This research analyzed the Brazilian appellate system in light of Constitutional Amendment No. 125/2022, focusing on the challenges posed by the excessive number of appeals to the effectiveness of jurisdiction, the realization of fundamental rights, and the advancement of national development. It examined how the indiscriminate use of appeals turned the guarantee of double jurisdiction into a mechanism of delay, contributing to judicial backlog, undermining legal certainty, and potentially hindering socio-economic progress. The study aimed to evaluate whether the adoption of admissibility filters, particularly the relevance of federal questions, constituted a viable response to procedural congestion without compromising access to justice or the achievement of development objectives. Based on the constitutional theory of fundamental rights, civil procedural law, and the principle of national development, the research employed a qualitative, descriptive, and explanatory approach, combining bibliographic and documentary analysis with empirical examination of judicial data. The results indicated that procedural rationalization through relevance criteria strengthened judicial efficiency, enhanced the legitimacy of decisions, and indirectly supported national development, although concerns remained regarding potential restrictions on access to higher courts. The study concluded that the future of the appellate system depended on balancing efficiency, the safeguarding of fundamental guarantees, and the promotion of development, which were indispensable for consolidating the democratic rule of law.
The regulation of the state of alarm in our country dates back to the late 1970s (Constitution) and early 1980s (Organic Law on States of Alarm, Exception and Siege) of the last century. At that time, we lacked experience in regulating a constitutional anti-disaster state and, therefore, we also lacked experience in its application. We have gained this experience over the last two decades of the 21st century, first with the air traffic controllers' crisis and then, above all, with the Covid-19 pandemic. In light of this experience, it would be necessary to rewrite the regulations governing the state of alarm (which, to a large extent, do not really correspond to the literal wording of the Organic Law on states of alarm, exception and siege), in order to bring them into line with the lessons learned from the case law of our Constitutional Court and from practical reality.
