Chairs:

• Marcelo Figueiredo – mfigueiredo@mfaa.com.br
• Rubens Beçak – rubens.becak@gmail.com.

SPEAKERS

Anderson

Vinícius de Moraes Ortega

Anderson	Vinícius de Moraes Ortega
Bernardo	Puetaman
Lucas	Paulo Fernandes
Maria Gabriela	Abalos
Matheus	Conde Pires
Ricardo	Hermany

Judicialization is understood as the transfer of politically, socially, or morally relevant issues to the Judiciary. Traditional bodies—the Legislative and the Executive—are no longer able to provide satisfactory solutions to complex social problems, leading constitutional jurisdiction to gain strength. This is a global phenomenon, reaching even countries that have traditionally followed the English model. Numerous and unmistakable examples of judicialization illustrate the fluidity of the boundary between politics and justice in the contemporary world, showing that the line dividing the creation and the interpretation of law is not always clear.

In Latin America, the gradual strengthening of judicial activism can be attributed to several factors, among them:

• The reinforcement of institutions that safeguard the rule of law after long authoritarian periods.
• The constitutionalization of community values, requiring the Constitution to commit to their realization.
• The transformation of fundamental rights into the core of the constitutional order and a criterion for interpretation.
• The perception of citizens as authors of their rights.
• The expansion of the circle of constitutional interpreters.
• The expansion of fundamental rights that impose duties of state action.
• The broadening of collective and diffuse actions and rights.
• The inertia of the Legislative Branch.
• The increase of instruments and techniques for constitutional review.
• Judicial control over state omissions and public policies.
• The constructive activity inherent in constitutional interpretation.

It is clear that the often excessive protagonism of courts generates problems of various kinds, especially those concerning the separation and balance of powers, frequently placing the Judiciary or the Court “above” the other branches. It is common to hear that constitutional courts have become a sort of “third legislative chamber.” Decisions against the Public Administration proliferate, questioning discretionary decisions that, in practice, replace the administrator’s discretion with that of the judge. Protecting the legal system against activism requires ensuring that the Judiciary understands that it should not be the agent promoting justice, but rather an agent protecting the law itself. In a democracy, judges do not “do justice”; they preserve the law democratically created by democratic institutions.en deberes de acción estatal