Do estrito cumprimento do dever de fundamentar as decisões judiciais como condição de possibilidade para a extinção dos embargos de declaração: uma abordagem hermenêutico-filosófica

Abstract

Shaped by a philosophical hermeneutic bias, this study aims to demonstrate that compliance with the fundamental duty of judges to justify their decisions - directly linked to the fundamental right of the citizen to obtain a correct answer - as established in the Federal Constitution constitutes a condition of possibility for extinction on the Brazilian legal-appeal system, the motion for clarification, deconstructing the myth - result of a mistaken preservative bet a legal dogmatic hostage for a common theoretical and fatalistic sense that only exacerbates the symptoms of low constitutionality of the Standard Basic - that lend themselves to the improvement of missing, conflicting or unclear judgments when they do not configure properly reasoned judicial act, being, for this reason and since the origin, null. The full maximization of the constitutional directive granted under Article 93, IX, from an authentic understanding of the Constitution, flush any reason for the existence of motion to clarification, which justifies the necessity of deleting the laws of that institute notorious dysfunction which conceals, in actual contours, the true meaning of being the constitutional rule that all judicial decisions must be reasoned, under penalty of nullity.