Walfrido Warde: "Parliament wants to turn the president into a figurehead."

247 - In interview with the program good night 247The jurist Walfrido Warde defended the direct action of unconstitutionality filed by PSOL in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) that challenges the appropriation of the Union's budget by the National Congress. According to him, the constitutional amendments approved since 2015, which expanded the Legislative branch's power over budget execution, have nullified the presidential system established in the 1988 Constitution.

“Upon reading Article 2 of the Constitution, which states that the powers of the Union are independent and harmonious with each other, it became absolutely clear to me that the amendments that gave discretionary power to parliament over the budget revoked the presidential system of government,” Warde stated. According to him, this process culminated in the subordination of the Executive to a fragmented budget, used as political currency. “Parliament wants to make the president a decorative figure,” he summarized.

Warde, representing PSOL in the lawsuit, explained that the party filed the lawsuit in July 2023, with Minister Flávio Dino as the rapporteur. The preliminary injunction granted by Dino suspended the payment of parliamentary amendments until a new model for tracking the funds was defined. This agreement resulted in the enactment of Complementary Law 210 of 2024, which established criteria for spending, subordinating it to the approval of the responsible ministries and a national public policy agenda.

Despite this, the legal expert stated that both the Legislative and Executive branches continue to violate the new legislation. "We denounced these violations to the Supreme Court, such as committee amendments made outside of committees in the final days of the last legislature," he said. Given the persistence of the irregularities, Minister Dino convened a public hearing to listen to experts and representatives of the parties involved, in which the political and institutional implications of using the budget as an electoral tool were discussed.

According to Warde, the central problem lies in the "mandatory" nature of parliamentary amendments, coupled with the growing share of the budget that Congress has been appropriating annually. "Each year, parliament appropriates a larger portion of the discretionary budget, which reduces the Executive's room for maneuver. And this violates fundamental clauses of the Constitution," he explained. He highlighted that in developed countries, about 1% of discretionary spending is allocated to amendments, while in Brazil this number has reached 24%.

The jurist emphasized that the Supreme Court is not overstepping its authority in judging the case: “The Supreme Court is merely fulfilling its constitutional function of judging violations of the Constitution. We are facing institutional chaos, the revocation of a system of government,” he stated. According to him, it is up to society to pressure parliamentarians: “We have to show that we understand that they are appropriating Brazil's budget to conduct election campaigns.”

He also highlighted the president's constitutional role as director-general of the federal public administration. "It is the president's responsibility to conceive public policies and submit the budget to Congress, which should evaluate it based on national interests. What we have today are parliamentarians with 'vouchers' to distribute funds as they see fit," he criticized.

Warde concluded by emphasizing that concentrating budgetary power in the hands of Congress undermines governability and compromises democracy. “The Executive branch becomes a dead letter. That's not what the Constitution says, and that's not what the people expect from the President of the Republic—whether it's Lula, Bolsonaro, or anyone else.” Watch: