The parliamentary amendment bill (PLP 175/24), approved by Congress last week, imposed a ceiling on the growth of this type of transfer, but frustrated the government’s attempt to regain greater control over the Union’s discretionary budget. Deputies and senators excluded from the text the possibility of blocking funds from the amendments, as the Palácio do Planalto wanted, and must maintain the power to indicate at least R$39 billion in expenses in 2025.
Still, the assessment of politicians and analysts heard by People’s Gazette is that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) must sanction the proposal, built after agreements between the Legislative and Executive. Deputies and senators hope that, after this, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) will release the payment of parliamentary amendments, suspended since August by decision of minister Flávio Dino.
The final text of the regulation of the amendments was articulated by an ally of Dino, the deputy from Maranhão Rubens Pereira Júnior (PT), together with the General Attorney’s Office of the Union, the Civil House and advisors from the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate, in an attempt to resolve the impasse surrounding the transfer of funds by parliamentarians.
The new rules prohibit budget blocking of parliamentary amendments. The economic team sought approval of this section, which ended up being excluded from the approved version of the project, to have an additional option to cut when there is an increase in unforeseen expenses. This year, the government has already blocked R$19.3 billion from the budget of several ministries to comply with the rules of the fiscal framework approved last year.
The text only allows the contingency of amendments, that is, the partial or total suspension of payments when revenue is lower than expected, something more difficult to happen.
Representative Maurício Marcon (Podemos-RS), from the opposition, assesses that parliamentarians managed to maintain autonomy over the amendments, adding a “little additional transparency”, as minister Flávio Dino wanted.
“In reality, Lula, Dino’s ally, tried to take amendments from parliamentarians by creating a smokescreen on transparency. I believe the idea was to capture part of them so that the government, lacking resources, could make some investments, a fact that Congress did not accepted”, concluded the deputy.
Budget Urgency presses for Lula to sanction the amendments project
The project was sent to Lula for sanction, who could still disagree with the text and veto it. However, analysts interviewed by People’s Gazette consider this possibility remote, as the government is facing difficulties in its support base and needs Congress to approve the fiscal adjustment, essential for compliance with the fiscal framework – this year, the government could record a deficit of up to R$28.8 billions in public accounts without breaking the law.
Political consultant Luiz Filipe Freitas, from Malta Advogados, assesses that, due to the little time left until the end of the year and the government’s urgency in approving the budget, “it may not be interesting to have further clashes”, referring to the hypothesis of a presidential veto to the project.
For Freitas, although the text did not guarantee the control over the transfers that the government wanted, it “has the potential to move forward”. Jorge Mizael, from Metapolitics Consultoria, adds that the text was prepared with the participation of the Civil House and that a presidential veto would not make sense.
Deputy Maurício Marcon also assesses that the government will not create problems for the project approved by the deputies. According to him, if Lula does not sanction PLP 175/24, he will run a serious risk of blocking Congress’ agenda.
The leader of Novo in the Chamber, deputy Adriana Ventura, has a series of criticisms of the project. For her, the text will make the implementation of the amendments even worse.
“The problems that exist today in relation to the lack of transparency and criteria for allocating resources will continue, however the project creates a new reserve of resources (a minimum floor) for non-imposing amendments of R$ 11.5 billion”, said the deputy.
Furthermore, Adriana Ventura highlights that the text “destroys the concept of a structuring project”, legalizes the “cracking” in bench amendments, as it does not present rules that identify the author of the amendments, and “maintains the use of committee amendments as a tool to buy political support in parliament”.
Regulation of amendments still needs to be vetted by Lula and Dino
Even if Planalto approves the regulation, the new rules will still depend on the approval of the STF. Minister Flávio Dino must initially assess whether his requirements for traceability and transparency in the Pix and commission amendments have been met. The final decision will be made by the Court’s plenary, in the same way as occurred when the amendments were suspended in August.
According to Dino, the execution of the amendments will only be viable when the Legislative and Executive Powers fully comply with the determinations of the STF, which declared the “secret budget” unconstitutional in December 2022. It was after this decision that parliamentarians intensified the use of the Pix amendments , mandatory transfers made directly to states and municipalities. Dino considers that these amendments still lack clear transparency criteria.
The main changes foreseen in the PL of amendments
According to the approved text, the Pix amendments, which are those for direct transfer to municipalities and states, should prioritize unfinished works and actions in calamity situations. According to the rapporteur of PLP 175/24 in the Chamber, deputy Elmar Nascimento (União-BA), this “will ensure that resources are used in a more efficient and transparent way”. Furthermore, the text specifies that 50% of the committee’s amendments will be allocated to health.
The project also establishes that each state bench may present up to eight amendments. “This ensures that resources are distributed fairly and equitably”, highlights the government leader in the Chamber, deputy José Guimarães (PT-CE).
For the author of the project, deputy Rubens Pereira Júnior, the regulation represents “an important step to guarantee transparency and responsibility in the use of public resources”.
Currently, 3% of the Union’s net current revenue in the previous year is directed to parliamentary amendments (2% for individual and 1% for bench) for the following year. According to the approved text, in 2025 parliamentary amendments for primary expenses will follow the net revenue criterion, except for amendments to correct errors or omissions. In the case of commission amendments, the value will be R$11.5 billion.
From 2026 onwards, the limit will follow the tax regime rule, with the correction of the previous year’s value by the Broad National Consumer Price Index (IPCA) plus real growth equivalent to 70% or 50% of the real growth in primary income of two previous years, depending on whether or not fiscal targets were met.
In the case of commission amendments, the global value will be that of the previous year adjusted by the IPCA for the 12 months ending in June of the year prior to the one to which the voted budget refers.
Entities criticize the project and point out flaws
Since its presentation, the project has been the target of criticism from entities such as Transparência Brasil, Transparência Internacional and Contas Abertas, which monitor public spending. In a joint document, these organizations pointed out at least six serious flaws in the text.
Among the problems listed are the possibility of parliamentarians indicating amendments without disclosing who sponsored the transfer and the lack of punishments if resources are used for works that are unrelated to the originally approved project.
The Senate consultancy released a technical note stating that the project incorporates most of the demands made by the STF, but fails to create mechanisms for applying these rules, which could maintain the situation of unconstitutionality identified by the Judiciary.
