The (Supreme Federal Court) resumes this Thursday (26), with the votes of the ministers, the judgment of the decisions that suspended salary restrictions for public servants. This Wednesday (25), the plenary heard the reports with the description of the cases and the oral arguments.
Two of the minister’s injunctions will be judged together, one that barred funds paid above the constitutional ceiling to all public servants and another that prohibited the creation of new laws that provide for these subsidies; and one from the minister, who suspended the restrictions provided for in state laws for members of the Judiciary and the .
In the first session dedicated to the topic, the president of the STF, minister, spoke about the meetings held this week with representatives of the federal government and the government to address the issue. He said the hangings were a “tormented issue.”
“The theme, in both meetings, was understanding the scenario of delay in the regulation of indemnity installments, which should be regulated in ordinary national law not yet enacted by Congress”, he stated.
According to Fachin, it was agreed by the leadership of the Powers to create a technical commission to debate a transition rule between the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court and the validity of a future law of a national nature.
Even though they have not yet formalized their votes, the ministers criticized the non-compliance with the constitutional ceiling. Dino highlighted that the rule is observed within the scope of the STF itself “and perhaps half a dozen other bodies”.
Gilmar also stated that “the ceiling became the floor, and a very ordinary floor”. According to the dean, the financial autonomy achieved by the careers of the judiciary and the Public Ministry with the 1988 Constitution “does not mean chaos, it does not mean financial sovereignty”.
The minister stated that Dino’s injunction describes a situation of “remuneration illusion” and that the funds paid to civil servants were being “increased without stopping”.
Representatives of magistrate entities defended the payment of extra amounts to the category, since the career is unattractive given the complexity and volume of cases. One of the arguments cited was that judges .
The Attorney General of the Republic, , defended that Dino and Gilmar’s injunctions should not be endorsed. He acknowledged that the theme of penduricalhos is of great importance, but said that the decisions went beyond what was requested in the actions.
As shown by Sheeta wing of the STF has the same reservation. Dino analyzed a complaint that concerned only municipal prosecutors in Praia Grande (SP) and extended its effects to public servants at all levels of the federation. Gilmar examined a lawsuit filed against specific state laws, but his decision also expands that scope.
For the rapporteurs, the criticism is unfounded — the assessment is that the controversies presented in the two cases go beyond the limits of the specific cases. Dino even mentioned that, since 2000, around 13 thousand cases on the subject have been judged by the court, and that it is preferable for the Supreme Court to build solid jurisprudence rather than decide case by case indefinitely.
Despite possible occasional divergences, the trend is towards . The trial is seen by STF ministers as an opportunity to give a nod to society —which tends to be critical of the penduricalhos— and to restore, at least in part, the court’s image, worn down by the repercussions of the investigation into the .
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
