Response to the STF: Chamber says that leaders followed the government’s opinion when indicating amendment

the Chamber of Deputies sent, on Friday night (27), a petition to the Court in which it justifies the indications of the so-called parliamentary committee amendments.

In a 16-page document, the Legislative House reaffirms that the party leaders who indicated the amendments followed the federal government’s advice to release R$4.2 billion in commission amendments.

According to the Chamber’s petition, the National Congress “was limited to complying with the technical guidelines of the Ministries of Finance, Planning and Budget, Management and Innovation, the Secretariat of Institutional Relations and the Civil House of the Presidency of the Republic, as well as as well as the Federal Attorney General’s Office, on the way in which indications should be forwarded in accordance with the decisions in these files and with Complementary Law 210/2024″.

The Chamber’s statement is signed by the House’s lawyer, Jules Michelet Pereira Queiroz e Silva. According to the document, the Chamber “reiterates the full legality” of the process for indicating amendments by party leaders.

Still according to the Chamber, it is not up to the House itself to file an appeal against Flávio Dino’s determination that suspended payment of the commission amendments.

The House commanded by the federal deputy Arthur Lira (PP-AL) further states that the new guidelines for nominating commission amendments are only valid from 2025 onwards and that the procedure adopted this year followed the Executive’s guidelines.

“Regarding question (1), it is clarified that, until November 25, 2024, there was no date for the publication of Complementary Law no. 210, providing that the indications for committee amendments would have to be voted on by the respective collegiate bodies”, says the text.

“Regarding the topic, in fact, the Court’s decision of December 9, 2024 made a clear time frame regarding the applicability of Complementary Law 210 only to 2025, not to 2024”, explains the Chamber.

“The premise must be insisted: the National Congress, both the Senate and the Chamber, adopted the previous guidelines of the Executive Branch, precisely because the committee amendments are not binding.”

In the document, the Chamber’s lawyer notes that the Budget is a responsibility of the Chamber and the Senate and questions why only deputies would be harmed by the suspension of payment of resources.

“All respective regulations were approved by the National Congress. The budget piece is prepared by the National Congress. The technical guidelines of the Executive Branch were directed to the National Congress”, says the text.

“Hence the strangeness that only the Chamber of Deputies is participating at this moment in institutional dialogue with the Supreme Court, for the purpose of improving the budgetary process of parliamentary amendments, when the competence for the matter lies with the National Congress, when the Senate of the Republic adopted a procedure strictly identical to that of the Chamber of Deputies and when both Houses limited themselves to following previous technical guidelines from the Executive Branch, for the purpose of merely forwarding indications that are not even mandatory”, concludes the defender of the Legislative House.

Dino had given a deadline of 8 p.m.

The demonstration by the Chamber of Deputies met the determination of Minister Flávio Dino, of the STF, for the Chamber to respond “objectively” to a series of questions on the topic.

In general, the minister wanted to know when these amendments were approved by the Chamber committees, if there were additional nominations included in the list after the thematic committee meetings and who made and approved these nominations.

Dino also asked the deputies how the 2006 resolution of the National Congress that regulates the Mixed Budget Committee (CMO) provides for the processing of amendments.

The Supreme Court minister also questioned where the rules used by Congress to approve these amendments are determined – if they are not in the 2006 resolution.

See the full questions from Flávio Dino to the Chamber of Deputies:

• When the specifications or indications of the “commission amendments” (RP 8) contained in Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? Were all 5,449 specifications or indications of “commission amendments” contained in the Official Letter approved by the Commissions? Are there specifications or indications of “committee amendments” that have not been approved by the Committees? If they were not approved by the Commissions, who approved them?
• What appears in the table of specifications or indications of “commission amendments” (RP 8) as “NEW INDICATION” was formulated by whom? Which instance was it approved by? The Gentlemen Leaders? The President of the Commission? The Commission?
• Which precept of Resolution no. 001/2006, from the National Congress, is the basis for the aforementioned Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? As Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024 is compatible with arts. 43 and 44 of the aforementioned Resolution?
• There is another normative act that legitimizes the aforementioned Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? If so, which one, in which article and when published?

