08/20/2024 – 21:56
Entities that campaign for transparency in public information fear possible setbacks with the agreement reached between the heads of the branches of government during a lunch at the headquarters of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) this Tuesday (20). Representatives of Transparency International (TI) in Brazil and Transparency Brazil (TB) highlighted that the commitment made between leaders of the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches cannot mean abandoning the requirements established by Minister Flávio Dino (STF) for parliamentary amendments in recent decisions.
The meeting at the STF headquarters on Tuesday was attended by the presidents of the Federal Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), and of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL); ministers Rui Costa (Casa Civil) and Jorge Messias (AGU); and the eleven ministers of the Supreme Court. The Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, was also present.
After the meeting, a joint statement was released announcing new criteria for the release of parliamentary amendments, the execution of which has been suspended by recent decisions by Justice Flávio Dino. The text contains provisions for the three types of amendments (individual, bench and committee), but does not mention several of the measures determined by Dino in his recent decisions, which were ratified by the plenary of the STF last Friday, the 16th. Dino’s previous decisions remain in force until the justice reevaluates them in light of the new agreement.
Both Transparência Brasil and Transparência Internacional participated in the conciliation hearing held by Minister Flávio Dino on August 1st of this year with representatives of the Executive and Legislative branches, to put an end to the practice of the Secret Budget. The entities were responsible for pointing out the continuity of the Secret Budget after the STF decision of December 2022, which declared the practice unconstitutional. As shown in the Statethe Secret Budget continued to operate under the Lula (PT) government.
“The main thing is to understand that in the last 20 days, Minister Dino’s decisions have signaled very clearly and specifically what the obligations of all the powers involved in formulating and implementing the amendments would be. What we will monitor now is whether, in the implementation of this agreement made between the heads of powers, there will be any setback in relation to Minister Dino’s (previous) decisions,” says lawyer Guilherme France, from Transparency International.
For him, the agreement cannot mean a setback in relation to the advances that Minister Dino had determined in his decisions.
Director of Transparência Brasil, Marina Atoji, says that the joint statement does not make clear the scope of the decision made today – whether or not it will override Dino’s decisions, for example. “In any case, it is a little strange that there is an agreement on this. We have (judicial) actions underway (at the Supreme Court). This type of dialogue should be held in the case records, as happened in the conciliation hearing (on August 1),” she says.
According to Atoji, the joint note does not bring any new information regarding what was already determined by Minister Dino. “A series of requirements that are present in his decisions are not mentioned. Only the purpose of the expenditure is mentioned. This is something that is already in the Budget Guidelines Law (LDO) of 2024; it was a condition for the transfer, and was not met”, recalls Marina Atoji.
In the joint note published this Tuesday, the heads of the three branches of government maintain the mandatory nature of individual and committee amendments, but with some new rules. In the case of “Pix amendments”, there is an obligation to “identify the object in advance” (i.e., what the money will be used for); to give priority to unfinished works and to report to the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU).
For bench amendments, there is an obligation that they be “intended for structural projects (…), individualization being prohibited” – an obligation that already exists today, in the Congress resolution that deals with the matter. Committee amendments, on the other hand, must be “intended for projects of national or regional interest, defined by common agreement between the Legislative and Executive branches”.
The procedures mentioned in this note leave out points that were determined by Dino. One point is the prohibition of members of parliament from sending funds outside the states in which they were elected. There is also no mention in the note of Dino’s determination that there be “transparency and traceability” for committee amendments, and for the remaining amounts to be paid from former rapporteur amendments (RP-9). The minister also required NGOs that receive funds from amendments to follow “objective contracting procedures” and to provide transparency for the funds received.
In the case of the “Pix amendments,” Flávio Dino’s decision contains details that are not present in the joint note. In order for the money to be released, interested parties should provide “information regarding the transfers, such as: work plan, object to be executed, its purpose, the estimated resources for execution and the execution deadline, as well as the budget classification of the expense,” according to Dino’s decision.
#Transparency #NGOs #fear #setbacks #Dinos #decisions #agreement #powers