THE MYTH OF INSTRUMENTALITY: JUDICIAL SOLIPSISM DISGUISED AS INFORMALITY OF PROCEDURAL ACTS

Abstract

This article critically examines the principle of procedural instrumentality and its distortion as a basis for judicial protagonism. Through qualitative bibliographical research and the deductive method, the study explores the relationship between procedural instrumentality and judicial solipsism, highlighting the risks of an unpredictable process subject to judicial subjectivity. Originally conceived to ensure the effectiveness of judicial protection, instrumentality has increasingly been used to justify procedural flexibility and expand judicial discretion. The article also analyzes how the 2015 Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure sought to restrain this phenomenon by strengthening the duty to provide reasoned decisions, procedural cooperation, and the prohibition of surprise rulings. Despite these advances, significant challenges remain in limiting excessive judicial protagonism, requiring a reinterpretation of procedural instrumentality in light of the Democratic Rule of Law. The study concludes that procedural instrumentality must be applied according to objective criteria and supported by qualified reasoning, ensuring a balance between effectiveness and legal certainty.