In the clashes between the Federal Supreme Court and the Supreme Court over , a case in which the Palácio do Planalto was also involved, all sides are right and wrong at the same time.
He is right when he demands correction in the use of amendments, but strictly speaking he could not have added items to what the law approved by the Legislature and sanctioned by the president says.
Congress has the right to complain about this interference by the Judiciary, although it has deliberately made the mistake of trying to circumvent the requirements of total transparency and traceability. The approved text does not meet the agreement.
The Executive had no business interfering in the matter, although it is in its role to act to contain Parliament’s progress on the Union Budget, which has increased over the last four years.
The attempt to impose a necessary measure in this capture of the coffer — currently in the order of R$ 50 billion, with a forecast of R$ 52 billion in 2025 — started crooked at the beginning, when an attempt was made to resolve the problem through negotiations between the three Powers. .
A very strange table composition. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the Constitution, whose precepts are non-negotiable. In 2022, the minister had determined the end, based on the principle of transparency contained in the Charter.
Instead of complying with the determination, deputies and senators preferred to circumvent the decision on the basis of trickery, modifying here and there the destination of the amendments. They changed to keep everything the same.
The STF tolerated the situation until 2024, when the minister, heir to the minister’s processes, took up the issue again, reaffirmed Rosa Weber’s position and suspended the release of the obscure amendments.
Congress resisted and, in the impasse, representatives of the Powers negotiated a “pact”, in August, by which transparency requirements would be met. The Executive and Judiciary were satisfied, announcing that, finally, there was a solution.
In the Legislature, things were not seen that way. The president of the Chamber, , left the meeting upset saying that there was an alliance of “two against one”. The latent distrust that the Palace and the STF were partnering with Lula to overcome his difficulties in Congress was thus exposed.
Believing that parliamentarians would not understand the maneuver and would accept the double, if not naivety —and it should not have been—, it was excessive confidence and/or lack of the exact notion of the importance that the amendments came to represent in the Legislature’s gain of power on the Executive.
When the Supreme Court opened the door to negotiate what the Constitution says, it gave room for Parliament to see the possibility of just more or less complying with the determinations, since they had been made an object of understanding.
In this case, the deal is expensive. To the Supreme Court, in its guardian constitutional authority; to Congress, in the blackmailing bad image of the suspension of the amendments; and to the government in blocking the votes on the economic agenda.
None of these three instances is a good picture of an agreement on a subject with enormous potential to become a hotbed of new scandals. As a matter of fact, there is already evidence of the use of money from amendments.
The gangs currently under investigation are taking advantage of the lack of what the STF requires: transparency and traceability. It should be easy to understand, but it is not because Congress is unaware that today’s advantage could mean the hiring of disadvantageous complaints tomorrow.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
