Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Text Approved by Congress Allows States and Municipalities to Postpone Already Recognized Precatórios, Which May Affect Thousands of Creditors and Generate a Crisis of Confidence in the Judiciary, According to the OAB and Experts
The Precatórios Amendment, now transformed into Constitutional Amendment 136/2025, allows states and municipalities to indefinitely postpone legally recognized debts, which directly impacts thousands of creditors across the country. The measure generated an immediate reaction from the OAB, which filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Federal Court (STF) requesting the suspension of the rule.
With a judgment scheduled to take place between September 23 and 26 in an extraordinary virtual session, the STF will decide whether the Amendment is constitutional or not. For the OAB and experts like lawyer Elizelton Reis Almeida, the text violates property rights, res judicata, and represents a serious institutional risk to the justice system.
What Changes with the Precatórios Amendment and Why It Worries
The Precatórios Amendment, also referred to by critics as the “Default Amendment”, drastically alters the payment regime for judicial debts of states and municipalities.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
It authorizes the indefinite postponement of compliance with definitive court decisions, under the justification of fiscal relief for federative entities.
The problem, according to the OAB, is that this postponement perpetuates noncompliance with legal obligations, undermines the authority of the Judiciary, and disrespects final court decisions.
For lawyer Elizelton Reis Almeida, this flexibilization institutionalizes state default and harms ordinary citizens — many of whom have been waiting for years for judicial reparation.
The rule also imposes a spending cap considered “small and insufficient” to settle precatórios, which tends to create an even larger backlog of payments.
According to the OAB, the text repeats mechanisms already ruled unconstitutional by the STF in the past, which increases the chances of reversal.
Judgment in the STF: Urgency and Expectation
The Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) filed by the OAB was assigned to Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, President of the STF, who determined an extraordinary virtual session between September 23 and 26.
The rapporteur is Minister Luiz Fux, who classified the case as of “exceptional urgency”.
In the action, signed by the OAB president, Beto Simonetti, and constitutional attorney Marcos Vinícius Furtado Coelho, the entity argues that the Amendment compromises the balance between Powers and transfers to future administrations a billion-dollar liability in precatórios, without guarantee of solution.
There is a recent precedent in the STF against this type of measure, which reinforces the expectation for a favorable decision to suspend the rule.
Experts point out that, unlike other Amendments, this one brings elements that violate constitutional clauses, such as the separation of Powers and respect for res judicata.
Who Will Be Affected: Public Servants, Suppliers, and Ordinary Citizens
The measure affects public servants, pensioners, supplier companies, and citizens who have won lawsuits against the State — all having amounts to receive from final court decisions.
For many, this payment represents the only chance to reclaim labor rights, compensation for medical errors, expropriations, and other losses caused by the public authority.
According to lawyer Elizelton Reis Almeida, the impact of the Precatórios Amendment will be more severe in states with a higher volume of lawsuits, such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, and Bahia.
With the new rule, these payments may be pushed to future terms, without a defined timeline and without fair adjustment, resulting in devaluation of the original amount.
The backlog of precatórios may grow exponentially, harming budgetary predictability and increasing the legal costs of relations with the State.
In practice, the Amendment shifts to future administrations the responsibility for already recognized debts, which contradicts the principles of fiscal responsibility and legal security.
Actions of the OAB and Political Scenario
The Brazilian Bar Association has been active against the Amendment since the beginning. During the process, it presented a contrary technical note and recommended opinions from legal experts such as Egon Bockmann and Rodrigo Kanayama, who pointed out the unconstitutionality of the text.
According to the technical opinions, the new rule does not solve the fiscal problem of federative entities — it merely defers the debt.
This perpetuates a cycle of default and weakens public trust in the Justice system, in addition to opening the door for poor budget management in indebted municipalities and states.
The entity requests immediate suspension of the effectiveness of the amendment until the final judgment, which could be achieved through a preliminary injunction from the STF.
There is expectation in the legal community that, given the court’s history in similar rulings, the decision will be favorable to the suspension of the rule.
Are you or someone you know in line for precatórios and fears not receiving? Do you believe this amendment undermines confidence in Justice? Share your opinion in the comments — we want to hear from those who live this reality firsthand.
-
-
-
-
6 pessoas reagiram a isso.