In an amendment hearing, Dino warns that tax rigor is a constitutional requirement
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) Minister Flávio Dino said on Friday, 27, during a public hearing called to discuss the obligation of the federal government to pass on funds to pay parliamentary amendments, which the Court does not usurp legislative powers on the subject.
The presence of the presidents of the House, Hugo Motta (Republicans-PB), and Senate, David Alcolumbre (Brazil-AP Union), was confirmed, but they gave up attending and sent representatives.
The cancellation of Motta and Alcolumbre’s participation in the meeting held at the Supreme Court occurs after the Lula government suffered a new defeat in Congress, with the overthrow of a decree that increased the tax on financial operations (IOF). The executive began unlocking amendments in the midst of the crisis with Parliament, but could not avoid the setback.
Learn more
Case IOF: Centrão presses Lula for positions and amendments while Congress already aims 2026
President Lula sees Congress in ‘mode 2026’ in the midst of political disputes
Congress overthrows IOF; Check out the highlights of the week
See the main subjects of the week at Expert Drops
Rapporteur in the supreme actions dealing with amendments, Dino stated that the court is not intended to snatch functions of other powers.
“We have a constitutional system that can be modified by Congress, which can do so at any time, except in relation to the federative form of state, which is a stone clause. There is no purpose of usurpation of powers,” Dino said at the hearing, which had exhibitions of experts and representatives of civil society, the federal government and congress.
‘Duty’
Dino also said that it was the Congress itself that defined the presidential and federalist system in Brazil, through the Constitution.
“If Congress wants to take the fiscal responsibility of the Constitution, it can take it. If you want to take the presidentialism from the Constitution, it can take it. Just as it can deconstitutionalize due budget law process. But while in the Constitution, there is no care of an invasion of the supreme,” he said.
In the minister’s assessment, the Court fulfills a “duty” when dealing with amendments, and fiscal responsibility is not an “option” because it was a device approved by Congress.
“The National Congress, a body of national and popular sovereignty, has decided to create the imposing amendments, and this has a fundamental weight in the Brazilian institutional arena. But this same congress has constitutionalized the concept of fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility, therefore, is no longer government option, it is constitutional imposition.”
Rather, Dino had said that the release of amendments cannot follow “unilateral wills.” “In the functional tripartition system of powers, there is no place for unilateral wills. The constitutional commandment of independence with harmony must prevail.”
Haddad again defends “coverage class” for “fair” fiscal adjustment
In an event at USP, minister states that inequality requires tax who does not contribute today
‘Parish’
Motta’s representative at the hearing, Chamber’s attorney General Jules Michelet stated that “parish” spending on amendments are “democratically legitimized, because it was these people who elected these parliamentarians”.
“These parish spending stems much more from the impossibility of municipalities to invest alone than a private willingness of parliamentarians. I go to the interior hearings, and I see how parliamentarians are proud to show that health post, who has been able to have cataract surgery, because now they have cataract surgery in the regional hospital. The lawyer of the House.
As showed the Estadão In April, the value of approved parliamentary amendments to 2025, from R $ 50.4 billion, exceeds the sum of free resources for investments of 30 of the 39 ministries.
Michelet also said that electoral use of public resources is a greater problem in the executive than in the legislature. “This problem is much more serious in the executive. It is an issue that needs to be faced by non-budgetary electoral legislation. Parliament is presenting these controls because it is discussing electoral legislation,” said the attorney general.
Minorities
Senate Attorney General Gabrielle Tath Pereira, in turn, defended the imposition of amendments, that is, that they have the mandatory payment. According to her, the imposition guarantees the equality between congressmen and is an “instrument of preservation of parliamentary minorities” in the application of resources.
“Budget execution discriminated according to party-political criteria. The basis was attended by amendments. The imposition comes to ensure the participation of opposition parties and parliamentarians, previously overlooked in the allocation of public resources,” said the alcohubre representative.
Gabrielle stated that imposition “does not eliminate the discretion of the executive” and that the legislature has enhanced control actions in public spending. “The funds are released according to a schedule defined by the government, and the amendments undergo technical impediments that are analyzed by entities that make up the government itself.”
Pressure
Throughout the meeting, experts pointed to increasing pressure from the amendments on the executive’s discretionary expenses. “The criticism-legitimate-are not particular to parliamentary action and do not result from a conflict between a spending legislature and, respectfully, an executive guardian of the tax discipline. The question is much more complex, involves conflicts in the executive himself and is much more related to the dynamic situation of executive legislative,” said Gabrielle.
The information is from the newspaper The State of S. Paulo.
