It approved, this Thursday (13), a resolution project that dribbles the Supreme Court (Supreme Court) and maintains.
The article was approved by 361 to 33 between deputies and 64 to 3 among senators. She was the only item on the session’s agenda.
The proposal – made by the tables of and the federal – is the result of the agreement with the Supreme to give more transparency to the amendments.
He was signed after a series of clashes with Minister Flávio Dino, who reports actions on the subject and even criticized the “swamp” in the Union budget created by these procedures.
How it showed the Sheethowever, the text allows parliamentarians, with only the signature of the acronym leader, without identification of the original author.
The possibility is precisely within the commission amendments, one of Dino’s main targets of criticism ,.
During the session, parliamentarians contrary to the initiative, such as Deputies Glauber Braga (PSOL-RJ) and Adriana Ventura (Novo-SP), also complained that the text was officially filed less than 24 hours before the start of the vote.
President of the Senate and National Congress, (-AP), decided to maintain the deliberation, yet.
The parties requested that the proposal be changed to explain the author of the amendments indicated by the benches, which was not accepted by the rapporteur Eduardo Gomes (PL-to).
They also tried to present a highlight for this stretch to be removed from the resolution, but alcohubre argued that the measure had no protection in the regiment of Congress and rejected it without vote.
The initial draft contained a device that, as the UOL showed ,. The stretch was taken from the text after protest of deputies.
Dino’s initiatives on parliamentary amendments had their highlight at the end of last year, when the minister made transparency requirements for the application of resources, suspended payments and called the Federal Police to investigate possible irregularities.
The measures opened a crisis with Congress, especially with the then mayor, Arthur Lira (PP-AL).
Commission amendments were turbocharged by Lira after overthrowing, by the STF itself in 2022, of the rapporteur funds, which had no transparency mechanisms.
Parliamentarians then used the resources of Congress’ thematic committees to direct money to their electoral strongholds without identifying their godparents.
Dino then required more transparency and that the indications were voted by the collegiate. He criticized the mechanism for turning commission amendments into “party leaders’ amendments,” as these were the only names that appeared in official records.
Lira maneuvered and dribbled the determination so that there was no vote and for the nominations to be signed together by the House leaders, once again hiding the original authors.
The resolution approved on Thursday, which should adapt the rites of the amendments to give more transparency, kept the mechanism of nomination by the party leader alive.
At first, the text requires the identification, in each amendment, of the parliamentarians that make up the thematic committees.
Later, however, it allows indications to be made to the commissions through the countertops of each acronym, requiring only the signature “by party leaders”, accompanied by a form.
In this form, which contains an annex, information such as municipality and CNPJ of the favored, value, final beneficiary, amendment code and budget action code to which it represents. It is not required, therefore, that the parliamentary author of the appointment be registered in the document.
In decisions and agreements signed so far in the dispute between Dino and Congress, there was no concept of a party minutes for the indications, but the requirement that transparency was given to the author of the amendment.
The rapporteur Eduardo Gomes even said that he had complied with the request to explain the authors of the nominations of the amendments.
In the text presented by him, however, it was only created the possibility that any parliamentarian can indicate amendments to the commissions, if he wants, without having to pass the leaders.
PSOL and the new deputies then asked the form to clearly change to explain the godfather of the allocation of resources, but Gomes refused to make this change – in practice, therefore, maintaining the gap for these names to remain hidden.
Already in state bench amendments, there is also a similar gap. Initially the text calls for the presentation of a form that indicates the authorship of the author of the amendment, but in a second moment the resolution refers to a different document, in which this name is not required.
NGOs that went to the Supreme to charge more transparency in the destination of amendments published a note on this Thursday by criticizing the measure approved in Congress. They said resolution is a “clear affront to the constitutional principles of advertising and morality” and establishes “a new modality of secret amendment.”
“Thus, a mode of amendment is not created by the Federal Constitution: the party bench.”
