The Federal Attorney General’s Office considers the law unconstitutional and states that the rule weakens punishments for crimes against democracy and highlights irregularities in the legislative process
The Federal Attorney General’s Office sent to the Federal Supreme Court, on Monday (May 18, 2026), a demonstration against the , known as , enacted by Congress to reduce sentences and make regime progression rules more flexible for those convicted of the acts of January 8, including former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL). The body asked the Supreme Court to keep the application of the rule suspended until the final judgment of the actions challenging its validity. Read (PDF – 4MB).
The statement was sent to the STF after Minister Alexandre de Moraes applied the rule until the final judgment of the actions that question its validity. The AGU was against the positions presented by the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate, which on Monday (May 18, 2026) declared the constitutionality of the law.
AGU states that the standard creates a “relaxation regime” for crimes against democracy and weakens the constitutional protection of the Democratic Rule of Law.
According to the body, the law violates provisions of the Constitution by reducing punishments for crimes committed against democratic institutions. The opinion maintains that there was “poor protection” by Congress when approving criminal benefits for those convicted of attacks on democracy.
The body also points out alleged irregularities in the legislative process. One of the questions involves the partial overturning of the president’s (PT) full veto on the project. For the AGU, the presidential veto could not have been partially divided by Congress.
Another point raised is that changes made by the Senate to the text should have forced the project to be returned to the Chamber for a new vote.
The AGU also criticized specific provisions of the law. Among them, the section that provides for automatic reduction of sentences for crimes committed in a “crowd context”, as long as the convicted person did not exercise leadership or finance the acts.
According to the agency, the rule reduces the criminal response to collective attacks against democratic institutions.
The opinion also questions the possibility of remission of sentences for prisoners under home confinement and states that the rule limits the role of the Judiciary in individualizing sentences.
The AGU argues that the effects of the law may be irreversible if the rule takes effect before the final judgment of the STF. This is because more beneficial criminal laws have immediate and retroactive application.
HOUSE AND SENATE
On Monday (May 18), Chamber and Senate of the Dosimetry Law.
The Senate asked Alexandre de Moraes to reverse the individual decision that suspended the rule. The House argues that preventing the application of the law violates the constitutional principle of retroactivity of the most beneficial criminal law.
The Chamber stated that it is up to Congress to define criminal policy and calibrate criminal punishments. The House’s defense maintains that the Constitution does not impose a model of “punitive maximization”.
The two Houses also state that there were no irregularities in the legislative process.
DOSIMETRY LAW
It amends the Penal Code and the Criminal Execution Law. Among the main points are:
- reduction of sentences for crimes committed in a “crowd context”;
- limiting the accumulation of sentences in the same context;
- possibility of remission through study and work for prisoners under home care;
- relaxation of regime progression rules.
Parties such as PT, Psol, PC do B, PV, PDT and Rede, in addition to the ABI (Brazilian Press Association), sued the STF to overturn the rule.
After the AGU’s statement, the process will go to the PGR (Attorney General’s Office) for an opinion before the definitive judgment by the Supreme Court plenary.
Read more:
