Ouça este artigo
Several courts respond to the STF about pay above the cap. The Tribunais de Justiça of Rio de Janeiro, the Federal District, and Maranhão say they followed STF guidance and CNJ rules. They explain that higher payments arise from mandatory indemnities and pension settlements. They have sent detailed reports and are revising policies to align with the court’s directives. Other states’ responses are still awaited.
- Rio de Janeiro, Distrito Federal and Maranhão say they followed STF and CNJ rules and did not disobey.
- They argue higher payments were for indemnities or pension settlements allowed by the rules.
- The STF ministers asked for detailed reports and individual payrolls for a recent period.
- They say they tightened controls and will suspend any payments that exceed the ceiling; Maranhão also revised policies.
- Other states have not yet responded; their documents are being awaited.
Courts Respond to STF Over Payments Above the Ceiling
Seven state Courts of Justice were asked by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to explain payments that exceeded the constitutional salary cap. Three courts have replied, saying they followed the guidelines set by the STF and the National Justice Council (CNJ). They argue that the higher payments were for mandatory indemnities or retirement settlements. The other courts have yet to respond as the deadline approaches.
Court-by-Court Details
- The Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice (TJRJ) stated that payments from April to June strictly aligned with the STF parameters. It said controls were in place to enforce the court’s rules, and it provided a detailed payroll breakdown. Active judges received only the allowances defined for their position, while retirees and pensioners received amounts consistent with their status. The court affirmed its commitment to obey the STF’s rulings with rigorous adherence.
- The District of Federal Capital Court (TJDFT) argued that the larger payments arose from mandatory settlements related to the retirements of two magistrates who had unused vacation credits. It noted that it consulted the CNJ to clarify how the new remuneration rules should be applied and demonstrated caution in implementing the updated guidelines.
- The Maranhão Court of Justice (TJMA) rejected claims of noncompliance and said it has been revising its pay policy since April to mesh with the STF’s rulings. It reported suspending payments of benefits not compatible with the subsidy framework, such as certain meal, childcare, and housing allowances, as well as backdated indemnity payments and other accruals not allowed under the current rules. The court also said it had issued new resolutions to regulate authorized allowances, introduced controls to prevent exceeding the cap, and stated that any amount beyond the limit is suspended. It described a single case where a severance-related payment exceeded the threshold, noting it originated under previous management and that current leadership has ordered future similar payments to observe the ceiling until STF clarifies the rules. It added that six May cases exceeded the limit due to bonus December or vacation payments, which it claims are expressly exempt.
Conclusion
The STF’s demand for detailed payroll data and strict adherence to the constitutional salary cap has driven a decisive response from the state courts. Three courts have stated they followed STF guidance and CNJ rules, noting that higher payments arose from mandatory indemnities and retirement settlements allowed under the rules. They have provided detailed information, tightened controls, and will suspend any payments that exceed the ceiling, with Maranhão revising its policies accordingly. The remaining states are still to respond, but the trend indicates a broader move toward compliance and transparency across the judiciary. Overall, the episode underscores the judiciary’s commitment to fiscal discipline and sets expectations for policy alignment, documentation, and ongoing monitoring to prevent future overpayments.
Frequently asked questions
- What did the state courts say about payments above the cap? They said they followed STF rules and CNJ guidance. They showed that high payments came from indemnities and retirement settlements allowed by the rules. They sent details to prove compliance.
- Which payments did the courts say exceeded the cap? They pointed to indemnity payments and mandatory retirement settlements. They also noted that some payments like certain 13th salaries and vacation pay are exempt from the cap.
- What did the STF ministers require in 48 hours? They asked for detailed information on all remunerations and indemnities above the cap from April to July. They wanted payrolls for active judges, retirees, and pensioners, plus supporting documents.
- How did the Rio de Janeiro and DF courts show they were in line with the rules? TJRJ said payments between April and June followed STF limits. They sent a spreadsheet with all payroll items and said active judges only got allowed payments. They said retirees and pensioners received only eligible amounts. TJDFT said it acted in strict observance of STF guidance, CNJ rules, and the court’s directions, noting that some high payments came from mandatory retirement settlements for two judges.
- What about other states? Goiás, Paraná, Rio Grande do Norte, and Rondônia had not yet sent responses. More states are expected to reply. The documents will be reviewed by the STF ministers.