Fundamentação per relationem e legalidade no processo penal

Abstract

This study examines the flaw of per relationem reasoning in judicial decisions within criminal procedure. The primary objective is to analyze reasoning as both a duty of the judge and a right of the parties, exploring its relationship with procedural safeguards and discussing the implications of using per relationem justification. The research is justified by concerns regarding the quality of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings, where proper reasoning is essential to ensuring fundamental rights. The study employs a qualitative methodology based on the analysis of jurisprudence from higher courts. The institutional scope is limited to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The thematic scope focuses on per relationem reasoning in criminal procedure. The temporal scope includes decisions issued between February 23, 2020 – when the Anti-Crime Package (Law No. 13.964/2019) came into effect – and December 20, 2024, marking the end of that year's judicial term. The sample of rulings will consist of decisions selected based on the following elements: date of judgment, reporting judge, adjudicating body (panel or full court), outcome of the judgment (whether favorable or not to the use of per relationem reasoning), and the origin of the per relationem justification (whether the referenced material pertains to a decision, a prosecutorial opinion, police records, or defense submissions). The study concludes that, although per relationem reasoning is permitted in certain circumstances, its indiscriminate use does not fully meet constitutional requirements for judicial reasoning, thereby undermining the legitimacy of judicial decisions. The findings indicate that insufficient reasoning in rulings may compromise transparency, comprehensibility, and judicial oversight, reinforcing the need for stricter criteria