In recent years, the Federal Supreme Court has gained prominence in the political-legal scenario due to the oscillations of the Brazilian institutional arrangement, with the crisis of representativeness of the legislative power and with its performance in politically sensitive processes. From the moment the Court is urged to become more actively involved, from a macro point of view, in the interinstitutional dialogue with the other powers, it is necessary to verify, from a micro point of view, the intra-institutional dialogue within the Court itself . That is: it is essential to understand the formation of the Court s decision, and how the dialogue between peers goes along the path of deliberation. The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the situations in which the Court manifests its decision-making power in a collegial manner and how individualization has gained ground in the Court s quantitative production. For this, it is intended to verify whether the current decision-making model meets the deliberative process assigned to the Court. In sequence, we seek to identify which powers are conferred to Ministers individually, as well as the appropriateness of monocratic decisions, with emphasis on the figures of the Minister President and the Minister Rapporteur.