The claim of non-compliance with basic precept 572

a study about the application (or not) of the judge method from Ronald Dworkin's Hercules

Abstract

Given the current scenario of fake news and attacks against the Supreme Court, the Court, based on an internal rule, established an inquiry to investigate these acts, which became popularly known as the “fake news inquiry.” This atypical practice by the Supreme Court gave rise to several debates, resulting in ADPF 572, which discussed possible violations of fundamental precepts such as the separation of powers and the accusatorial system. The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the ordinance it had itself instituted to open the inquiry was constitutional. Thus, the judgment centered on the interpretation of the internal rule that served as the basis for the inquiry's existence. This debate is of interest to contemporary philosophy, as one of its objects of study is the exegesis judges perform when applying rules. Hence, the main aim of this article is to identify, within the elements used in the ADPF 572 ruling, whether there was an application of philosopher Ronald Dworkin's theory of Judge Hercules, as well as his other relevant hermeneutical methods, such as the chain novel metaphor. Therefore, the analysis is based on descriptive research and investigates Dworkinian legal theory as a framework for studying the elements used by the reporting justice in the controversial decision, concluding that although the justice invoked the Judge Hercules model in certain parts, he failed to apply the method in the fundamental arguments of his ruling.