The decision of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) last Wednesday (25), which at the same time maintained one between these careers and the rest of the public service.
It also left room for these new rules, in theory, of transition, to end up being implemented in an abusive manner, as pointed out by researchers and civil society entities that monitor the issue.
Among the prohibited trinkets are the almost folkloric turkey allowance, as well as other funds that were previously responsible for huge payments, such as compensatory leaves for accumulation of collections and one day off for three workers — which, if not taken, could be converted into extra earnings.
On the other hand, however, the court’s verdict leaves distortions in legitimizing that recurring payment amounts, considered in practice by these experts as being of a remunerative nature, can be counted as compensation.
This classification, now endorsed by the Supreme Court, is not a mere technical detail. It means that these amounts can be received by judges and prosecutors such as . Another important point is that no taxes are levied on them.
Among the funds endorsed as compensation in the STF’s thesis are the bonus for cumulative exercise of jurisdiction —when the judge, for example, acts in more than one court—, as well as funds related to teaching, which may occur, for example, in the case of members of these bodies giving courses or lectures for the improvement of colleagues.
The most criticized case, however, was the creation of a . For every five years that the judge or prosecutor has actually been in office, an amount of 5% of their salary will be increased — respecting the limit of 35%. This applies to active and retired people, who may request that this amount be paid, without it being deducted from the ceiling.
“The main point of the decision is that it reinforces inequality in public service,” says Isadora Modesto, executive director of República.org.
She states that the trial ends up benefiting top careers, such as the Judiciary, while the majority of civil servants, such as primary school teachers, receive much lower salaries.
Isadora also questions the justification for the salary gap — cited by the ministers in the trial — arguing that this would not be something exclusive to these careers. Despite this, he recognizes that there are also advances in the decision, such as limiting the creation of new penduricalhos by administrative decisions — this is now restricted to the deliberation of Congress and the STF itself.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, the extra payment can reach up to 70% of the constitutional ceiling – currently R$46,366.19 – depending on the salary. This is through the additional payment for length of service (up to 35% of the salary), in addition to a list of compensation payments (also up to a limit of 35% of the respective salary).
It also provides that the rules are transitional, valid only until Congress approves a national law defining, after all, what can be paid in addition to the ceiling.
Juliana Sakai, executive director of Transparência Brasil, highlights that the STF’s decision could end up serving as a bad precedent for Congress. She points as an example to the bill that is being processed in the Chamber and which already contains, in her view, problematic definitions.
Regarding the Supreme Court’s decision, it also criticizes the fact that the bonus for the cumulative exercise of jurisdiction is considered compensatory, adding that the criteria defined by the court should not be sufficient to prevent careers from seeking to increase their remuneration for activities that, in practice, would be inherent to the position.
Juliana also points out the need for social control over the audit that will be carried out by the CNJ (National Council of Justice) and the CNMP (National Council of the Public Ministry), which are suspended for part of the cases. “[Esses conselhos] have a history of corporatist decisions in approving a series of benefits.”
For Sergio Guedes-Reis, who is a doctoral student in political science at UCSD (University of California, San Diego) and auditor at the CGU (Comptroller General of the Union), the STF’s thesis ends up creating a kind of “first division” in public service.
It also casts doubt on the judgment. Guedes-Reis highlights not only the wide range of compensation funds, but also the other installments that are not subject to any limit, such as health aid, permanence bonus (paid to judges who could retire and remain in office) and extra bonuses for electoral functions — according to the Supreme Court’s decision, these amounts are not included in the ceiling, nor are they considered in the 70% that can be exceeded.
Guedes-Reis criticizes that the extra value for time served does not even take into account the productivity of each judge or prosecutor. The researcher also says that the parameters defined by the Supreme Court should generate a rush by other careers in the search to obtain the same benefits.
In a note, the Movimento Pessoas à Frente pointed out that compensation funds would need to be reparatory in nature, that is, reimburse the civil servant for expenses incurred in the exercise of public service. And, also, be occasional and transitory in nature, “not being incorporated on a monthly basis, and must have a limited time horizon”.
