On Wednesday (14), Flávio Dino, Minister of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), suspended all mandatory amendments requesting resources for their political bases presented by deputies and senators until Congress enacts new rules to ensure the release of funds is transparent and traceable. The decision provoked a retaliatory response by the Congress leaders, who stalled the analysis of bills important for the government and the Judiciary, and moved another that limits the STF actions.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
To unlock this content, subscribe to INTERLIRA Reports.
What They Are
Mandatory amendments for resources include those made by parliamentary groups, individual amendments with a defined purpose, and special transfers, commonly known as “Pix amendments.”
What the Justice Says
According to Flávio Dino, the mistaken practical design of mandatory amendments has led to the ‘parliamentarization’ of public spending without the existence of a system of political and administrative responsibility inherent to parliamentarism. He also stated that implementing amendments to the Budget that do not comply with technical criteria of efficiency, transparency, and traceability would not be compatible with the Federal Constitution, and any interpretation that confers an absolute nature to the imposition of parliamentary amendments is prohibited.
Increase of over 5,000%
One of the primary ways for deputies and senators to send money to their electoral strongholds, committee amendments saw a 5,912% increase in the amounts paid compared to 2022. Data from Siga Brasil, a Senate system with Budget information, indicates that the payments for this modality went from R$136 million two years ago to R$8.2 billion in 2024.
Interference by President Lula
Key players assess that there is direct interference by representatives of the Lula government (PT) in Minister Flávio Dino’s decisions that led to the paralysis of parliamentary amendments, opening up a new front of friction between the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches. The discomfort was aggravated on Thursday (15) with a statement by President Lula (PT), which was interpreted by members of parliament as proof that the Executive Branch had participated in this move by the Supreme Court minister. The president stated that there is “no country in the world where the National Congress has sequestered part of the Budget for itself to the detriment of the Executive Branch,” as he claims has happened in Brazil.
First Response from Congress
In response, congressmen postponed the conclusion of the vote on the second bill regulating tax reform, a priority for the government. They also did not vote on the bill that creates the Acredita program, which stimulates credit for entrepreneurs and low-income families — the text must be voted on by the 20th when the Executive Branch’s provisional measure expires. Now, these bills will only be voted on in the last week of August.
Second Response
The second move came from the Joint Budget Committee (CMO), with the Judiciary as the target. The panel rejected the provisional measure sent by the Executive Branch that opened an extraordinary credit of R$1.35 billion to the Judiciary. The decision still needs to be validated or not in the plenary of the Chamber. Federal Chamber President Arthur Lira also brought forward a proposal that limits decisions made by the Supreme Court (STF).
Search for Solutions
The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate are discussing changes to the model for parliamentary amendments in an attempt to counter the court ruling. The primary negotiated solution likely involves the approval of a bill that amends the 2024 Budget Guidelines Law (LDO), requiring parliamentarians to present the “object” of the project that will receive funding, which is currently not required. The idea aligns with advancing a proposal that brings more transparency to PIX amendments.
Analysis:
The suspension of mandatory amendments by Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino represents a significant shift in the balance of power between Brazil’s Legislative and Judiciary. The move, aimed at ensuring transparency and traceability in the allocation of public funds, underscores the growing concerns about the “parliamentarization” of public spending. By freezing these amendments, which have become a primary tool for deputies and senators to channel resources to their electoral bases, Dino’s decision challenges a long-standing practice in Brazilian politics.
This friction is further exacerbated by the Legislature’s swift retaliation, with the rejection of an extraordinary credit request for the Judiciary by the Joint Budget Committee.
This standoff, if prolonged, could destabilize the relationship between Brazil’s branches of government, complicating governance and potentially leading to a broader constitutional crisis. The unfolding situation highlights the delicate balance of power in Brazil’s political system and the significant influence that fiscal control wields within it.
