0
After two days of suspension, the Rio Branco City Council resumed, on Wednesday night (12), the session that analyzed the Executive’s vetoes to the 2026 Budget Guidelines Law (LDO). Of the more than 60 vetoes sent by the City Hall, five were overturned by the councilors, who met in plenary to define the final text of the project that guides the preparation of next year’s budget.
The session, which lasted until the evening, ended with the presence of 12 parliamentarians and put an end to an impasse that had paralyzed legislative work since Tuesday (11). Among the rejected vetoes were amendments in the areas of education, health, social assistance and economic development, presented by different councilors.
Rio Branco Chamber concludes vote on LDO 2026 vetoes and overturns five proposals/Photo: Reproduction
Rio Branco Chamber concludes vote on vetoes on LDO 2026 and overturns five proposals/Photo: ReproductionAmong the highlights is the overturning of the veto on item 31, included in Amendment nº 72/2025, authored by councilor Samir Bestene (PP), which guarantees the implementation of the “Financial Education in Schools” project, within the Mais Educação program. The action that provides for the strengthening of family farming and local production chains, proposed by councilor Felipe Tchê (PP), was also reestablished, with the aim of promoting income generation, food security and the supply of school meals.
Another veto overturned was that of the amendment by councilor José Aiache (PP), president of the Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ), which creates the Food and Health Incentive for Municipal Health Professional Servers, within the Rio Branco com Opportunity program.
The Chamber also maintained in the text the proposal by councilor Eber Machado (MDB), which provided for actions to maintain public buildings and restore roads in the Cadeia Velha neighborhood, in addition to the veto on article 40, which deals with the obligation for the Executive to present spreadsheets detailing the balance of resources in cases of financial surplus.
On the other hand, most of the vetoes were maintained, including the one that dealt with the creation of housing assistance for women victims of domestic violence and in situations of social vulnerability. The City Hall justified the veto based on legal reasons, claiming that the proposal would create a mandatory expense without indicating a source of funding, contradicting articles 16 and 17 of the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF).
