Luís Felipe Salomão, president of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Federal Justice Council (CJF), has withdrawn a R$208.9 million request to the federal government for extra funds to pay supplementary allowances to members of the federal judiciary in 2026.
In an official letter sent to the Attorney General's Office (AGU), the justice said there was no longer any need for a budget supplement to cover the expenses. In practice, the decision means the extra compensation will have to be paid out of funds already allocated in the Federal Justice budget.
Salomão thanked the AGU for its prompt action on the request, which had been submitted under three Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) before the Supreme Federal Court (STF). He stated that new developments involving revenue inflows and year-end budget adjustments from unspent commitments had prompted a reassessment of the accounts, ending the need for additional funding within the federal court system.
While the judiciary has pulled back its request, a separate bid by the Federal Prosecution Service (MPU) for R$324 million in extra credit remains unchanged by Salomão's letter.
Federal court allowances and the salary cap
Based in Brasilia, the STJ is Brazil's highest appellate court for non-constitutional federal law, while the CJF oversees administrative and budgetary planning across the federal courts. In Brazil, extra judicial and prosecutorial payments are widely known as penduricalhos, an informal term for supplementary allowances and benefits added to base pay.
Under Brazil's constitution, public-sector pay is subject to a ceiling linked to the salaries of Supreme Federal Court justices, currently set at R$46,366.19. The dispute centres on proceedings examining the limits for paying allowances above that constitutional cap.
Faced with an impasse over how to fund the benefits, the AGU petitioned the STF on Friday, November 6, seeking clarification on how to comply with court rulings without sufficient budget resources. That filing followed official letters sent to the AGU on November 3 by the Prosecutor General's Office (PGR) and the CJF.
Planning Ministry pushback on extraordinary credit
In their November 3 letters, the PGR and the CJF argued that the expenses had arisen after the 2026 federal budget was drafted, leaving them without enough earmarked money to cover the costs. To make the payments possible, both bodies called for the opening of extraordinary credit, a mechanism that allows the federal government to release funds outside the original budget plan in urgent and unpredictable circumstances.
That proposal met with resistance from the legal department of the Ministry of Planning and Budget. In a legal opinion, the ministry's legal consultancy stated that the obligation to comply with STF rulings does not by itself authorise the opening of extraordinary credit.
The ministry's legal advisers argued that the constitutional requirements for using an extraordinary credit line would first have to be demonstrated. They noted that while the Supreme Federal Court had recognised the right to the benefits, the court had not expressly ordered the government to use that specific budget instrument to pay for them.
That opinion prompted the AGU, which represents the federal government in court, to take the issue to the Supreme Federal Court. Without questioning the right to the benefits recognised by the court, the AGU asked the justices to clarify how to comply with the rulings given the lack of funds and to determine the budgetary measures needed to make the payments.
