At the STF, Dino completely rejects the government’s request to review the decision on amendments

The minister Flavio Dinoof the Federal Supreme Court (STF), fully rejected the appeal by the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) which requested the reconsideration of part of the decision that released the parliamentary amendments with reservations.

The government appealed the decision after deputies and senators expressed dissatisfaction and threatened to block the processing of the spending cut package.

“There is nothing to reconsider, as the decisions of the STF plenary derive directly from the Federal Constitution, the Fiscal Responsibility Law and – more recently – LC no. 210/2024 (PL of amendments)”, highlighted Dino. The decision that released the amendments was unanimously confirmed by the plenary.

One of the points questioned by AGU, and maintained by Dino, was the section that limits the growth in the value of amendments. It prevents these transfers from growing more than the Executive’s discretionary expenses, or the growth limit of the fiscal framework, or the variation in Net Current Revenue (RCL), whichever is smaller.

AGU argued that the PL approved by the Legislature already limits the growth of tax amendments to the tax framework and that the decision imposed new rules.

Dino noted that the ceiling for the growth of parliamentary amendments has already been “expressly stated in the meeting between the Powers, on 08/20/2024, and correctly enshrined by LC no. 210/2024, by establishing legal equivalence between discretionary expenses arising from proposals from the Executive Branch and parliamentary amendments”.

Another point questioned by the AGU is what determines the identification of the deputy or senator requesting bench and committee amendments. Today, these transfers are presented as the responsibility of the committee that approved the sending of the funds, without identifying the parliamentarian who requested the amendment.

In response, Dino stated that the STF did not “innovate” in relation to the Legislative project. “What this Supreme Court did was to clarify a constitutional and legal duty related to due budgetary process, in a decision devoid of any innovative character”, noted the judge.

In the decision, the minister also highlighted that those requesting amendments could be party leaders or any other parliamentarian. “There cannot be deputies or senators with more legislative prerogatives (‘1st class parliamentarians’) and others with less (‘2nd class parliamentarians’)”, concluded Dino.

ACCESS NOW