Public Defender's constitutional responsibilities has laid the foundation for its broad procedural engagement, legitimizing and democratizing STF decisions instructural cases; ii) The STF has shown a tendency to ensure the participation of the Public Defender's Office in structural disputes related to public policies; iii) The Defender's role as a party, amicus curiae, or custos vulnerabilis contributes to the legitimacy of decisions, increasing the number of interested parties represented by it and enabling their effective participation in both the decision-making processand the implementation of structural rulings; iv) Despite the importance of this role, the Public Defender's Office is not present in all structural cases within its jurisdiction, and the STF has not established a binding precedent requiring its participation; v) Public Defender’s Offices face institutional and administrative limitations that hinder their full assumption of these new responsibilities. Throughout the research, additional issues emerged beyond the initial scope: i) It was found that the lack of legal or regulatory provisions on the matter within the STF affects not only the involvement of parties and stakeholders but also the very identification of structural cases; ii) The absence of uniform and objective criteria for defining and processing structural cases at the STF leads to undesirable consequences, suchas: a) lack of transparency in case processing; b) compromised evidentiary proceedings; c) risk of misclassifying cases as structural; d) increase in the number of cases without proper oversight. Recommendations: i) Amend the STF’s Internal Rules to align them with the realities of structural litigation; ii) Expand the participation of justices in classifying cases as structural by adopting a procedure similar to the General Repercussion mechanism, requiring prior deliberation by the Plenary (physical or virtual) to define structural characteristics and process structural litigation to be adjudicated.