The minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), countered this Friday (27) allegations that the Court is responsible for a slow in the execution of parliamentary amendments.
The statement was made at a public hearing called by the minister to the so -called budget -imposing amendments.
Presidents of, (-PB), and, (-AP), had the presence provided for in the meeting and rehearsed, according to the Sheet showed ,. Both already during the progress of the session.
“As for a supposed slowness in execution, there is a general idea that this was defined exclusively by the Supreme. Exhibitions remembered that it was a conversation of all powers. It is a process ongoing,” said Dino.
In at least two moments during the event, the magistrate addressed the theme. He denied there is any delay in dealing with releases.
“It was a concertation of all the powers that resulted in Complementary Law 210, directing the Work Plan. Remembering, therefore, that this new rite derived from a deliberation of all powers, not only from the Supreme,” he said.
Congress control over the federal budget and is the main reason for the current empowerment of deputies and senators.
Parliamentary amendments total R $ 50 billion a year. Of this value, 77% are of an imposing character, that is, of mandatory execution by the government.
Still at the opening of the session, the minister said that when it comes to private money, each one spends as well to understand, but the money is public, and attention is needed to constitutional determinations.
“The clarification I make is in the alleged slowness of the Supreme Court in the execution of public money. Obviously, when it comes to private law, each has the full autonomy of spending where, in form, and the speed they desire. In the case of public law, it is clear that there is a due process ruled in the Constitution. Bureaucracy is inherent in the good application of public law. Obviously there may be a complication in the means, but the object is the constitution,” he said.
The governor of Mato Grosso, (), represented the National Forum of Governors. According to him, the theme is important for all levels of the Federation not only because states are amendment receptors, but because local executives heads have to manage the amendments created by symmetries in the assemblies.
“Today this mechanism serves much more as an instrument of political management and individual interests than in collective interest. In my state, it is $ 600 million applied and the anomalies begin to happen, have already created the bench amendments.”
The tax budget was approved in 2015 to make the execution of individual parliamentary amendments to the budget mandatory. In 2019, the payment requirement was expanded to state bench amendments.
In the morning, all lines were harsh about the mechanism, using terms such as “anomaly”, “state of unconstitutional affairs”, “distortion” and “instrument of individual interest.” In the afternoon, the representatives of the two legislature houses defended the system.
Gabrielle Tath Pereira, Senate’s general lawyer, argued that the emergence of RPS (identification codes) gave transparency and traceability to the execution of the amendments-on the points cited by Dino in most of the decisions.
“Impositivity emerges as an important instrument for the preservation of parliamentary minorities in the allocation of budgetary public resources, ensuring equity in the treatment of federated entities and elected representatives,” he said.
The House spoke of lawyer Jules Michelet, who reinforced the argument of parliamentary minorities and also spoke in the democratization of the budget, made, according to other means, for the amendments.
In 2015, each deputy and senator had under his control $ 16 million, and the government had the possibility of not paying any penny, if he wanted to.
This year, each deputy indicated R $ 37.3 million in individual amendments, and each senator, R $ 68.5 million. In the case of benches, each state will receive R $ 528.9 million. Now the government is required to execute these values.
The total estimated increase, according to calculations by economist Felipe Salto, was 700%. According to him, the problems are lack of transparency, inefficiency of resource use, and enormous difficulty in executing fiscal policy, as well as tieing the executive.
Marcia Semer, representing the Public Lawyers and Lawyers Association for Democracy, said that the introduction of the figure of imposing amendments was a subversion of the model defined by the Constitution. FGV Public Finance Professor Élida Pinto related the mechanism to historical scandals of Parliament.
The Attorney General of the Union, on the other hand, defended the harmonic action and a mature negotiation between the powers for the solution of the theme.
“For this, it is essential that each instance respects the role of the other, avoiding the accentuation of conflicts that can interdict progress and disturb the pursuit of public interest,” he said.
Messias stated that the actions under discussion were presented before the edition of the November 2024 Complementary Law, issued after the institutional dialogue aimed at consensus among the powers.
The minister’s speech focused on what he called advances after the Supreme’s first decisions, dialogues between the powers and the end of the end of 2024.
Budget amendments are the instrument used by parliamentarians to send money to works and investments in their electoral bases. Resources are often exchanged for support in, and part of the money is also the subject of investigations into alleged deviations and fraud.
