After Lira’s request, Dino gives the Chamber a deadline of 8pm to respond to amendments

The tug of war between the minister Flavio Dinoof the Federal Supreme Court (STF), and the Chamber of Deputies continues to move through the normally quiet days of the parliamentary and judicial recess at the end of this year.

The magistrate responded to a request presented by the Legislative House for him to review the decision to suspend the payment of R$ 4.2 billion in so-called commission amendments and set a deadline of 8 pm this Friday (27) for the Chamber responds “objectively” to a series of questions on the topic.

In general, the minister wants to know when these amendments were approved by the Chamber committees, whether there were additional nominations included on the list after the thematic committee meetings and who made and approved these nominations.

Dino also asks the deputies how the 2006 resolution of the National Congress that governs the Mixed Budget Committee (CMO) provides for the processing of amendments.

The Supreme Court minister also questions where the rules used by Congress to approve these amendments are determined – if they are not in the 2006 resolution.

See the full questions from Flávio Dino to the Chamber of Deputies:

• When the specifications or indications of the “commission amendments” (RP 8) contained in Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? Were all 5,449 specifications or indications of “commission amendments” contained in the Official Letter approved by the Commissions? Are there specifications or indications of “committee amendments” that have not been approved by the Committees? If they were not approved by the Commissions, who approved them?

• What appears in the table of specifications or indications of “commission amendments” (RP 8) as “NEW INDICATION” was formulated by whom? Which instance was it approved by? The Gentlemen Leaders? The President of the Commission? The Commission?

• Which precept of Resolution no. 001/2006, from the National Congress, is the basis for the aforementioned Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? As Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024 is compatible with arts. 43 and 44 of the aforementioned Resolution?

• There is another normative act that legitimizes the aforementioned Official Letter no. 1.4335.458/2024? If so, which one, in which article and when published?

The imbroglio of amendments

Last Tuesday (24), the Federal Police (PF) opened an investigation that should investigate the release of R$4.2 billion from so-called parliamentary committee amendments whose authors were not properly identified.

The corporation meets a determination of Flavio Dinowithin the scope of the decision last Monday (23) that suspended payment of the amendments, in a new escalation of tension between the Judiciary and Legislative Powers that marked this year.

Of the amount, around R$180 million refers to “new nominations” and R$73 million is allocated to the state of Alagoas, the political-electoral birthplace of the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL) – who is saying goodbye to command of the House, a position he will only hold until the end of January 2025.

Parliamentary amendments, which are foreseen within the Budget, are used according to the indication of deputies and senators – the money, in general, is sent by parliamentarians to meet their electoral bases. The execution of these funds is the prerogative of the federal government.

The STF minister’s decision responded to a request presented by PSOL, which alleged irregularities in the allocation of R$4.2 billion in the so-called commission amendments.

This category of parliamentary amendments is indicated by thematic committees of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate – and there is no mandatory payment. After the rapporteur’s amendments were overturned by the Supreme Court, the committee amendments were expanded.

In the petition presented to the STF, PSOL questioned the letter that authorized the transfer of funds. The document was forwarded by Arthur Lira, on the 12th, with the signature of 17 party leaders in the House.

In the action to the Supreme Court, PSOL claims that part of the amendments were destined for the state of Lira, Alagoas, which would be illegal. Through the Ministry of the Civil House, the federal government did not see any irregularities and authorized the transfer.

In his decision, Flávio Dino demanded that the Chamber publish, within a period of up to five days, the minutes of the committee meetings in which the amendments were approved. These minutes should be forwarded to the Institutional Relations Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic, commanded by the minister Alexandre Padilha (PT).

Also according to Dino’s order, payment for amendments will only be released after the minutes arrive at Palácio do Planalto – and as long as they meet the transparency and traceability criteria previously defined by the Court.

“Such institutional degradation constitutes an unacceptable series of unconstitutionalities, demanding the persevering action of the Federal Supreme Court”, noted Flávio Dino in his decision.

Chamber requests release of payment

In an appeal sent to Dino this Friday morning (27), the Chamber requested a review of the decision that ordered the suspension of payment for the amendments. The 22-page petition is signed by lawyer Jules Michelet Pereira Queiroz e Silva.

In the document, the defender refutes the action proposed by the PSOL, the Partido Novo and the entities Associação Contas Abertas, Transparência Brasil and Transparência Internacional, which claimed that the indication of more than 5.4 thousand amendments would have occurred without the approval of the commissions and in the period in which collegiate meetings had been suspended by Arthur Lira, between December 12th and 20th.

“With due respect, the petitioners’ arguments do not correspond to the truth and reveal a profound lack of knowledge of the budgetary legislative process. This imprecise and decontextualized information prevents the correct assessment and valuation of the facts”, says the Chamber’s lawyer.

The Chamber’s defense claims that the amendments were approved by committees throughout the legislative cycle. “The approval of amendments by the committees takes place based on suggestions made by parliamentarians and formally approved by the collegiate bodies. After approval and sanction, nominations are made to the Executive Branch which, in accordance with the LDO (Budget Guidelines Law) for the 2024 financial year, are not binding”, says the defense of the Legislative House.

Executive lost power over budget

In recent years, successive governments have gradually lost power over the execution of the federal budget. In 2015, still during the government of the former president Dilma Rousseff (PT)the National Congress approved the imposing budget, through which amendments intended for deputies and senators must be paid, obligatorily, by the federal government.

In the government of the former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL)the so-called “Pix amendments” were instituted, expanding the share of resources under the Legislative umbrella. Today, Congress holds around R$60 billion of the budget, which represents almost the same volume commanded by the federal Executive.