The headquarters has 100 m² offices for 41 deputies. The spaces accommodate 5,874 employees in commissioned positions. If everyone were to work at the same time, each employee would have less than one square meter to complete their tasks.
The preferred form of hiring for Goiás deputies does not depend on and is temporary: they are changed when new elected representatives arrive at the house. This is the assembly with the highest ratio between parliamentarians and commissioners: 143 to one.
The state leads the survey of Sheet based on the most recent data from the legislative houses’ transparency portals. Of the 18 states with complete information, 14 surpass the relationship between deputy and commissioner, in Brasília. In nine, the data is incomplete or inaccessible.
A Sheet reported in April that at least one commissioned member of the Goiás Assembly is (PSD), a pre-candidate for the Presidency of the Republic.
The Legislative Assembly appears in second place, with 3,168 commissioners for 24 deputies, or 132 per parliamentarian. In a note, the House says that “this is not an unlimited or oversized structure, but a legally foreseen organization, subject to objective limits”.
Next come the legislative assemblies of Rondônia, with 93 commissioners per deputy, Tocantins, with 82 for one parliamentarian, and , with a ratio of around 77 per deputy.
In the Rio de Janeiro case, the Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro filed a public civil action against the state. The action questions the proportion between positions of trust and effective positions in the assembly. According to the prosecutor’s office, the practice compromises administrative efficiency and violates the principles of impersonality and morality of public administration, outlined by the Constitution.
For the state Public Prosecutor’s Office, “the public interest moves to a secondary level, giving way to private or political interests, which distorts the purpose of the public function and weakens society’s trust in institutions.” The action awaits a decision from the Rio de Janeiro Court.
The assemblies that responded to the Sheet converge on three central arguments: positions exist within legal limits, fulfill a constitutional function and are subject to internal and external controls. None question the volume of commissioners nor present data on productivity or presence of employees. Transparency is cited by everyone as evidence of regularity.
In the federal Legislature, there is a limit imposed by law: 25 positions of trust per congressman. It is the same proportion found in the Legislative Assembly of . In the most populous state in the country, there are 2,376 commissioners for 94 deputies.
The option is a house strategy. “Betting on this number of temporary workers is a political asset for the country”, says political scientist and professor at UFPE (Federal University of Pernambuco) Ernani Carvalho.
“Imagine this number of advisors seeking an agenda with the parliamentarian. He would not read projects, would not meet with the governor and would not engage in politics”, says Leandro Mello Frota, a specialist in administrative law and member of the Institute of Brazilian Lawyers.
According to him, in addition to the loss in functionality, a bloated legislative structure is more prone to cases of corruption. Among the most common illegal practices in the Houses are ghost employees and “rachadinhas”.
Frota explains that the commissioner is important for the implementation of the political projects that elected the deputies, in addition to oxygenating the public machine, but considers the excess of positions of trust as harmful to the State. “It’s a silent way of circumventing the public process”, says the lawyer.
A permanent employee is more expensive than a commissioned employee due to the process of opening a public tender. State Houses have fewer resources than the federal Legislature. In part, this explains why the Assemblies have fewer career civil servants than the Chamber, according to Ernani Carvalho.
Brazil does not have an objective national rule that limits the hiring of civil servants in state houses. Daniela Barreiro Barbosa, managing partner responsible for the administrative law area at Innocenti Advogados, states that the current situation violates constitutional principles.
The Constitution provides that commission positions are intended for management, leadership and advisory duties. The text does not fix numbers. It was up to the (Supreme Federal Court), over the years, to fill this void with jurisprudential parameters.
The main one is proportionality, established by the Supreme Court: the number of commissioners must be related to the need it aims to meet and the total number of permanent employees of the entity.
In 2026, Minister Flávio Dino reinforced the understanding in Direct Action of Unconstitutionality, defining that proportionality must be assessed on a global level. “The STF understands that it is not appropriate to demand an identical reproduction of symmetry in each segment of the administration”, explains Daniela.
Imagine this number of advisors seeking an agenda with the parliamentarian. He would not read projects, would not meet with the governor and would not engage in politics
Other Side
The Assemblies of Tocantins, Ceará, Santa Catarina, Rio Grande do Sul and Espírito Santo, and the Legislative Chamber of the Federal District claim to limit the number of commissioners in positions of advisor and secretary. They argue that they require an effectiveness report and mention that not all positions of trust are filled.
The Tocantins Legislature claims to have held a public competition, with the expectation that those approved will be called by September. In Rio de Janeiro, candidates are also waiting to be called to the state Assembly.
São Paulo states that commissioned positions are made available to offices and leaders, who have autonomy for appointment and guarantee the representative work of mandates. Rio Grande do Norte declares that personnel expenses follow the guidelines of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, without responding to limits per office or control mechanisms.
The assemblies of Rondônia, Roraima, Pará, Amazonas, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Bahia, Piauí, Maranhão, Paraíba and Sergipe were contacted via email and telephone, but did not respond until the conclusion of this report.
The report attempted to contact Amapá and Acre on the telephone numbers and emails available on the official websites, but there was no response.
