PGR and Judiciary want extra credit of R$533 million to pay for bills, and AGU sends case to the STF

The PGR (Attorney General's Office) and the CJF (Federal Justice Council) want the government to open an extraordinary credit of R$533 million to finance extra funds for magistrates and members of the Public Ministry later this year. The AGU (Attorney General of the Union) sent the case to the STF (Supreme Federal Court).

The petition was filed this Friday (6), three days after the Attorney General of the Republic, Paulo Gonet, and the president of the CJF, minister Luis Felipe Salomão, asked the AGU to take the issue to the Supreme Court — although the Executive will not benefit from any decision.

The expenditure, if authorized, will be outside the expenditure limit of the fiscal framework and, therefore, will contribute to the increase in public debt. The action is under the rapporteurship of Minister Alexandre de Moraes.

The impasse involves the decision of the STF itself, which rescued the five-year benefit, a bonus that grants 5% more payment for every five years completed in a career, limited to 35%. The amount is paid above the civil service salary ceiling, currently at R$46,366.19.

In the petition, the AGU asks the STF to clarify "the way in which the judgment must be complied with, given the insufficient budget allocation reported". The Union's legal body also asks the Supreme Court to determine the "budgetary measures necessary to fulfill the obligations imposed in binding decisions".

The Supreme Court's thesis was set on March 25 of this year, effective from April and payment the following month.

In letters sent to the AGU last Tuesday (3), the Judiciary and Public Ministry bodies claim that they do not have sufficient resources to cover the payments and comply with the court decision.

With less than two months to go before the end of the year, the two bodies want the Executive to release the money through extraordinary credit, an instrument that the Federal Constitution reserves for urgent and unpredictable expenses, such as those resulting from calamity, war or internal commotion.

The request was made despite the LDO (Budget Guidelines Law) of 2026 giving until November 29th to send requests to Congress to reallocate resources in order to meet legal obligations, as is the case in question.

Instead of seeking to cut from other areas, therefore, the Public Ministry and the Judiciary seek to pass the responsibility on to the Executive, through a request for extra space.

The cost of the hanging is estimated at R$208.9 million for the Judiciary and R$324 million for the Public Ministry. In the second case, the amount also includes payments relating to compensation for unused vacations.

The bodies still want the cost of the benefit estimated for 2027 to become an increase in the spending limits planned for next year, although the PLOA (annual budget law project) has not yet been voted on by Congress — in other words, relocation would also be possible in this case.

In the AGU request, made in a generic way, there is no express mention of extraordinary credit in 2026, nor the possibility of an extra limit in 2027.

In the document, the AGU cites an opinion from the legal consultancy of the Ministry of Planning and Budget, in which the technicians state that the judicial decision handed down in March does not demonstrate, in itself, the potential to cause damage equivalent to that of a war, internal commotion or public calamity. Furthermore, the consultancy argues, there was no identification of which services would be compromised if the bodies adopted the ordinary route to honor payments (through relocations).

Despite this, the consultancy mentioned cases in which extraordinary credit was admitted as a means of complying with a court decision, albeit on a "very exceptional" basis, and also suggests that a new determination could pave the way for extraordinary credit.

"There is nothing to prevent, in the case of the MPU, a judicial decision that, specifically examining the means of compliance, authorizes or determines the adoption of the necessary measures to open extraordinary credit", says the opinion of the MPO's legal consultancy, cited by AGU. "If it happens, the administration must observe it within the limits of its provisions, preserving the powers of the President of the Republic and the National Congress."

In the letter sent by the CJF, Salomão uses the opinion as an argument in favor of requesting extraordinary credit.

"The Legal Consultancy at the Ministry of Planning and Budget issued an Opinion [...] in which it was pointed out that the duty to comply with the decision is uncontroversial, but the opening of extraordinary credit depends on 'a judicial decision that, specifically examining the means of compliance, authorizes or determines the adoption of the necessary measures for the opening of extraordinary credit'", says the document requesting intervention from the AGU in the case.

In the PGR document, Gonet also mentions the MPO's opinion. "When analyzing the request to open extraordinary credit intended for the payment of personnel expenses of the Federal Public Ministry, arising from the thesis of general repercussion established in Theme 966 by the Federal Supreme Court, the Legal Consultancy of that Ministry pointed out the need for a 'judicial decision that, specifically examining the means of compliance, authorizes or determines the adoption of the necessary measures for opening extraordinary credit'", says the document.