DPU evaluates increase in housing benefit – 03/19/2026 – Politics

The DPU (Federal Public Defender’s Office) is evaluating an adjustment for members of the body, amid the discussion about the end of public service.

Document obtained by Sheet shows that the DPU is considering changing the housing allowance so that it is limited to 25% of the defender’s remuneration. Currently, the calculation is made based on the value of the commission position or commissioned function.

In practice, the change allows the benefit to be calculated based on the final amount received by the employee, not on the additional position that allows him to receive the housing allowance. The change is mentioned by the DPU itself, in an internal document.

Considering that the public service ceiling is R$46.3 thousand, it would be possible to pay up to R$11.5 thousand as housing allowance for DPU members. There are defenders receiving the roof in the body.

A defender, for example, received subsidies and salaries totaling R$48,258.75 in February this year, in addition to R$6,391.71 in aid and benefits, and had a deduction of R$1,892.56, to limit her earnings to the constitutional ceiling. Therefore, she received a salary of R$37,464.51 after mandatory deductions.

When contacted, the institution confirmed that it is studying the change, highlighting only that “there is no definitive decision on possible changes to the current rules”.

In February, counselor Tarcijany Linhares Aguiar Machado suggested a text for a new DPU resolution. The defender states that it is necessary to follow a resolution from the CNMP (National Council of the Public Ministry), which adopted the same measure in 2024.

“I immediately suggest that the text of the resolution, mainly in article 4, is identical to the paradigmatic Resolution of the CNMP, Resolution 194/2018”, says an excerpt from the document.

Therefore, she suggests that the article about the benefit be written in this way: “The monthly amount of the housing allowance is limited to 25% (twenty-five percent) of the value of the member’s remuneration, calculated in the month in which the reimbursement accrues.”

In the DPU, the articulation to change the value of the housing allowance took some defenders by surprise, as it takes place in the midst of an offensive by the (Supreme Federal Court) against the so-called hangers-on. These are benefits paid to civil servants to allow the real earnings of employees to exceed the constitutional ceiling.

Next week, the STF plenary will judge injunctions that suspended the payment of compensation amounts to members of Powers without express provision in law. In different processes, ministers issued precautionary measures against this type of benefit, when there is no legal provision.

WHAT THE DPU SAYS

In a note, the DPU highlighted that there are no plans for immediate implementation of the measure, although it did not deny the articulation for change.

“The Federal Public Defender’s Office (DPU) reaffirms its commitment to strict compliance with current legislation and clarifies that, to date, there is no definitive decision on possible changes to the current rules relating to housing assistance”, says the statement.

Furthermore, the DPU states that “the aforementioned proposal is an individual initiative by a career member, within the scope of the regular administrative process”, without specifying who the initiative was.

The body said that “the feat was distributed by draw, through a computerized system, to the reporting counselor, Dr. Tarcijany Linhares Aguiar Machado, who is responsible for conducting the process, and is not the author of the proposal.” “The rapporteur, so far, has not cast a vote.”

Thus, the DPU says that the “process is in the initial analysis and instruction phase, with referral to the institution’s technical areas for comment, with no deliberation by the Superior Council”.

“The DPU ensures that any possible adjustment will strictly observe the legal parameters, budgetary limits and the compensatory nature of the benefit, which remains conditional on proof of expense, with its remunerative nature being prohibited”, concludes the note.

source