Institutionalized Excess: A Decision That Again Empties the Constitution – „Ordem e Progresso“ Remains a Dream
How the STF’s 2026 ruling codifies decades of penduricalhos and entrenches judicial privilege at the expense of fiscal responsibility and social equity.
The headline “STF autoriza penduricalhos de até 70% do teto do funcionalismo público” is not merely controversial – it crystallizes a decades-long pattern of constitutional subversion. This is not a precedent; it is the formalization of a system that has long circumvented the law, institutionalizing what the Constitution aimed to forbid.
1. Constitutional Ceiling vs. Judicial Practice
Brazil’s 1988 Constitution established a clear ceiling for public salaries, linked to the remuneration of Supreme Court justices (currently R$ 46,366.19). Its purpose was to ensure equality, fiscal responsibility, and rational governance.
Yet, “penduricalhos” – additional payments officially classified as “indemnities” or “supplements” – have routinely bypassed this ceiling for decades. The 70% threshold approved by the STF means a public servant could legally earn up to R$ 78,822 per month, almost double the constitutional ceiling.
2. Historical Origins: The 1980s Lost Decade
Immediately after the “lost decade” of the 1980s, marked by hyperinflation, soaring public debt, economic stagnation, and widespread social hardship, the Brazilian population struggled to recover. While citizens endured scarcity, the judiciary began creating early forms of penduricalhos – indemnities, allowances, and small supplements – to bypass salary ceilings.
- 1987–1989: Travel indemnities and technical duty supplements start appearing in federal courts.
- These early penduricalhos were smaller in scale than later decades but set the pattern for systematic circumvention of constitutional limits.
This timing underscores a profound moral dissonance: judicial elites enriched themselves precisely when the population faced austerity and economic insecurity.
3. Timeline: Evolution of Penduricalhos (1987–2026)
1987–1989: Origins
- Early travel indemnities and technical duty supplements emerge in federal courts.
- Amounts small (R$ 2,000 – 5,000/month) but exceeding partial limits during hyperinflation.
1990–1995: Emergence
- Judiciary institutionalizes “indemnities” for technical and travel duties.
- 1995: Travel indemnity example – R$ 15,000.
1996–2002: Expansion and Normalization
- Penduricalhos include legal duty allowances, technical responsibility, teaching, and lecture supplements.
- 2002: Public Prosecutor offices implement legal duty supplements – R$ 12,500.
2003–2010: Structural Entrenchment
- Supplements institutionalized; oversight weakens.
- TCU audits report systematic evasion, with payments reaching up to 50% over the ceiling.
2011–2019: Fiscal Recognition and Resistance
- TCU studies: Limiting penduricalhos to 30% could save R$ 1.2 billion/year.
- Warnings largely ignored; payments continue to rise.
2020–2025: STF’s De Facto Toleration
- Court decisions implicitly allow exceptions; salaries sometimes exceed R$ 70,000/month.
2026: STF Formalizes the 70% Threshold
- Penduricalhos up to 70% officially codified (R$ 32,500+), transforming decades of informal evasion into institutionalized privilege.
4. Fiscal Illusion: A “Limit” That Expands Spending
Framing a 70% threshold as a “restriction” is semantic trickery. Analyses show higher limits increase total expenditures:
- TCU 2019: Reducing penduricalhos to 30% could save R$ 1.2 billion/year.
- Projected 70% threshold: increases spending by R$ 600 million in the first year alone.
In practice, this “discipline” is a mechanism for fiscal expansion disguised as restraint.
5. Institutional Self-Interest
The judiciary, alongside the Public Prosecutor’s Office, directly benefits. Self-regulation ensures self-preservation, violating the principle that no authority should be judge in its own cause. This entrenches structural privilege at the core of the state.
6. Social and Moral Implications
Brazil faces chronic deficits, underfunded healthcare, education, and security services. Against this backdrop, legitimizing penduricalhos of up to 70% above an already high ceiling sends a corrosive social message:
- Austerity is selective.
- Limits are applied unevenly.
- Public sacrifice is not shared.
Judicial elites operate above constraints binding ordinary citizens, deepening social distrust and eroding public legitimacy.
7. Collapse of the Constitutional Ceiling
The ceiling was meant to enforce equality and fiscal responsibility. Systematic exceptions hollow it out. A ceiling that can be exceeded by 70% ceases to be a ceiling – it is a legal fiction stripped of normative force.
8. Final Judgment
This is not a technical adjustment. By formalizing penduricalhos of up to 70%, the STF transforms decades of informal evasion into codified privilege. It signals that the highest public office prioritizes self-enrichment over constitutional mandate and social responsibility. In a nation facing fiscal constraints and social inequality, this decision institutionalizes structural injustice and corrodes public trust.