Ministers listened to the Sheet state that the proposals under discussion to adapt to the court’s requirements have gaps and do not fully comply with the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court.
The position of the judges, however, has been to avoid public comments on the matter, as it is up to Congress to define the new legislation.
The assessment of three ministers and two assistants heard with reservation is that the Supreme Court should only look into the merits of the proposals when Congress approves the new law and the president (PT) sanctions it, which has no deadline to occur .
On Tuesday night (5), the Chamber approved the amendments. The text now goes to , where there is also another project registered.
The outcome, however, still seems distant and unlikely to be achieved this month, in the opinion of the ministers. It cannot be ruled out that the issue will only return to the Supreme Court plenary in 2025.
The president of the Senate, (PSD-MG), stated on Tuesday that he expects the approval of the proposal on the topic by the end of November.
“The important thing is that the National Congress as a whole delivers discipline on amendments in line with what Parliament wants, what the Executive wants and obeying constitutional rules also to guarantee approval in any judicialized discussions within the scope of the Supreme Court”, he said.
The main gaps would be the maintenance of the possibility of collective amendments, such as those by committee, being co-opted by a few influential parliamentarians. The new rules for so-called Pix amendments, which are not currently sent for a specific purpose, are still considered very broad.
The proposals would advance positively, however, by defining which bench amendments must meet structuring projects, prohibiting individual use, and that the amount will be readjusted annually based on indices linked to the framework or inflation.
Understand what amendments are and how they can be in a project approved in the Chamber
Individual and bench splice values
How is it now
Both types of amendments are adjusted based on the previous year’s net current revenue
How would it look
The general rule of the fiscal framework will be in force, with adjustments above inflation according to the country’s growth
Committee amendment funds
How is it now
They can increase in value at discretion in the Budget
How would it look
Values will be limited to the limit of the previous year, updated for inflation
Blocking of parliamentary amendments by the government
How is it now
Government can freely limit only committee amendments
How would it look
Government will only be able to block amendments, whether mandatory or not, if the value is proportional to the frozen non-mandatory expenses
Congress’ objective with the new rules is to authorize the payment of parliamentary amendments starting next year. To unlock this year’s blocked funds, it will be necessary to reformulate the transparency portals and publicize the money allocation process.
The minister received parliamentarians who wrote proposals on the amendments. He spoke with senator Angelo Coronel (PSD-BA) last Wednesday (30) and, on Thursday (31), with deputy Rubens Pereira Júnior (PT-MA).
At both meetings, Dino listened to the proposals and did not make specific comments about the rules stipulated in the texts. He limited himself to highlighting point by point the decision of the Supreme Court plenary, which determined the reformulation of parliamentary amendments.
Rubens’ proximity to Dino was one of the arguments presented in Congress to indicate that the Supreme Court minister had endorsed the deputy’s proposal.
Despite being old allies in Maranhão politics, the two are currently part of different groups. Dino decided to distance himself from (PSB) due to political differences, and Rubens remains close to the head of the Executive of Maranhão.
Dino is the rapporteur at the Supreme Court of actions that question the constitutionality of parliamentary amendments.
The initial focus of the processes was the transparency of rapporteur amendments — a mechanism created by Congress during the government () to concentrate the allocation of resources to politicians’ electoral strongholds as a bargaining chip in negotiations.
The action on this modality ended up being used to question the constitutionality of the committee’s amendments. Congress increased the funding after the end of the rapporteur’s amendments — maintaining the lack of transparency and the use of money to serve its electoral strongholds.
It was Dino who decided, last August, to suspend payment for amendments until there is “prior and total traceability”. The amendments were blocked unanimously.
The decision dealt with broader issues, such as the need for transparency and traceability of parliamentary amendments and the efficiency of this budget in delivering goods and services to society.
This STF decision refers to amendments already in progress. The bill that advanced in the Chamber defines rules for the future scenario, starting with the 2025 Budget.
In a meeting between the ministers of the Supreme Court, the presidents of the Chamber and the Senate and minister Jorge Messias, from the (Attorney General of the Union), an agreement was reached for Congress to approve a law defining new rules on the subject.
The agreement involves the requirement for prior identification of the object of the amendment, prioritization of unfinished works and reservation of bench amendments for projects of national or regional interest.
Due to the agreement between the Powers, the amendments also cannot grow more than the federal government’s discretionary expenses — preventing the amount in the hands of parliamentarians from being greater than the money that the Executive has to carry out works.
The approval of the project in the Chamber was criticized by the NGOs Transparência Brasil, Transparência Internacional and Contas Abertas. In a note, the entities state that the proposal contains “serious flaws and omissions” and does not meet the requirements set by the Supreme Court.
He cited, for example, the situation with the Pix amendments, stating that “many of the problems with the proposed regulations will persist”. “The logic of extreme freedom in the use of public money is maintained, which is incompatible with the Constitution.”
