Supreme Federal Court ministers Alexandre de Moraes and Flávio Dino have ordered judges to return payments that exceeded the constitutional salary ceiling [1].
This move targets the practice of "penduricalhos" — additional allowances and bonuses that allow public servants to bypass legal pay limits. The effort represents a significant push for fiscal discipline within the Brazilian judiciary and addresses long-standing criticisms regarding the transparency of judicial compensation.
The STF demanded that seven state Courts of Justice explain the payments and return the excess amounts [2]. According to the court, these payments are illegal because they violate the constitutional salary cap established for public servants [1].
The response from the affected tribunals has been mixed. Some courts suspended the payments following the STF decision [1]. Other tribunals denied any disrespect toward the Supreme Court, stating that the payments were not irregular bonuses but were instead attributed to retirements, vacations, and indemnity allowances [3].
Some of these tribunals further argued that they were following guidelines set by the Conselho Nacional de Justiça [4]. This creates a contradiction between the STF's view of the payments as illegal excesses and the tribunals' view of them as legitimate administrative reimbursements [3].
The scrutiny of salary ceilings extends to the highest levels of the judiciary. Reports indicate that six STF ministers have received approximately R$ 2.8 million in extra payments since 2019 [5]. Among these ministers, Alexandre de Moraes leads the ranking of those who received amounts above the salary ceiling [5].
The STF continues to seek explanations from the state courts to determine which payments were legitimate and which must be refunded to the public treasury [2].
“The STF demanded that seven state Courts of Justice explain the payments and return the excess amounts.”
This crackdown highlights a systemic tension within the Brazilian legal system between the constitutional salary cap and the use of indemnity allowances to increase take-home pay. While the STF is enforcing the ceiling on state courts, the fact that its own ministers have received similar excess payments may lead to further public scrutiny regarding the consistency of the court's application of the law.
