Representatives of judicial entities defended the payment of extra allowances, claiming that judges are underpaid and that the legal career is unattractive due to complexity and workload.
On September 25, representatives from judicial entities approached Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) to advocate for the reinstatement of additional payments known as 'penduricalhos' for judges. They argued that judges are underpaid, with one lawyer stating that judges 'barely have a snack,' highlighting what they perceive as an unappealing career due to the complexities involved and the high volume of cases they manage. This assertion underscores a growing concern regarding judicial remuneration and working conditions in Brazil.
Earlier in the month, Minister Flávio Dino had mandated the suspension of all additional payments that are not legally stipulated across all three branches of government—municipal, state, and federal. He provided a 60-day timeframe for identifying such payments, emphasizing that any remuneration not codified by law should be halted. This directive directly impacts the penduricalhos, prompting the ongoing debate and scrutiny about their legitimacy and necessity, particularly within the judiciary.
In conjunction with Dino's ruling, Minister Gilmar Mendes also took action by suspending additional payments that were stipulated in state laws for members of the judiciary and the Public Ministry. As these decisions are being reviewed, the STF is listening to arguments from various stakeholders, including numerous lawyers from relevant legal entities, although voting on the matter has not yet commenced. This situation reflects broader tensions within Brazil's judicial system regarding compensation and the role of perks in public service.
