The ministers of the (Supreme Court) and received in 2024 retroactive penduluts of organs from where they worked before the judiciary – as well as other prosecutors and prosecutors who joined the institution.
During the 12 months of the year, Moraes won from MP-SP (Public Prosecutor of the State of São Paulo), where he held the position of Prosecutor between 1991 and 2002, a total net amount of R $ 177,645.76.
Corte Dean, Gilmar served as prosecutor of the Republic by the Federal Prosecutor from 1985 to 1988. After that, he was assigned to other bodies, but continued to be linked to the MPF until 2002. In December and March last year, he received from the institution R $ 109,893.76, according to the Transparency Portal.
The total net remuneration of Moraes in the STF in 2024 was R $ 364 thousand and Gilmar’s, R $ 382 thousand. In practice, the funds received from the Public Prosecution Service turbocharged their annual income at 49% and 29%, respectively.
Payment of penduricals in the judiciary that exceed the constitutional ceiling (R $ 44 thousand in 2024 and R $ 46 thousand in 2025, equivalent to the gross salary of a Supreme Minister) has been a reason for controversy after the disclosure of cases in courts that reach hundreds of thousands of reais in a single month.
These funds that escape the remuneration limit include diverse compensation, such as aid for food, health, housing, permanence allowances and other retroactive rights.
The fact that a magistrate like Moraes and Gilmar receive money for being part of a career in the prosecutor, who is part of processes in the Supreme, faces questions from part of the experts consulted by Sheet “Another part considers it to be a right and says you don’t see problems.”
Asked, the MP-SP argued that there was no “minimum controversy”. According to the agency, the transfers to Moraes correspond to payments due to delay that are being settled in a schedule adapted to the budget availability of the institution.
“These backwards are recognized by law and judicial decisions,” he says, noting that the amount (which does not enter the ceiling of the functionalism) was recognized by decision of the CNMP (National Council of the Public Prosecution Service) in the administrative field.
Similarly, the MPF says that this type of payment is due to people who integrate or integrated the agency in a certain period and that all payments of the Union Public Prosecution Service, of which they are part, strictly follow the rules set by CNMP.
In addition to the MPF and MP-SP, the report tried to listen to the STF and ministers Alexandre de Moraes and Gilmar Mendes. Of these, only the last one returned, saying in response to the office that would not officially speak.
For Rafael Viegas, political scientist, professor at FGV-SP and researcher at ENAP, class associations of these careers act in such a way, with communication strategies, lobby and advocacy on various fronts that it would be possible to speak of conflict of interest.
“The different forms of interaction that these associations have inside and outside the state with public and private agencies enable us to arise this type of hypothesis: that it is part of the strategy of certain associations to benefit [autoridades] and influence potential decisions, “he says.
“They are so capillarized and the lobby they exercise is so predatory that this hypothesis can be sparked. It’s not a fantasy. It’s not something beyond reality, on the contrary,” he says. “[É] a type of corporatism that makes no effort to achieve your goals. “
The researcher refers to entities that advocate career interests, such as ANPR (National Association of Prosecutors) or APMP (Paulista Association of the Public Prosecution Service), of which Moraes was even secretary between 1994 and 1996.
In response, Ubiratan Cazetta, president of ANPR, says the idea that it can all be a lobby strategy is something disconnected from reality. “We do our convincing work, yes, but not through retroactive payments to anyone.”
APMP states in a statement that “its action for respect for the legislation and ethical principles” and that “defends the rights and prerogatives of its members on all fronts”, including Minister Alexandre de Moraes.
Juliana Sakai, executive director of Transparency Brazil, agrees that it would be possible to speak of a possible conflict of interest, as it is a private interest (receipt of money) and may influence a decision of a public agent.
Sakai recalls that there is a constant problem of institutions such as CNMP or the (National Council of Justice), in the case of the judiciary, approving new hangers that end up dribbling the ceiling for their own benefit.
The logic is similar in justice and the prosecutor. Laws, administrative acts and measures approved by the councils authorize the payment of or limited to it, but which increase the final gain.
“This is another problem of: who decides is the benefit of the decision-an excrescence in terms of good governance and frontally against the principle of impersonality in public administration,” says the executive director.
Lawyer Felippe Angeli, Advocacy coordinator of the Platform, says that a magistrate receive retroactive benefits from the Public Prosecution Service would not, in itself, characterize a conflict of interest.
“I understand the controversy of the matter, but it is a little bold to directly classify this as a conflict of interest, because the generator is something that occurred in the past, in the past profession. And if it is due, it is due,” says the expert.
In the end, he continues, although the situation concerns the ministers of the Supreme, the judiciary summit, the career transition and the evolution itself within the same power are common situations to the legal world.
“We often have a jurist, whether judge, a prosecutor, lawyer, who was on another side of the counter, lawyers who rise to the courts for the fifth constitutional and who were often contrary parts in other situations. This is part of the model.”
The Professor of Administrative Law Thiago Marrara, from USP of Ribeirão Preto, also says no problem considering that the ministers have a credit officially recognized by a judicial or administrative decision, which concerns the moment when they performed the function.
“There would be no conflict of interest, because this is not a voluntary payment,” he says. “It may be necessary to recognize that at the time they were linked to their career, they were entitled to something that the state did not pay. So recognition is done in administrative or judicial proceedings to be able to pay, even later. The fact that they took another position does not remove that credit.”
