“Legislative manumission” was the term used by deputies and senators, ten years ago, to celebrate the change in the Federal Constitution that is now considered the starting point for Brazil.
It was the Constitutional Amendment 86, promulgated on March 17, 2015, which forced the Executive to pay the requests by congressmen and inaugurated a period of increasing control of the budget by the legislature, changing the way of doing politics in the country.
In practice, what has been seen in the last decade was an application of these resources marked by, absence of, clientelism and, in many cases ,.
The government, which previously had full control over the release of and used these funds in exchange for support, lost the ability to negotiate and today has only the payment deadlines. The parliamentarians have gained more autonomy and influence on their electoral bases.
Problems in the use of amendments led the judiciary to intervene, and today there is one between the (Supreme Court) and parliamentarians who to hide the names of the groomsmen of the amendments.
The most recent episode of the clash occurred last Thursday (13), when Congress, under the pretext of meeting the transparency requirements of the Court, approved a resolution that sign the commission amendments, without the identification of the original author.
Ten years ago, when Constitutional Amendment 86 was being discussed, the impasse was in the opposite direction, with congressmen criticizing government control over the amendments, created in the 1988 Constitution.
“[Tornar o pagamento desses recursos obrigatório] It will end the humiliating practice of staying at the gates of ministries in search of the release of an amendment that is a legitimate instrument of this house, “said the project rapporteur, former deputy Edio Lopes (then no -RR).
According to Deputy Adriana Ventura (Novo-SP), coordinator of the Parliamentary Front of Inspection, Integrity and Transparency, the purpose of the new rule was to end bargain, giving equal rights to the amendments to all parliamentarians: “But in practice they only stipulated one floor, and people were eager for more,” he says.
The effect, then, was just a dizzying growth in the volume of bargaining public money. In a decade, the $ 6 billion that congressmen had in amendments (in corrected values) diversified and exploded to about $ 50 billion this year in total.
At that time, each parliamentarian was entitled to a maximum of R $ 16 million individually (the equivalent of R $ 26 million today). Now, each deputy has $ 38 million, and each senator, about $ 70 million to send to their electoral strongholds, not to mention the other types of collective amendments.
The expansion has always been allowed with the support of parties from all political spectra, either from the base or the opposition. Constitutional Amendment 86, for example, was approved with 452 votes in favor and only 18 against the House.
The context in 2015 was weakening the presidency of (), which would suffer just over a year later. Two days before the promulgation of the change, thousands went to the streets to protest against their management and support Operation Lava Jato.
(Today at PRD-RJ) had just been elected president of the house, with the promise of guiding the vote.
Lawyer José Eduardo Cardozo, then Justice Minister, says the government was “radically opposed” to the obligation to pay the amendments, but had no political strength to curb the idea: “The government had lost most [no Congresso]there was no alternative “.
“So she [Dilma] Sit and talk to dialogue about it, but it was almost a surrender, “he says.” It’s a process that came over time. The 1988 Constitution had already given very strong powers to the legislature. Until it arrives at this point, when you take advantage of a moment of fragility of the executive. “
Parliamentarians complained, for example, of the political use of funds, the accumulation of commitments at the end of the year – causing the execution of agreements – and the exaggerated power of ministers and bureaucrats on the budget, arguing that parliamentarians know the needs of their states and municipalities better.
Using these arguments, Congress continued to redesign the budget regime to its advantage through three other constitutional amendments, those of number 100, 105 and 126, all approved during the government of ().
The first, 2019, forced the executive to pay also the amendments of the state benches. In the same year, the second created the so -called pix amendments, transferred directly to the boxes of municipalities and states. In 2022, the third raised the value of the ceiling of individual amendments from 1.2% to 2% of the country’s net current revenue.
The Professor of Constitutional Law at FGV Law SP Oscar Vilhena states that Bolsonaro was the president who had, considering presidential mandates already completed, the lowest dominance rate on the legislature. “He was the president with the lowest number of projects of the executive approved by the legislator. A weak president who ruled the trailer of the legislature,” he says.
Survey made by him in partnership with ESPM Ana Laura Barbosa’s Constitutional Law teacher shows that during Bolsonaro management the largest number of constitutional amendments were approved in the last 35 years, but most of them were proposed by the legislature.
In the third term, there are no initiatives to change the current scenario of parliamentary amendments, and the protagonism of the fight against the lack of transparency was assumed by the Supreme Court.
For Gabriela de Brelaz, UNIFESP’s public administration professor, the country should return to the model ten years ago: “The old value was ok and had transparency. Today has increased four times, besides the electoral fund that also grew radically. This is all money for the parliamentarian to lie down and roll. This defines who wins the elections, defines democracy.”
A Sheet He sought the press office of the mayor, (-PB), President of, (Union-AP), the 2025 Budget Rapporteur, Senator Angelo Coronel (PSD-BA), and former mayor, (-Al), but none of the congressmen complied with the request for demonstration of the report.
