CONSENSUS IN CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION: CONCILIATION AS AN INSTRUMENT IN THE JUDICIAL REVIEW BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF ADPF Nº 829/RS - DOI: 10.12818/P.0304-2340.2025v86p275

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the possibility
of conciliation in the context of judicial
review, as well as to systematize the limits,
requirements, and potentialities of dispute
resolution within constitutional jurisdiction.
It is argued that this type of conciliation also
represents an appropriate procedural avenue
for upholding constitutionality, allowing
agreements that respect democratic pluralism.
However, it is acknowledged that such
agreements entail several risks, including the
potential cooptation of the judiciary and the
exclusion of the legal community from the
debate. This study employed a bibliographic
review methodology, focusing on the Brazilian
system of judicial review and alternative
dispute resolution, as well as a case study
methodology, examining the “ADPF — Ação
de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental
— de nº 829/RS”. This approach sought to
realistically assess the advantages and risks
associated with this type of conciliation.
Ultimately, the study concluded that it is
possible to achieve agreements within the
framework of judicial review, provided that
this procedural arena is regulated from a
redistributive perspective of access to justice.

KEYWORDS: Conciliation. Constitutional
review. Constitutional jurisdiction. Access to
justice.