The article analyzes a recent decision by Brazil's Minister of Justice, Flávio Dino, which involves suspending payments classified as 'penduricalhos' or additional compensations that lack legal foundation across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This decision is a direct outcome of constitutional amendment 135, enacted in 2024, which mandates that any compensation outside the constitutional ceiling must have explicit legal backing. However, the amendment has sparked a contentious debate over whether to allow exceptions to this salary cap, raising concerns about the potential for continued high salaries without stringent controls.

The core issue addressed in the article is the shifting dialogue surrounding the constitutional ceiling on public sector salaries. While the amendment seeks to clarify and restrict excessive payments, it simultaneously opens the door for defining what may be exempt from this ceiling. Critics argue that permitting exceptions based on future legal definitions can lead to an ongoing cycle of justifying higher payouts, undermining the original intent of the constitutional limitation. This dilemma emphasizes the need for a more robust solution that addresses the root causes of excessively high public sector compensation instead of merely adjusting the parameters around which payments are made.

In conclusion, the author suggests that the current legislative approach may not adequately resolve the issues of salary excesses within the public sector. The amendment's allowance for legal exceptions could signal a return to leniency in regulating public salaries, thereby threatening the very principles of fiscal responsibility and accountability. The article calls for a comprehensive reevaluation of how public salaries are structured and the legal frameworks that govern them to ensure adherence to the constitutional framework without permitting loopholes that could be exploited in the future.