THE (DIS)RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION BY THE COURTS IN CIVIL PROCEDURAL LAW: ANALYSIS OF THE DOUBLE DEGREE OF JURISDICTION AND THE CONTRADICTORY PRINCIPLE IN THE REEXAMINATION OF EVIDENCE IN APPEALS AND INTERLOCUTORY APPEALS

Abstract

This study analyzes whether the Courts of Justice of Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Espírito Santo respect the constitutional principles of Double Jeopardy and Contradictory Jurisdiction when re-examining evidence in appeals and interlocutory appeals.The work noted that the double degree of jurisdiction guarantees that decisions can be reviewed by a higher court, ensuring greater procedural justice, while the adversarial principle requires that the parties have the right to manifest and influence judicial decisions. This is because the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) cannot re-examine evidence, according to Precedent No. 7 of the STJ, since its function is to guarantee the uniform interpretation of federal law, not to review the merits of specific cases.The study analyzed practical cases and case law to identify whether there is systematic non-compliance with these principles by state courts.It is justified by the impossibility of producing evidence and re-discussing the merits and facts in the higher courts, which only deal with questions of law without going into the nuances of the case. The research methodology consisted of a technical-legal, deductive, bibliographical analysis (doctrine, especially civil procedure and constitutional doctrine, case law from the courts of the southeast region and the Superior Court of Justice, where applicable) of a national nature.In the end, the work found that, in practice, the state courts do not always fully guarantee the adversarial process and the double degree of jurisdiction. In some decisions, there are restrictions on the re-examination of evidence, limiting the party's right to influence the judgment. This situation can lead to injustices and non-compliance with constitutional precepts. The research also reinforces that the STJ cannot review evidence, and it is up to the state courts to respect this limit when deciding on appeals.