English 
Spanish 
5 min read
0 comments
Military Union causes furor by displaying CUT flag at event and defying constitutional prohibition. AGU and Federal Revenue Service take action against the entity, which tries to maintain its operations, generating an explosive debate about the rights of military personnel in Brazil.
At the center of an explosive discussion about the limits of union organization, a controversy has emerged that is shaking the Armed Forces.
In an attempt to stop an unprecedented movement in Brazil, the federal government, through the Attorney General's Office (AGU), took legal action to dissolve the recently created Military Union.
The group has stood out for legal actions and symbolic gestures that bother high-ranking officials, such as the presence of a Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT) flag at an official event.
- Discover the countries that do not have armed forces: Oasis of peace or dangerous vulnerability?
- FAB advances in military independence: unprecedented aerial identification system and 800 km missile place Brazil in the elite of global defense with Gripen fighters and submarines!
- R$ 270 billion! Global navies revolutionize the naval industry with the construction of frigates in 18 renowned shipyards, boosting the world economy with annual growth of 4%!
- Embraer and FAB revolutionize maritime defense: C-390 Millennium gains anti-ship missiles and advanced technology for coastal patrol
In recent months, the Union of Military has increased its visibility by getting involved in legal and political discussions, demanding rights for its members and questioning the actions of the military leadership.
The official response came from the AGU, which filed a lawsuit in Federal Justice of the Federal District to cancel the union's registration.
The union, which identifies itself as a defender of the interests of military personnel and their families, is still seeking space in the national debate, but is now facing questions about its own legitimacy.
Military leadership under pressure and a growing union base
Although the Army, Navy and Air Force have not yet commented directly on the case, the three commanders of the Armed Forces – Tomás Miné, of the Navy, Olsen, of the Army, and Damasceno, of the Air Force – are observing the situation with caution.
It is common practice for these high-ranking officers to stay away from political demonstrations, delegating to the AGU the role of representing the Armed Forces in court.
The Military Union, or SINDMIL, already operates in Brasília and has branches in Rio de Janeiro, with plans to expand its activities to Rio Grande do Norte in 2024.
During an event in April this year at the National Congress, the union president, George Brito, appeared publicly with a CUT flag.
The image was widely circulated, provoking reactions and making many officers uncomfortable. Brito was even direct in his criticism, accusing the commanders of the Armed Forces of protecting the previous government in exchange for salary benefits restricted to the top brass.
“The law is a bargaining chip,” he declared, in a confrontational tone.
The legal basis: 1988 Constitution and the prohibition of unionization
The government's main argument against the union is in article 142, paragraph 3, item IV, of the 1988 Federal Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the unionization of military personnel.
With this, the AGU justifies its request for the dissolution of the entity, claiming that the creation of a union directly contradicts the constitutional text.
According to the petition, the government aims to annul the civil registration of SINDMIL. The lawsuit states the following: “THE UNION files an action to annul the civil registration of the legal entity SINDMIL – UNION OF RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL, THEIR DEPENDENTS, PENSIONERS, WIVES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL, RESERVISTS AND ALL ARMED FORCES, arguing that Article 142, § 3, IV, of the Federal Constitution prohibits military personnel from joining unions.”
Federal Revenue Service blocks union financial activities
Another obstacle arose with the Federal Revenue Service, which canceled the union's CNPJ, declaring it inactive. According to Judge Márcio de França Moreira, this measure directly affects the operation of SINDMIL, since, without the CNPJ, the union cannot open bank accounts, hire employees, issue invoices or even obtain financing.
“This registration situation generates effects that impede the entity’s own functioning, since without the CNPJ the legal entity is unable to carry out its social and financial activities, such as: hiring employees, opening or operating bank accounts, making financial investments, requesting and obtaining loans and financing, issuing invoices, among other consequences”, declared the judge in his decision, highlighting that fiscal inactivity compromises the union’s functions.
A Justice's response and the current situation of the union
Despite the restrictions, the judge chose to investigate whether the union still has an active civil registration, summoning the 2nd Civil Registry Office in Brasília.
If the SINDMIL registration remains valid, the union may still seek legal alternatives to remain active, at least until the legal situation is resolved.
The SINDMIL board of directors was also summoned to make an official statement, and the continuity of the union's operations now depends on the court's decision on the validity of the entity's registration and constitutionality.
Union expansion and the future of military associations in Brazil
While the government tries to dissolve SINDMIL, the union movement within the Armed Forces sparks discussions about the rights and limitations of military personnel in Brazil.
Although the country has laws that prohibit unionization of armed forces, the union argues that its existence is legal, as it defends the interests of retired military personnel, pensioners and reservists.
This question raises a broader debate about the extent to which Brazilian legislation should adjust to reflect the demands of Armed Forces professionals.
The main question is whether Brazil is prepared for a possible evolution in the regulation of military rights, especially in relation to unionization and freedom of expression.
Although some see SINDMIL as a threat to the hierarchy of the Armed Forces, others believe that this movement can strengthen the protection of military rights.
