Leaders: Government will appeal to the Supreme Court against the bill.

Gorette Brandão _Senate Agency - For the government leaders, Eduardo Braga (PMDB-AM) and Wellington Dias (PT-PI), the government is not willing to accept mandatory rules for the execution of parliamentary amendments that affect control over the execution of the budget. If this is the result of the proposal being examined in the Chamber of Deputies, they affirm that legal action on the matter will be inevitable.

"I have no doubt that this will happen," said Wellington Dias, betting that the government will take the case to the Supreme Federal Court (STF).

The Workers' Party leader observes that parliamentary amendments represent only a suggestion to the Executive branch. In his view, more rigorously, making the execution of expenses mandatory would be a "clearly unconstitutional" measure. According to his assessment, in the extreme there cannot be an imposition of expenses, since the budget is only a plan of expenses, without full guarantee of the corresponding revenues.

Based on this, Wellington Dias states that the Senate will have to look at the issue "sensibly." According to the senator, the House has an advantage in addressing the matter responsibly towards the country: it has members who have served as ministers, governors, and even presidents of the Republic—in other words, people who have managed budgets before.

"Let's not do anything here that could lead to litigation and yet another demoralizing situation," he said, appealing to his colleagues.

Wellington, however, does not oppose implementation mechanisms that offer more certainty for actions suggested through amendments, "what the parliamentarian announced to his mayor and his followers," as he puts it. However, he argues that implementation should always be contingent on the actual receipt of revenue.

According to Braga, the issue of mandatory amendments still requires "deep reflection" from both Houses of Congress and the government, so that the topic can be "developed and matured." Given the remaining disagreements, he considers it natural that the matter be brought before the Supreme Federal Court (STF).

"In a democratic state governed by the rule of law, whenever there is a question, the destination is the judiciary and the courts," he stated.