By reducing benefits for low-income seniors, the Social Security Amendment violates the Constitution.

Rafael Tatemoto, Brazil of Fact - The first permanent committee in Congress where the Bolsonaro government's (PSL) pension reform bill will be processed will be the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) of the Chamber of Deputies. According to legal experts consulted by Brasil de Fato, one of the points of contention that may be raised in the body is the reduction of the Continuous Benefit Payment (BPC) to less than half of a minimum wage. Today, the amount is one minimum wage, equivalent to R$ 998.

With party representation proportional to the plenary, the CCJ (Committee on Constitution, Justice and Citizenship) is responsible for evaluating the constitutionality of bills proposed in Congress. Despite its institutional mission, the debates within it tend to express more political judgments than strictly technical ones. 

Since the government's proposal was submitted as a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC), a type of legislation that alters the constitutional text itself, any potential unconstitutional aspects must be considered in relation to the entrenched clauses, as the rights enshrined in the Constitution that cannot be altered are called. Furthermore, approved Constitutional Amendments can be reviewed by the Supreme Federal Court (STF). This is explained by lawyer Ronaldo Pagotto. 

“If it were an attempt at an ordinary law, or a proposal without specifying the path, we could point out several unconstitutional aspects. [Since it is a Constitutional Amendment Proposal] we must question the following: is there any entrenched clause of the Constitution that is being violated?”, he points out. 

BPC

The Continuous Benefit Payment (BPC) is granted to senior citizens, from the age of 60, who have an income of less than one-quarter of the minimum wage. The government's proposal is that the value of the BPC will increase from one minimum wage (R$ 998) to R$ 400.

Lawyer Thiago Barison explains that the proposed reform, in this aspect, violates an entrenched clause – in addition to being the "greatest injustice" of the project.  

“Paying a continuous benefit to low-income elderly people below the minimum wage is an injustice. We can say: the minimum wage is an entrenched clause. It is the minimum for subsistence,” he says. 

In addition to violating the unwritten principle of solidarity in Social Security through capitalization, the national secretary of legal affairs for the Unified Workers' Central (CUT), Valeir Ertle, indicates that the government's proposal, above all, promotes a "deconstitutionalization" in several aspects. "What are they doing? Removing it from the Constitution, stating that future reforms will be through a supplementary law. The quorum for reform today is qualified. Supplementary law doesn't have a qualified quorum. It's absurd. It's a very negative point," he criticizes. 

The proposed amendment to the Constitution regarding pension reform, if it passes the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ), must still be sent to other relevant committees before going to the Chamber's plenary session. As Ertle points out, approval, being an amendment, requires a three-fifths majority in two separate rounds in each house. If it is approved in the Chamber but modified in the Senate, it must return to the original house.