Abstract

The monocratic decision rendered by Minister Flávio Dino in ADPF 854 marks a significant legal milestone by establishing parameters for transparency and traceability in the handling of parliamentary amendments in Brazil. However, the decision also raises questions about its practical implementation, the limits of judicial intervention in budgeting, and the challenges of aligning normative requirements with political realities. This article explores the constitutional foundations, practical implications, and potential challenges of this historic decision.

Budget management in Brazil has historically been plagued by opacity and inefficiency, particularly regarding the execution of parliamentary amendments. ADPF 854, culminating in an innovative decision by the Supreme Federal Court (STF), directly confronts these distortions by declaring the unconstitutionality of practices associated with the so-called "secret budget" and establishing rigorous parameters for executing parliamentary amendments.

While the STF's solution is legally robust, it faces significant political and institutional challenges. Implementing new rules—such as the requirement for full traceability and the limitation of parliamentary amendment growth—necessitates structural changes in a political system historically resistant to reform.

2.1. Transparency and Traceability

The decision reinforces the constitutional principles of transparency and traceability, ensuring that the use of public funds is thoroughly documented and accessible. These principles, enshrined in Articles 37 and 163-A of the Federal Constitution, are essential for:

Preventing corruption and mismanagement.

Facilitating public oversight of budget execution.

Strengthening the legitimacy of public expenditures.

The STF mandated that all parliamentary amendments be meticulously documented, identifying the requesting parliamentarian and the ultimate destination of funds. Requiring this information to be published on the Transparency Portal represents undeniable progress.

2.2. Limits on Legislative Power

The decision also underscores the principle of separation of powers by imposing limits on the Legislature's influence over the public budget. The expansion of parliamentary amendments in recent years—particularly RP 8 (committee amendments) and RP 9 (rapporteur amendments)—has led to a legislative overreach, weakening the Executive's capacity to plan and execute public policies.

By capping the growth of parliamentary amendments in line with the discretionary expenses of the Executive or the spending cap, the STF rebalances powers and reinforces fiscal responsibility.

Despite its merits, the ADPF 854 decision is not without criticism. Certain practical and theoretical issues remain unresolved, requiring critical reflection.

3.1. Feasibility of Implementation

While the new rules set a high standard of control, their implementation will depend on collaboration among various institutional actors, such as the National Congress, the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU), and the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU). The historical political resistance to budgetary reform raises doubts about the feasibility of such profound change in the short term.

Key questions include:

How can it be ensured that all information is accurately entered into the Transparency Portal, particularly in a system with thousands of municipalities benefiting from amendments?

Is there sufficient technical capacity in oversight bodies to monitor compliance with the new requirements?

3.2. Judicialization of the Budget

The decision also expands the STF's role in overseeing the public budget. While necessary to address identified unconstitutional practices, this could be seen as excessive judicial intervention. Judicial involvement in budgetary matters, traditionally reserved for the Executive and Legislative branches, could lead to political tensions and impair governance.

This raises questions about:

The legitimate scope of STF involvement in budgetary matters.

Risks of excessive centralization of decision-making power within the Judiciary.

3.3. Limits on Parliamentary Amendments

While necessary, imposing limits on the growth of parliamentary amendments faces significant political resistance. Legislators are likely to oppose measures that constrain their autonomy in allocating resources, especially in Brazil's highly fragmented political system.

The ADPF 854 decision is a necessary milestone, but its effectiveness will depend on complementary adjustments and a well-defined implementation strategy. Measures that could enhance the decision's impact include:

Strengthening inter-institutional governance: Establishing a permanent mechanism for dialogue among the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, and oversight bodies to monitor the implementation of new rules.

Technological enhancement: Investing in modernizing the Transparency Portal and systems like Transferegov.br to ensure all information is easily accessible and verifiable.

Capacity building for public agents: Offering training for managers and officials, particularly at the municipal level, to ensure compliance with new standards.

The decision issued by Minister Flávio Dino in ADPF 854 represents significant progress in promoting transparency, traceability, and efficiency in budget management. However, the practical implementation of these directives will face political and technical challenges that cannot be ignored.

While the decision reaffirms the STF's role as the guardian of the Constitution and republican principles, it also highlights the inherent tensions of judicializing public budgeting in a fragmented political system like Brazil's. The success of this reform will depend on joint efforts among the branches of government, cultural shifts in public resource management, and robust public engagement.

If properly implemented, ADPF 854 could herald a new era of fiscal responsibility and integrity in public administration. However, the path to this future demands constant vigilance, institutional commitment, and, above all, strong societal engagement.

Author: Fábio Medina Osório

References

Federal Constitution of 1988

Complementary Law No. 101/2000 (Fiscal Responsibility Law)

Complementary Law No. 210/2024

Monocratic decision by Minister Flávio Dino in ADPF 854, dated December 2, 2024