Parliamentary amendments have increased by R$170 billion in a decade, fueling a dispute between Congress, the government, and the Supreme Court.

247 - Over the past ten years, parliamentary amendments have jumped from R$ 3,4 billion to R$ 44,9 billion, accumulating growth of R$ 173 billion above inflation, according to a survey published by... FSPThe increased value and mandatory nature of these funds have transformed the issue into one of the main points of tension between the branches of government.

This tug-of-war has taken on new dimensions with recent moves by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and statements by the Speaker of the House, Hugo Motta (Republicanos-PB). In an interview and also in a closed meeting, Motta declared: "Congress is not untouchable" and stated that he is willing to discuss cuts "to the bone." Despite this, party leaders claim that there is currently no concrete debate underway about changes to the current amendment model.

Mandatory amendments—which obligate the government to allocate resources indicated by parliamentarians—have become a powerful tool in the hands of Congress. In 2026, an election year, the draft Budget Guidelines Law (LDO) foresees R$ 54,2 billion for these funds, of which 77% are mandatory. The growth of this power began in 2015, with the political weakening of then-President Dilma Rousseff (PT), who lost the ability to block congressional nominations. Under the leadership of Eduardo Cunha (MDB-RJ), the Chamber strengthened the mandatory nature of the amendments, a movement deepened during the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government, in alliance with the centrão (center-right bloc).

The current dispute, however, gained new momentum with the actions of Supreme Court Justice Flávio Dino. Appointed by Lula and a former Minister of Justice, Dino has been leading a process challenging the current model. In a single-judge decision, he determined that amendments can only be implemented with complete transparency and the opening of specific accounts, identifying the authors of the requests. He also imposed limits on the use of so-called committee amendments, which replaced the "rapporteur amendments" suspended in 2022 by a decision of Justice Rosa Weber.

In practice, Congress circumvented the ban on rapporteur amendments by concentrating resources in thematic committees, maintaining control in the hands of the legislative leadership. Dino's actions, which included a public hearing attended mostly by critics of the current model, have been interpreted by parliamentarians as a move aligned with the Lula government—further escalating the institutional crisis. Although Motta has signaled a willingness to discuss adjustments, there is skepticism within Congress itself. Some deputies believe his statements are solely aimed at softening the House's image in the face of a social media campaign accusing Parliament of benefiting the wealthy with public funds. Others see them as empty rhetoric, with no real chance of change.

The possibility of an agreement between the three branches of government involving simultaneous cuts—such as freezing the minimum wage, ending perks in the Judiciary, and reducing amendments in the Legislature—is considered extremely remote by the congressmen themselves. Meanwhile, corruption investigations related to the use of amendments continue to advance under the command of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), reinforcing criticism of the current model. For the government, which is trying to regain prominence over federal investments, the impasse surrounding parliamentary amendments has become one of the main obstacles to budget management.

The scenario indicates that, although the discourse on budget revision has gained momentum, the political interests involved make any substantial change unlikely in the short term. The impasse continues, straining the relationship between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches amidst increasing judicialization of the public budget.