In Brazil, associations representing judges, prosecutors, and public attorneys have remained largely silent about a significant ruling by Minister Flávio Dino of the Supreme Federal Court (STF). On a recent Thursday, Dino ordered that all levels of federal agencies review compensation packages given to their members and staff, with a focus on identifying and suspending any payments that lack legal justification within a strict timeframe of 60 days. This decision directly targets various financial perks, known colloquially as 'penduricalhos', which have been criticized for exceeding constitutional salary ceilings.

Dino's directive comes in the wake of growing concerns regarding the rising number of dubious payments reported to be far beyond constitutional limits. Many of these added compensation mechanisms include payments such as 'auxílio-peru' (turkey allowance) and 'auxílio-panetone' (panettone allowance), which are often used to circumvent established salary caps. The rationale for these additional payments, frequently classified as indemnity, is increasingly viewed as a loophole that undermines the intended salary regulations, leading to calls for accountability and transparency among public servants.

As the situation unfolds, the absence of public commentary from relevant professional associations raises questions about their commitment to ethical standards and accountability in public finance. These organizations typically advocate for their members' rights and benefits, but their silence may indicate either support for a system that allows such perks or a reluctance to address potential misuses of public funds. The implications of Dino's ruling could lead to significant changes in the compensation landscape for public servants in Brazil, potentially restoring constitutional order in salary distributions across government entities.