Political parties and civil society entities question the constitutionality of articles of the General Law in the Supreme Court; text authored by the Chamber was sanctioned by Lula with vetoes
The General Environmental Licensing Law (15,190/2025) came into force this Wednesday (4) after completing 180 days since was sanctioned with vetoes by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. During this period, the National Congress overturned the vetoes and three Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) were presented at the Federal Supreme Court (STF).
The proceedings in the Court were initiated by political parties and social organizations that point out the unconstitutionality of several articles of the General Law. In their requests to court, the applicants point out that the violations are reinforced by the Special Environmental License Law (LAE – 15.300/2025), in force because it originated from a provisional measure that aimed to complement the General Law.
“This new regulatory framework implodes, in practice, important and structural elements of environmental licensing and the assessment of environmental impacts in the country”, says Suely Araújo, coordinator of public policies at the network of social and environmental organizations Observatório do Clima.
Legal uncertainty
According to members of the network, there are such serious changes promoted by the two laws that they create more legal uncertainty, instead of making existing legislation more efficient.
Examples are articles that waive, for example, environmental impact assessment or allow a simplified licensing process for medium impact activities.
In the analysis of the director of Institutional Relations at Instituto Ekos Brasil, Maria Cecília Wey de Brito, licensing involves stages, successive analyzes and different moments of evaluation. When these steps are eliminated, all knowledge that could improve a project or even prevent its execution for the benefit of society is simply discarded.
“If the intention was to discuss licensing to innovate, improve procedures or even strengthen licensing bodies, the path should be to listen. Not to override, as happened here. There is no point in saying that the licensing bill has been in Congress for years: being there does not mean it is being debated, much less with society”, he says.
There are also provisions that transfer powers from the Union to licensing bodies linked to state and municipal governments. “It is a regulatory omission because the general law had to provide basic rules and guidelines. At the very least, have this in a regulation, a presidential decree or mainly a Conama resolution [Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente]and this is not the case. So, we will have regulatory fragmentation”, argues Suely Araújo.
Violation of rights
The very regulation promoted by the Special Environmental License Law is questioned in requests for Direct Unconstitutionality Actions by making the process more flexible to a ‘strategic undertaking’, without technically defining what characterizes this special classification. The analyzes will be carried out on a case-by-case basis – twice a year – by a government commission, to be constituted.
According to Ricardo Terena, coordinator of the Legal Department of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (Apib), these terms may imply a violation of the rights of indigenous peoples and quilombola communities, cultural heritage and even public health since they establish a one-year deadline for the entire licensing process to be processed, hindering adequate analysis.
“We consider a very short period of time to carry out any free prior and informed consultation. Not all people have a specific protocol for this, which is already a first obstacle and makes it difficult. When you don’t have one, you really have to do a quality listening to that community to effectively understand what impacts that project will have on the territory and how it will influence the culture within that community”, he emphasizes.
Loss of forest cover in the period 2001-2020 was around 1.6 million km²
Regulation
Another threat to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples is the non-recognition of unregulated territories in the articles of new lawswhich for representative organizations even contradicts previous decisions by the STF itself, based on jurisprudence based on the judgment that determined the demarcation of the Raposa Serra do Sol Indigenous Land, in Roraima, in 2009.
“That’s when it became clear that regulation is a procedure only for recognition of the State. It is not actually about the constitution of a community, the constitution of a specific right, it is just a recognition”, explains Ricardo Terena.
For traditional peoples, this implies a double violation of constitutional rights when the State does not meet the five-year deadline for the demarcation of indigenous lands established in Brazilian law and subsequently disregards these territories for the purpose of environmental licensing. “Indigenous lands were not all demarcated during this period. And today we have this gigantic vacancy”, he highlights.
Procedural progress
The three Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (7913/7916 and 7919) were filed with the STF between December 16 and 29, 2025, a few days after the presidential vetoes on the General Law were overturned on November 27.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes, from the STF, was appointed rapporteur for the three processes and, before the end of the Legislative Year 2025, requested information from the National Congress and the Presidency of the Republic and also informed the Attorney General of the Union and the Attorney General of the Republic for a statement.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes
Although in the arguments presented in the Direct Unconstitutionality Actions (ADIs) parties and associations have requested precautionary measures such as the suspension of the effect of the law until the proceedings are judgedthere has still been no statement from the STF.
“It is not possible to take years to analyze [da inconstitucionalidade] of a law like this, because it will already be producing very negative effects and with no possibility of return in many decisions. Therefore, agility in the issue of precautionary measures is essential to generate preliminary decisions, which temporarily suspend until the Court’s definitive analysis”, concludes Suely Araújo.
*With Agência Brasil
