The Senate’s Legislative Consultancy assessed that the Parliamentary Amendments Bill does not meet the requirements of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) regarding traceability and transparency rules for parliamentary amendments. The information is contained in a technical note released this Tuesday (12).
PLP 175/2024, recently approved by the Chamber of Deputies and now under discussion in the Senate, was presented urgently to regulate the execution of parliamentary amendments and comply with decisions made by Minister Flávio Dino on the topic. The issue of amendments, which allow parliamentarians to influence the allocation of federal budget resources, has been the subject of controversy and court decisions that question aspects of constitutionality and transparency.
Technical Note 127/2024 was prepared at the request of Senator Eduardo Girão, who requested an analysis of the constitutionality and technical aspects of the project. The technical note also included a comparative table with previous versions and examined compliance with the requirements imposed by the STF.
In the Senate, the text will be processed urgently with the rapporteur of Senator Angelo Coronel (PSD-BA). The expectation is that senators will present new amendments to the text, taking into account some resistance that was faced in the Chamber plenary.
Analysis and Critical Points
In the technical note, the Senate Consultancy points out that some provisions of PLP 175/2024 raise doubts about constitutionality. “The project proposes new limitations and forms of control for parliamentary amendments, something that the Constitution provides for to be done by Congress resolution. Certain provisions can be questioned for invading the autonomy of the Legislature, by imposing rules via complementary law”, he explains.
Regarding transparency and traceability of amendments, the STF determined that clear rules be included that allow the origin and execution of each amendment to be monitored, promoting more robust social control. However, it was identified that PLP 175/2024 does not fully meet these requirements, as it maintains possibilities for allocating resources without complete tracking.
Another aspect is the limitation for parliamentarians to allocate amendments only to the state for which they were elected. The technical note considers that, although the project adopts this rule for some modalities, it does not fully comply with what was defined by the STF, and the proposed exceptions still allow for gaps in transparent execution and allocation of resources.
The project also proposes a preferential allocation for works and equipment, but the technical note considers that the provisions are very broad and could cover any type of action, losing the focus on structuring projects with great impact. This aspect weakens compliance with the efficiency and relevance criteria required by the STF.
Finally, the Technical Note concludes that, although PLP 175/2024 advances in some points, it still presents significant gaps in relation to meeting the requirements of the STF and the expected transparency. The analysis suggests that adjustments may be necessary for the project to effectively comply with court orders and respect the principles of fiscal responsibility and public control in the implementation of parliamentary amendments.
