The (Federal Supreme Court), the federal government and the are discussing the possibility of readjusting the constitutional ceiling as a way of compensating for the end of public servants’ salaries.
The idea is being debated by the Powers as part of the court decisions that barred them and a future national law that governs the topic. For one wing of the Lula government, this hypothesis is impractical, but members of the Supreme Court and Congress do not rule it out due to growing pressure from members of the judiciary.
Members of the three Powers admit that this scenario was put on the table at a meeting with their representatives, but they assess that, especially in an election year, the measure is unpopular given the fiscal rigor demanded by society. Therefore, no increase would be valid for this year.
The greatest resistance comes precisely from the government side. Congress places active participation by the Executive as a prerequisite to begin discussing the topic, but the measure is considered unfeasible by members of the Ministry of Finance.
The matter was discussed in a meeting held on February 23 by Minister Edson Fachin with Secretary Dario Durigan and Congress representatives, but the debates are still in their infancy.
Increasing the constitutional ceiling means, in practice, increasing the salaries of STF ministers, which would generate a cascade effect for the entire civil service. The last adjustment, of 18%, was approved in 2022 and paid in installments over three years.
To mitigate the potential negative impact on public opinion, one of the hypotheses is to repeat this escalation and dilute the increase over the next few years. The percentage applied or the budgetary impact of the measure is not yet on the table.
According to the Constitution, no civil servant can earn more than a court magistrate. In practice, however, various aids and bonuses, mainly provided for in state laws, are paid out of pocket and end up exceeding this limit.
The scenario led the minister to suspend, in February, the payment of illegal compensation payments to all Brazilian public servants and to veto the creation of new laws that institute payments above the ceiling.
On another front, the restrictions established by state laws for members of the Judiciary and the Public Ministry. The STF even began judging the referendum on the measures,
The expectation is that, by then, there will already be a concrete deliberation by the technical committee created by Fachin to reach a consensus. The STF expects the group to operate until the 20th. The objective, according to the court, is to build “a coordinated, transparent and fiscally responsible solution”.
“The group aims to join joint efforts between the Powers to present a definitive solution, which involves both the issuance of a national law and the maintenance of fiscal responsibility”, informed the STF this Monday (2).
Fachin said it is legitimate for public servants to want to preserve the real value of their salaries, but that it is “absolutely illegitimate for any increase to be made in disregard of the ceiling or without observing the legislative process”.
“It is worth saying, only the National Congress and the Executive Branch can approve the increase in spending on civil servants, by means of law, for its inclusion in the budget. Public debate is therefore necessary with total transparency”, stated the minister.
Under reservation, leaders of government parties and the center consider that the readjustment of the constitutional ceiling is a natural discussion and that there would be no way to prohibit penduricalhos without increasing that of STF ministers.
According to these parliamentarians, it would be a way to regulate these benefits without entering into a collision course with the Judiciary, which has plenty of jurisprudence to bar any payment outside the ceiling.
The commission meetings will take place under the direction of the STF general secretary, Roberto Dalledone. “Due to the consultative nature, there will be no internal voting, and the minutes must record the points of consensus, reservations and possible divergences”, informs the court.
