CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS FOR THE FILTER CALLED GENERAL REPERCUSSION

Abstract

This paper analyzes the need to demonstrate the existence of general repercussion as a preliminary act to admit the extraordinary appeal. It observes the functioning of general repercussion as a filter restricting access to the STF - Brazilian Supreme Court, so that this Court can choose and judge only the cases which represent a greater collective impact, transcending the immediate and direct interest of the parts. It also establishes a comparison between the need of the general repercussion and of the relevance argumentation required by the Constitution of 1967, in order to confirm the role of restrictive filter, to the first requirement, fulfilling the second requirement, the role of expanding the possibilities of using extraordinary appeal, which suffered in that time, some limitations to its use. It is based on the Constitution and Constitutional Theory to confirm that the existence of general repercussion in the extraordinary appeal is a rule, while its negative appears as an exception that can only be recognized by a qualified majority of STF. Also, it notes that the denial of the existence of general repercussion should always be strictly interpreted, since now the existence of general repercussion is the rule. Finally, it observes that the arguments contained in the preliminary are enough so that the appeal is received, and also the lack of preliminary does not remove from the Supreme Court Jurisdiction the competence to analyze the existence of general repercussion, once it is a rule not an exception.