Description
This paper studies dogmatically the immediate merit judgment from the hypothesis comprised in the § 6º from art. 273, on art. 285-A, and on art. 330 of the Brazilian Civil Process Code (CPC), with the aim of searching a systematization for the institute. It is shown, for such purpose, the point of view that such norms comprise differentiated procedures of special rite is presented, and, in this conception, they translate themselves in time speeding instruments in jurisdictional functioning considering the new constitutional model of the Brazilian process established from the Constitutional Amendment aegis n. 45, from 2004, which introduced the clause n. LXXVIII the art. 5º of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Brazil (CR), ensuring, expressly, the fundamental citizen s right to reasonable process duration and to the means that ensure the speed of its procedure. Under this conception, the constitutionality of fore mentioned law devices is demonstrated, initially, focusing on the re-reading of the contradictory and broad defense principles, and, afterwards, an interpretative analysis of its contents is made, applying, for such purpose, the teleological and systematic methods, all intending to reveal that they, like other procedural devices of same codification, have the scope of searching both procedural speed and jurisdictional tutorage effectivity, and, therefore, of making the process reach the social-political objective for which it was idealized at the constitutional State: eliminating conflicts and performing justice in a quick, adequate and effective way under the fundamental rights and guarantees. Aiming to reach such methodological purposes, doctrinal teachings and jurisprudential precedents about the immediate merit resolution are used, and new ideas are also exposed with the intention that such law precepts might be well applied to the most varied situations of life, extracting from them the results desired by the legislator when edited them, even though, in order to do so, principles that legitimate the jurisdiction and the access to fair juridical order have to be questioned. Ultimately, the present study carries the concern of rethinking the factual dimension of the process and also of some dogmas that still insist in supporting it, as an essential factor not only in the search of fair decisions, but, also, fast and adequate ones
