Minister Flávio Dino, of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), sent this Wednesday (21) to the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) a list of processes from the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU) with possible irregularities in the parliamentary amendments RP9 (budget rapporteur amendments), called “secret budget”.
The list has 21 procedures and was sent to the Supreme Court by the TCU after a request from the minister. With the decision, the prosecutor’s office will be able to take whatever measures it deems appropriate, including opening an investigation.
Dino’s decision was made after a conciliation meeting with representatives from Congress, the federal government and the TCU.
The bodies are part of a commission created to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision that considered the “secret budget” unconstitutional and determined the adoption of measures for the traceability and transparency of transfers to deputies and senators.
At the meeting, representatives of the federal Executive suggested that the entire amendment payment system be migrated to the Transfere.gov platform. The measure will allow the TCU and the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU) to access financial data in real time.
In December 2022, the Supreme Federal Court ruled that the amendments known as RP9 are unconstitutional. Following the decision, the National Congress approved a resolution that changed the rules for distributing resources through rapporteur amendments to comply with the Court’s ruling. However, the PSOL, the party that filed the lawsuit against the amendments, pointed out that the ruling remains in breach.
After the retirement of Minister Rosa Weber, the original rapporteur of the case, Flávio Dino took over the case.
On the 1st of this month, Dino determined that the RP9 amendments must follow traceability criteria. The minister also ordered the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU) to audit the transfers made by parliamentarians through the “secret budget” amendments.
The decision was made after the minister concluded that Congress was not complying with the Court’s decision that determined transparency in the release of these types of amendments.
