Ordem pública processual: técnica de controle da regularidade do processo civil

Abstract

Civil procedure requires order, simplicity, and efficiency in order to attain its scope of providing adequate jurisdictional adjudication that is fair and expeditious. To do so, the procedural system has endured relevant modifications in furtherance of adapting itself to new social and legal requirements, in which formalism should serve to protect and not to overturn. Furthermore, various technical procedures have been used to grant more effectiveness to jurisdictional adjudication, without damage to necessary juridical certainty. In this context, is contained the procedural public policy, which might possess an interesting approach for the principle, that engages the procedure as a technical means to control the regularity of the acts and the proceedings. In turn, the role of the magistrate in the management of this technique shows itself to be essential in order for it to accomplish its objective, which is to eliminate from the procedure, the defects capable of blotting its integrity, as well as the legitimacy of judicial adjudication. Appropriate and timely control of the regularity of the acts and the proceedings is a duty of the judge and also a guaranty to the parties. In this sense, the thesis seeks to identify procedural issues that could be controlled according to the degree of public interest wherein each one is revealed, being certain that the law, doctrine, and jurisprudence are the source and can still modulate the relevant matter according to the time and space in which they are observed, contextualized, or inserted. In turn, the importance of evaluating the public interest of each procedural matter reflects the legal regime to be established and the consequences established for any eventual defects on the basis of the particulars of the recorded case. Additionally, in identifying the irregularity, civil procedure offers various techniques for overcoming, confirming, and easing of a defect before declaring the nullity of the procedural acts or the inadmissibility of the procedure adopted by the party, in a way to preserve most of the procedure. Already in the appellate context, although there are specific requirements of admissibility, the defects detected at the first level of jurisdiction lose strength at the second level and before the Superior courts, giving each time a greater need to provide jurisdiction and the delivery of full jurisdictional performance, that is, with an examination on the merits. Registering still, the possibility of judicial control as an alternative means of dispute resolution, it also must undergo certain requirements, so as to be approved and legitimized. As noted, the range of the theme of procedural public policy causes it to be extensive and complex, which usually alarms jurists. Therefore, the intent of this study will not only be to describe the subject, but also to adopt a differentiated language, providing a new way to approach and systematize what still seems to be dogma in our procedural system.