ASSIGNMENT OF COURT-ORDERED PAYMENTS: BETWEEN THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE PROHIBITION OF SOCIAL REGRESSION

Abstract

This article examines, from a constitutional and dogmatic perspective, the practice of assigning judicial precatory claims with substantial discounts, especially those of an alimentary nature, demonstrating that the State’s chronic delay in payment—rather than constituting a mere administrative default—operates as a structural mechanism of violation of human dignity and the existential minimum. Through a hermeneutic and theoretical-legal analysis, the study argues that the forced commodification of such credits produces a form of social backsliding, as it reduces judicially recognized fundamental rights to negotiable assets within a market marked by informational asymmetry, structural vulnerability, and the absence of adequate regulatory safeguards. The investigation further articulates contributions from contemporary theories of justice, particularly those of John Rawls, Amartya Sen, and critical approaches, to demonstrate that the assignment of precatory claims, as currently practiced, simultaneously infringes distributive, procedural, and corrective justice. By allowing vulnerable creditors to relinquish a substantial portion of credits essential to their subsistence, the legal system silently shifts the burden of fiscal imbalance onto those least capable of bearing it, thereby producing distortions incompatible with the constitutional regime of fundamental rights. The article concludes that the constitutionality of the precatory system requires not only the timely payment of such debts by the State, but also the establishment of alternative mechanisms capable of ensuring liquidity without compromising the essential core of the rights at stake, as well as the effective regulation of the secondary market. The research thus demonstrates that the preservation of human dignity and the existential minimum constitutes a material limit to the full commodification of these credits, imposing positive duties upon the State that cannot be overridden by an appeal to private autonomy.