Decision was published in the “Official Gazette of the Union” this Wednesday (May 20); proposal had been approved by the Chamber in April
The president (PT) completely vetoed the project that would allocate 5% of the revenue from traffic fines to the (National Public Security Fund). The decision was published in DOU (Official Gazette of the Union) this Wednesday (May 20, 2026). Read (PDF – 194 KB).
Lula decided to veto the project “for unconstitutionality and contrary to the public interest”. The proposal had been presented by the Chamber of Deputies on April 16.
The text that was approved by the deputies is a Senate substitute for the bill (former PL 1,027 of 2015), by the former deputy and current senator (PL-PB). The final draft was signed by the rapporteur, deputy (PL-RJ).
According to the text, the money could be used for:
- construction, renovation, expansion and modernization of facilities for transit agencies and entities;
- purchase of materials, equipment and vehicles;
- training of traffic agents.
Here is what Lula justified in vetoing the measure:
“Despite the legislator’s good intentions, the legislative proposal is unconstitutional and goes against the public interest, given that articles 2 and 3 provide for the permanent linking of a portion of the revenue collected from traffic fines to the National Public Security Fund, without stipulating a clause with a maximum validity of five years, in violation of the provisions of article 147 of Law No. 15,321, of December 31, 2025. Furthermore, the proposal lacks an estimate of the budgetary-financial impact that demonstrates the compatibility of the revenue link with the constitutional growth limits of the aforementioned public fund, in violation of the provisions of art. 138 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act.
“Finally, the measure provided for in article 3 results in a reduction in public revenue available to federative entities without due prior estimation, which contravenes the provisions of article 113 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act.
“In view of the above, a full veto of the legislative proposal is imposed, attracting, by extension, the veto to article 1 and article 4, since they do not have autonomous normative content.”
