PRECEDENTES E INTELIGÊNCIA ARTIFICIAL NO PROCESSO CIVIL: A PROMESSA DE SEGURANÇA JURÍDICA E RACIONALIZAÇÃO FRENTE AOS PRINCÍPIOS CONSTITUCIONAIS

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the constitutional and procedural limits of artificial inteligence in the application of precedents in brazilian civil proceedings, given the promise of legal certainty and the risk of mass decision-making and non-compliance with due process, adversarial proceedings, and the reasoning behind decisions. The research adopts a qualitative, comprehensive legal approach, including a literature review, legislative analysis, and examination of recent normative documents. The consolidation of the precedent culture with the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC/2015) sought to promote greater jurisprudential uniformity and decision-making predictability, bringing the brazilian model closer to the common law tradition. Despite advances, the system revealed vulnerabilities, such as the tendency toward massified and automatic reproduction of decisions, to the detriment of adequate reasoning and individualized analysis of each case. In this context, the introduction of artificial intelligence in the Judiciary has broadened the discussion. Initially applied in administrative activities, AI has also begun to be used in the identification and application of precedents, promising gains in efficiency and standardization. However, this incorporation raises significant constitutional concerns, particularly regarding due process, adversarial proceedings, and the justification of decisions. The study's central focus lies in the tension between algorithmic rationality and legal rationality. While algorithms operate according to statistical and probabilistic standards, judicial activity requires deliberation and reasoning case-by-case. This difference highlights the risks of excessive automation in the application of precedents and reinforces the need for clear limits on the use of technology. CNJ Resolution nº. 615/2025 represents a regulatory milestone by establishing governance and transparency guidelines for the use of AI in the Judiciary. However, it still presents significant gaps, such as the absence of effective control mechanisms and guarantees regarding the participation of parties in the decision-making process. The conclusion is that the use of AI in the precedent system is an irreversible trend, but one that must remain subordinate to the constitutional principles that legitimize jurisdiction. The compatibility between technological efficiency and fundamental guarantees constitutes the main contemporary challenge, requiring continuous regulation and critical vigilance so that the search for speed does not compromise legal certainty or the individualization of decisions.