Abstract

The dissenting opinion continues to be present in scholarly debate. Many influential constitutional lawyers have weighed in on it. It is possible to affirm that most scholarship falls in favor of instituting the possibility to dissent. The Court has debated this issue since the very beginning of its existence. Eminent constitutional judges have spoken openly in favor of dissents, but the principle of collegiality, as developed by the Court, has been one of the strongest obstacles to the introduction of separate opinions. This obstacle is amplified by a reluctance to abandon the status quo. Both without and within the Court, the possibility of separate opinions is not considered to be particularly compelling when compared with other constitutional law topics. The chief reason for this is because the Court has performed extremely well compared to other republican powers, and it has shown a remarkable capacity to keep up with transformations of both political parties and society at large.