The presentation of three amendments to the constitutional amendment proposal PEC 63 — which had been stalled for eight years — generated expectations in the Senate that the bill will soon be put on the agenda. This proposal reinstates an additional 5% to the salary of judges and public prosecutors every five years — hence the name quinquennium. It was outlawed in 2005.

If the expenses foreseen for the two careers included in the original bill (judiciary and federal and state prosecutor’s office) are computed, the annual budget impact is R$3.6 billion. There are amendments that extend the bonus to public lawyers, federal prosecutors, public defenders and chief police officers. This would add R$900 million to this bill, without taking into account state employees in those categories. These estimates refer to active servers. The inclusion of retirees at least doubles these figures.

The president of the Association of Judges of Brazil (AMB), Renata Gil, says she has received the support of the Federal Supreme Court Chief Justice Luiz Fux. All his predecessors in office in recent years, she says, have supported AMB’s request. When contacted by Valor, Justice Fux did not return the call. Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco (Social Democratic Party, PSD, of Minas Gerais) denied that the PEC will be put on the agenda this week.

This is not the first time that a legislative proposal ignores the article 114 of the Constitution, which conditions the increase in expenses to the indication of the relevant source of revenues. The uniqueness of this PEC is the support it receives from the state careers whose mission is to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

The proposal, authored by former Senator Gim Argello, has been in the Senate since 2013. As of March 10 this year, it received two amendments from the Workers Party (PT) and one from the União Brasil (UB).

The Constitution, however, was not enough to prevent PEC 63 from being rescued during this legislature. The sign that it might be put on the agenda was given by the presentation of three amendments between March 10th and 16th, after eight years frozen in the Senate. Two of those amendments are from PT senators Humberto Costa (Pernambuco) and Rogério Carvalho (Sergipe), and one from União Brasil Senator Soraya Thronicke (Mato Grosso do Sul). All of the amendments add categories to be benefited by the reintegration of the five-year term to the public service.

Ms. Gil says that the PEC does not bring a hike, but a “restructuring” of the careers, as it happened recently with the military and public defenders. The judges also felt hindered in comparison to the careers of the Federal Attorney General’s Office (AGU), federal prosecutors who began to earn attorney’s fees borne by the loser as of 2016. Of the 12,253 employees of these careers (including retirees who are also contemplated), 62% receive R$10,000 in those fees per month in addition to their salaries (the minimum wage of the segment is R$21,000).

The head of AMB says that the funds must be sought in the budget itself from an adjustment of accounts of each court. She defends that the restructuring is a way to avoid that the outgoing salary of the judges is similar to the incoming one, but it does so without reducing the former and, instead, by increasing the remuneration along the career with quinquennia that are not subject to the remuneration ceiling of the Federal Supreme Court.

Ms. Gil says that the Brazilian Judiciary system, one of the most expensive in the world, is not so costly because of the judges’ salaries, but because of the free access to justice guaranteed by the Constitution. According to AMB, there are 75 million cases being tried in Brazil, which gives an average of 4,000 cases for each of the 18,000 active judges. This is due to the free costs of lawsuits, which also explains why there are 1.3 million lawyers in the country. In Portugal, she says, the restriction in access means that there are only 400 cases per judge.

The pressure for the return of the quinquennia grew with the accumulation of three years without salary increases for the judiciary. It is a movement to get around the fiscal limitations, like the one that happened in 2000, with the creation of the housing allowance. The difference is that now the circumvention of the cap seeks shelter in the Constitution. The categories to be contemplated have a floor of R$21,000 (AGU and Public Defense) and a ceiling of R$39,300 (Supreme Court).

If the bill is passed, it will lead to a cascade of claims throughout the federal civil service. Judges and prosecutors claim 20% losses since 2019 while half of federal servants have no salary increases since 2017, accumulating losses of 28.5%.

Source: Valor International

https://valorinternational.globo.com