Ativismo judicial no direito à saúde: uma análise à luz das decisões proferidas pelo STF no contexto da COVID-19

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused changes in the dynamics of social and political relations in Brazil, especially in the legal field, since there was a certain expansion of the Judiciary, one of the reasons why it has been receiving some prominence in digital media and in the academic field. The present work presents reflections about judicial activism, the main object of the study, based on the analysis of the role of the Judiciary as an instrument for the realization of the fundamental right to health. From a historical and evolutionary overview of the theory of separation of powers, which culminated in the expansion of the Judiciary, it is noted the need to relativize the classic tripartition of powers. As we find ourselves in an exceptional period caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the research analyzes some decisions handed down by the Federal Supreme Court in the pandemic scenario. It is intended to examine whether there was an extrapolation of the powers constitutionally assigned to the Judiciary, with the consequent configuration of judicial activism, to the detriment of the principle of separation of powers. To carry out the proposed task, the research uses the deductive method, through bibliographic research, which includes access to doctrine, scientific articles, legislation and the national jurisprudential position. Therefore, the present study concludes that there was no judicial activism on the part of the Federal Supreme Court in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, since the analyzed decisions only gave normative force to the Federal Constitution of Brazil, combating abuses by the executive power