Members of what promote an offensive to weaken and defend the approval of an amendment that ensures that any amendment will only come into force after regulation by complementary law.
The PEC defines that compensation funds —— must remain within the public service ceiling, and that exceptions must be dealt with in complementary law.
A Sheet had access to the draft of an amendment that maintains these payments until the regulation is approved.
The document is already circulating among deputies and was articulated by representatives of entities linked to the judiciary, the Public Ministry and the Public Defender’s Office — careers that have led the pressure against the cut in super salaries provided for in the PEC.
For experts and parliamentarians, the tendency is for the understanding to prevail that the penduricalhos above the ceiling remain valid until the supplementary standard is issued.
Internally, the government’s own Ministry of Management and Integration () works with this scenario. The department tries to speed up regulation, so that it can be done soon after the approval of the PEC.
PEC 45 is one of the measures in the Finance Minister’s spending cut package, to try to adjust the Union’s expenses and comply with the fiscal framework. One of its main points is to tighten rules against super salaries.
Currently, the Federal Constitution prohibits the payment of remuneration in public service above what ministers of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) receive: R$ 44 thousand, the constitutional ceiling. However, benefits and assistance from the Judiciary are classified as compensation, and paid outside the rules.
The current text of the Constitution says that the payment of “compensation installments provided for by law” will not be considered for the purposes of the constitutional ceiling.
The PEC proposes changing the section to: “Only those who can be exempt from the remuneration limits […] the indemnity installments expressly provided for in complementary law”.
The amendment to change the proposal adds that “[esse dispositivo] will only come into force when the complementary national law is approved”.
“This amendment proposes to grant greater legal certainty”, says the draft in its justification.
The articulation against the PEC of super salaries works on two fronts. Both a slow regulatory process and the inclusion of different exceptions in the standard to include different compensation amounts.
José Jerônimo Nogueira de Lima, lawyer in the Administrative Law area at Innocenti Advogados, understands that there is room to argue that the PEC takes immediate effect. However, he says that historically compensation issues depend on regulation.
“The text [da PEC] As proposed, it has limited effectiveness, as it attributes to the complementary law the definition of the remuneration installments that will be excluded from the remuneration limit”, he states.
The requirement for a law to deal with compensation funds also appears in an amendment to the Constitution approved in 2005.
Following this understanding, even if the PEC is enacted with the original text (without the amendment), super salaries can remain as they are until the complementary law defines the exceptions.
The topic, however, generates disagreements among lawyers. There is a wing that understands that changes to the Constitution have immediate effect. In other words, the hangings above the ceiling would have to be cut.
“There would obviously be an incompatibility of the trinkets, which are not expressly provided for in addition and would be at odds with this PEC”, says Juliana Sakai, executive director of Transparência Brasil.
“There is an effort by the Judiciary to twist legislation, to twist the Constitution itself, the constitutional ceiling, the definition of what remuneration is, in order to increase their earnings”, he adds.
Adenir Carruesco, federal judge who presides over Coleprecor (College of Presidents and Inspectors of the Regional Labor Courts), defends a transitional provision for compensation. She argues that the immediate impact on pay could lead to mass retirement requests, as the additional tenure would be limited.
“I see this fiscal adjustment as absolutely necessary”, says the federal judge, for whom a discussion about extrapolating the salary ceiling is possible. “The question is the effect this causes in an immediate measure. With the situation we have, without having any device to mitigate it, there is a risk of compromising judicial provision.”
The PEC also provides that state courts are subject to limitation. The current rule does not have this cascade effect. There is, therefore, a dispersion of standards, allowing states to create their own privileges.
