Lawyers criticize attempted IOF conciliation STF

6th (4.JUL.2025) of the Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes to suspend the executive and the National Congress on the IOF (Tax on Financial Operations) and to mark a conciliation hearing between the powers was the target of criticism of lawyers heard by by Poder360.

According to them, the initiative goes beyond the functions of the Court and highlights the political incapacity of the executive and the legislature in resolving their own impasses.

For lawyer André Marsiglia, the conciliation proposed by the Supreme is “Completely strange” to the function of the Court, which judges abstract theses and not concrete conflicts between parties.

“In this case, there is no interest to people. A conciliation is completely foreign to the function of the STF itself, because there is no concrete person who can speak on behalf of that thesis to be conciliated.”he declared.

According to the lawyer, the conciliation is incorrect, because the laws dealing with the lawsuits – a direct action of unconstitutionality and another action of declaration of constitutionality – do not establish such possibility.

Conciliation in the Supreme Court is regulated by the resolution of the Court itself. The standard creates the CMC (Center for Mediation and Conciliation), responsible for the search and implementation of consensual solutions in the Supreme.

It establishes that conciliation can take place at any procedural phase and is the responsibility of the rapporteur’s presidency or criterion. Interested parties can request CMC’s performance in cases that could “Establishing conflicts of jurisdiction originating from the Supreme Court, in order to enable the peaceful solution of the controversy before judicialization.”.

It was the case of industry representative organizations, which to the Supreme to participate in the judgment of the IOF rise. They also asked the rapporteur, Minister Alexandre de Moraes to evaluate a conciliation table to resolve the issue.

The minister brings together. One is the AGU (General Advocacy of the Union), which defends the legality of the Government’s decree. The other two are adis: one moved by the PL (Liberal Party), against the increase in tax, and another presented by the PSOL (Socialism and Freedom Party), against the overthrow of the measure by Congress.

For the constitutionalist lawyer Vera Chemim, however, the judicialization of the subject reveals an institutional dysfunction. According to her, the legislature should have resolved the impasse internally without resorting to the Supreme. “We are facing a dysfunctionality of the legislature, which is not being able to discuss and resolve their own political conflicts”he said.

For Chemine, the decision of Congress should be predominant, as it represents the popular will.

“Democracy has limitations, like any other regime. Well or evil, the will of the majority predominates. This is the democratic principle. If the majority of Congress decide on a theme, they are political representatives of popular will, there is no one to question what one wonders.”he declared.

For chemine, the executive also made a mistake in judicializing the issue, further tensioning the relationship with Congress. “The government should have sought an institutional dialogue before triggering the Supreme Court to try a more or less satisfactory decision for both powers”these.

In Marsiglia’s opinion, the Supreme Court assumes a political and non -legal role. “It seems clear to me that this does not favor Congress. The STF has recurrently had the role of conferring governability to the executive.”he declared.

On Wednesday (2.Jul.2025), the President (PT) in an interview with Jornal da Manhã in Bahia, which “No more governing the country” If you don’t go to court.

Constitutionality

In Post on X, Marsiglia the decision of Moraes as “A legal aberration”. According to him, by recognizing that the Executive Decree had a collection purpose, the STF should have immediately suspended this act and ended the analysis.

“Understanding that the executive decree is not constitutional, its obligation would be to suspend it and judge the analysis of other issues impaired.”he wrote.

In the decision, Moraes said there was “Serious and founded doubt” Regarding whether the presidential decree that raised the IOF sought extrafiscal purpose (which would justify the aliquot change by decree) or if it was eminently a collection, which would be unconstitutional.

Therefore, he granted precautionary measure to prevent the effects of the executive’s decrees and also the legislature, until the clarification, with the conciliation hearing scheduled for July 15.

IMPASSE DO IOF

IOF’s discharge was part of the Ministry of Finance’s strategy to raise the collection and meet goals from the new tax framework. The estimated revenue was a positive impact of R $ 12 billion in 2025.

Congress, however, in symbolic voting in the Senate and expressive in the House – were 383 votes in favor of revocation and 98 contrary. The measure was considered the largest defeat of the government in the House in this mandate.

Eis the IOF’s chronology:

• – In the afternoon, economic team increases IOF via decree to strengthen the collection, with an estimated impact of R $ 20.1 billion in 2025;
• – Near the dawn, the Ministry of Finance reviews part of the decree, reducing the potential revenue to R $ 19.1 billion;
• – After a meeting, Congress gives Haddad 10 days to present alternatives to the IOF decree;
• – Haddad announces a reduction in IOF discharge and sending a provisional measure with increasing other taxes to compensate;
• – Haddad launches provisional measure with increasing other taxes and with changes in tax compensation, with potential collection of R $ 10 billion in 2025;
• – Chamber approves urgency for voting the project to overthrow the discharge of IOF;
• -By surprise, the mayor, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB), announces the project vote at 11:35 pm on a social network;
• – Chamber approves decree fall by 383 votes in favor and 98 against;
• – Senate drops in symbolic vote (without voting count);
• – Government officially triggers the Supreme Court to judge the impasse.