Public Prosecution's Office, Judicializations and Extrajudicial Proceedings in Health: the case of MPSP
The Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) is extremely important in the judicialization of public policies, especially in the policy of health. It has an important mechanism for extrajudicial action, which gives the institution high levels of discretion. This work was guided by two research questions: what are the Public Prosecutor’s Office from the State of São Paulo (MPSP) strategies in the defense of the right to health? Why the MPSP uses the Class Action or Ação Civil Pública (ACP) in order to support individual rights, even when it serves to defend collective goods? The main objective was to map the performance of MPSP in order to comprehend the defense of the right to health strategies by the prosecutors. In order to answer the first question, about the performance in defense to health by MPSP, we bring up quantitative data, extrajudicial procedures documents and ACP documents. This way, it was possible to comprehend the profile of the MPSP extrajudicial and judicial activities. Thus, the data information was complemented by semi-structured interviews. The method to answer the second question were the interviews. Regarding the profile of the Class Action and extrajudicial procedures, these two differ in various aspects. The Class Actions indicate a performance based on defense of individual rights, while the extrajudicial procedures are related to the defense of the consumer right and administrative impropriety. Yet, about the extrajudicial performance, the same is not limited to the Civil Inquiry, Conduct Adjustment Terms, recommendations and public hearings. Answering the second question, there is a conceptual problem in the use of the ACP denomination. Prosecutors use this name referring to the law nº 7.347/85 (Law of Class Action), as well as to any action proposed by them. The research appoints the importance of deepening the investigation into the extrajudicial performance, bordering the analysis to understand the use of administrative impropriety procedures; the interaction between the MP and other institutions; and the effects on the MP performance in public policies.