The commission created by the president of the (Supreme Federal Court), Luiz, to make proposals on the regulation identified that the total expenditure on hangings above the ceiling, just for the judiciary, is close to R$9.8 billion.
There is also data from the CNMP (National Council of the Public Ministry), which indicates that the total value of expenses with installments that exceed the value of the subsidy is R$7.2 billion.
As a means of stopping new expenses of this type, one of the group’s suggestions is to link these expenses to Brazilian legislation.
The average gross remuneration of magistrates in 2025, calculated based on data from the CNJ, was R$95,968.21. The constitutional salary ceiling, annualized and considering vacation and 13th salary, corresponds to R$ 52,805.94.
The document was shared with the court ministers this Monday (23) to support the judgment on the topic scheduled for Wednesday’s session (25).
“Although the data from the entire judiciary are not as precise as those audited by the Court of Auditors, using the CNJ system it is possible to estimate that the total expenditure on funds above the ceiling is around R$9.8 billion”, says the commission.
Composed of 20 members, the group included representatives from the Judiciary, Legislature, the AGU (Attorney General of the Union), the Public Ministry, the Public Defender’s Office and the TCU (Federal Audit Court).
“It is possible to defend that civil servants have the right to protection against inflation, but it is also possible to say that, when the country does not get as rich as desired, protection against inflation starts to have a distributive cost. The absence of a clear and previously defined criterion for updating the ceiling makes it difficult to adjust expectations and fuels recurring cycles of distributive conflict between the State and its civil servants.”
The group’s conclusion is that any transition rule created for the topic generates billions more in spending. “In other words, each percentage point above the ceiling represents a disbursement of more than R$97.9 million”, he states, in relation to the judiciary.
According to the commission, one of the central points of the problem is the differentiation between compensation and remuneration funds. Only the latter is subject to income tax. But, according to the technical note, there is jurisprudence to the effect that, when there is an increase in assets, the incidence of income tax is recognized.
“The adoption of this same criterion for the purpose of submission to the remuneration ceiling has a double advantage: it is anchored in a definition already established by jurisprudence, providing stability and predictability, and it avoids the proliferation of local legislative interpretations that, by qualifying remuneration amounts as compensation, distort the constitutional ceiling”, says the text.
On another point, the commission deals with the salary gap. The group recognizes the argument of the associative entities, but considers that the chosen index and landmark change the calculation.
The federal public service salary ceiling is R$46,366.19. If the 2003 constitutional amendment dealing with the public service salary ceiling (EC nº 41/2003) is adopted as a framework and the IPCA as a correction index, the updated value would correspond to R$ 63,469.1.
This means a gap of approximately 37% in relation to the current nominal value.
The correction from 2006, date of CNJ Resolutions nº 13 and 14, which deal with the ceiling for the judiciary and the Judiciary, would result in a value of R$ 71,532.30.
“The assessment of the gap, however, cannot be dissociated from the State’s economic capacity to absorb any correction. […] The fiscal context does not allow for a full correction by the IPCA without affecting other public budget priorities”, says the commission.
Last month, the suspension of the so-called penduricalhos rekindled the debate about the limits of the constitutional ceiling and the proliferation of funds that .
This practice has occurred based on different measures, such as normative acts of a certain body, as well as state and municipal laws. The ministers’ movement has also pressured Congress to approve a law regulating the matter.
The presidency of the Supreme Court established the technical advisory committee at the beginning of March.
The group also identified a practical difficulty in evaluating all compensation funds in all entities of the federation. In view of this, he suggested, if the court considers a transition, the establishment of global limits for the payment of compensation amounts and for those that are remunerative, but are paid as compensation.
The suggestion also took into account the pressure from professional associations heard throughout the meetings. The associations raised the possibility of halting activities and providing services if these funds were interrupted without any compensation or transition.
In these cases, the commission did not set levels, but presented economic impact scenarios.