The imbroglio of amendments

Last Tuesday (24), which should determine the release of R$4.2 billion of so-called parliamentary committee amendments whose authors were not properly identified.

within the scope of the decision last Monday (23) that suspended payment of the amendments, in a new escalation of tension between the Judiciary and Legislative Powers that marked this year.

Of the amount, around R$180 million refers to “new nominations” and R$73 million is allocated to the state of Alagoas, the political-electoral birthplace of the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL) – who is saying goodbye to command of the House, a position he will only hold until the end of January 2025.

Parliamentary amendments, which are foreseen within the Budget, are used according to the indication of deputies and senators – the money, in general, is sent by parliamentarians to meet their electoral bases. The execution of these funds is the prerogative of the federal government.

responded to a request presented by PSOL, which alleged irregularities in the allocation of R$4.2 billion in the so-called commission amendments.

This category of parliamentary amendments is indicated by thematic committees of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate – and there is no mandatory payment. After the rapporteur’s amendments were overturned by the Supreme Court, the committee amendments were expanded.

In the petition presented to the STF, PSOL questioned the letter that authorized the transfer of funds. The document was forwarded by Arthur Lira, on the 12th, with the signature of 17 party leaders in the House.

In the action to the Supreme Court, PSOL claims that part of the amendments were destined for the state of Lira, Alagoas, which would be illegal. Through the Ministry of the Civil House, the federal government did not see any irregularity and authorized the transfer.

In his decision, Flávio Dino demanded that the Chamber publish, within a period of up to five days, the minutes of the committee meetings in which the amendments were approved. These minutes should be forwarded to the Institutional Relations Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, commanded by the minister Alexandre Padilha (PT).

Also according to Dino’s order, payment for amendments will only be released after the minutes arrive at Palácio do Planalto – and as long as they meet the transparency and traceability criteria previously defined by the Court.

“Such institutional degradation constitutes an unacceptable series of unconstitutionalities, demanding the persevering action of the Federal Supreme Court”, noted Flávio Dino in his decision.

Chamber requests release of payment

the Chamber requested a review of the decision that ordered the suspension of payment for the amendments. The 22-page petition is signed by lawyer Jules Michelet Pereira Queiroz e Silva.

In the document, the defender refutes the action proposed by PSOL, the Partido Novo and the entities Associação Contas Abertas, Transparência Brasil and Transparência Internacional, which claimed that the indication of more than 5.4 thousand amendments would have occurred without the approval of the commissions and in the period in which collegiate meetings had been suspended by Arthur Lira, between December 12th and 20th.

“With due respect, the petitioners’ arguments do not correspond to the truth and reveal a profound lack of knowledge of the budgetary legislative process. This imprecise and decontextualized information prevents the correct assessment and valuation of the facts”, says the Chamber’s lawyer.

The Chamber’s defense claims that the amendments were approved by committees throughout the legislative cycle. “The approval of amendments by the committees takes place based on suggestions made by parliamentarians and formally approved by the collegiate bodies. After approval and sanction, nominations are made to the Executive Branch which, according to the LDO [Lei de Diretrizes Orçamentárias] for the 2024 financial year, they are not binding”, says the defense of the Legislative House.

Executive lost power over budget

In recent years, successive governments have gradually lost power over the execution of the federal budget. In 2015, still during the government of the former president Dilma Rousseff (PT)the National Congress approved the imposing budget, through which amendments intended for deputies and senators must be paid, obligatorily, by the federal government.

In the government of the former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL)the so-called “Pix amendments” were instituted, expanding the share of resources under the Legislative umbrella. Today, Congress holds around R$60 billion of the budget, which represents almost the same volume commanded by the federal Executive.