Transparency without accessibility is just theater
Quase dois anos após o Supremo Tribunal Federal declarar as emendas de relator inconstitucionais, o tribunal convoca uma audiência para examinar se o chamado 'orçamento secreto' realmente deixou de existir — ou apenas aprendeu a se disfarçar. É uma questão que transcende a tecnicidade jurídica: trata-se de saber se a transparência, quando ordenada pelo Estado, pode ser burlada pelo próprio Estado. O Brasil se vê diante de um dilema antigo — o da lei que existe no papel enquanto o poder continua fluindo nas sombras.
- O STF declarou as emendas de relator inconstitucionais em dezembro de 2022, mas organizações de transparência apresentaram evidências de que o mecanismo sobreviveu disfarçado em novos formatos orçamentários.
- A opacidade persiste não pela ausência de dados, mas pela sua inacessibilidade prática — informações existem dispersas em portais técnicos que a maioria dos cidadãos não consegue navegar.
- Uma nova variante emergiu: as 'emendas PIX', que transferem recursos diretamente a municípios sem os trâmites burocráticos habituais, movimentando mais de 6 bilhões de reais só em 2023.
- A audiência fechada de 1º de agosto reunirá o procurador-geral, o presidente do TCU e o advogado-geral da União — grupos de transparência foram admitidos apenas como observadores, sem direito à fala.
- Um desafio jurídico separado sobre as emendas PIX foi distribuído ao ministro Gilmar Mendes — que, em 2022, votou pela manutenção do orçamento secreto — ampliando o alcance potencial da disputa.
O Supremo Tribunal Federal marcou para a manhã de 1º de agosto uma audiência fechada para avaliar se o governo federal cumpriu a decisão de dezembro de 2022 que declarou as emendas de relator — o chamado 'orçamento secreto' — inconstitucionais. O ministro Flávio Dino, responsável pelo caso, convocou o encontro após organizações como Transparência Brasil e Contas Abertas apresentarem evidências de que a prática não foi abolida, mas apenas reconfigurada em mecanismos mais discretos.
O problema central, segundo Marina Atoji, diretora de programas da Transparência Brasil, não é a inexistência de informação — é a sua inacessibilidade. Os dados estão dispersos em portais governamentais que exigem conhecimento técnico para ser interpretados. Para o cidadão comum, o efeito prático é o mesmo do segredo. Ministérios que operaram o sistema em 2022 nunca chegaram a publicar para onde foi o dinheiro.
A audiência reunirá o procurador-geral Paulo Gonet, o presidente do TCU Bruno Dantas e o advogado-geral Jorge Messias. O Partido Socialista, autor da ação original, também estará presente. As organizações de transparência foram autorizadas a participar, mas apenas como observadoras — sem voz.
Paralelamente, abre-se uma segunda frente. As mesmas organizações alertaram para as 'emendas PIX', transferências individuais que dispensam convênios formais com a União e chegam mais rapidamente aos municípios — mais de 6 bilhões de reais foram transferidos por esse canal em 2023. Dino entendeu que o tema escapa ao escopo do processo atual. A Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo ingressou com ação separada, que foi distribuída ao ministro Gilmar Mendes — que em 2022 votou contra a inconstitucionalidade do orçamento secreto. A questão que permanece aberta é se o tribunal ampliará seu escrutínio a esses fluxos mais rápidos e menos rastreáveis, ou se o poder público encontrará, mais uma vez, uma forma de mover recursos longe dos olhos do público.
Brazil's Supreme Court is calling a hearing for Thursday, August 1st, to examine whether the government has actually stopped using a mechanism that the court itself declared unconstitutional nearly two years ago. The practice in question—rapporteur amendments, colloquially known as the "secret budget"—allowed members of Congress to direct federal money without proper disclosure of who was steering it where. The court ruled it illegal in December 2022, but transparency organizations have been telling the justices that the money keeps flowing, just through different channels now, harder to see.
Minister Flávio Dino, who is overseeing the case, scheduled the closed-door meeting after groups like Transparência Brasil and Contas Abertas submitted evidence that the old mechanism never really stopped—it just got quieter. These organizations act as "friends of the court" in the case, meaning they have standing to bring information to the justices' attention. What they found was that Congress and the executive branch had found workarounds. New budget items were being added to annual spending bills in ways that skirted the court's order. Ministries that had used the old system in 2022 never even published information about where that money went.
The core problem, according to Marina Atoji, who directs programs at Transparência Brasil, is not that information doesn't exist—it does, scattered across government portals. The problem is that it requires technical knowledge to find and piece together. "What we pointed out is not just the absence of information itself, but the lack of clarity and access," she said. Ask the government how much was spent on education in a given year, and they'll tell you to check the transparency portal. But that answer tells you nothing if you don't know how to navigate the system. For most citizens, it might as well be secret.
The hearing will bring together Paulo Gonet, the attorney general; Bruno Dantas, who heads the federal audit court; and Jorge Messias, the government's top lawyer. The Socialist Party, which originally challenged the amendments in court, will have representation there. Transparency groups asked to participate and were allowed in, but only as observers—they cannot speak. The meeting happens behind closed doors at the Supreme Court at 10 a.m.
But there is another front opening. In the same petition, the transparency organizations raised alarms about a newer variant: "PIX amendments," named after Brazil's instant payment system. These are individual amendments that skip the usual bureaucratic requirements. Because no formal agreement with the federal government is needed, money reaches municipalities faster. In 2023 alone, more than 6 billion reais flowed through this channel. Dino ruled that this particular issue falls outside the scope of the current case and would need a separate legal action. The Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo, a journalism group, filed that separate challenge last week, and it landed on the desk of Minister Gilmar Mendes—who, notably, voted to keep the secret budget alive in 2022. The question now is whether the court will expand its scrutiny to cover these faster, harder-to-track transfers, or whether the government will find yet another way to move money without the public knowing where it goes.
Notable Quotes
What we pointed out is not just the absence of information itself, but the lack of clarity and access— Marina Atoji, Transparência Brasil
A large portion of the budget is being directed to places that don't necessarily need it and aren't necessarily promoting social development, with no clarity about what is being done with the money— Marina Atoji, Transparência Brasil
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that the data exists if people can't actually use it?
Because transparency without accessibility is just theater. The government can claim it published everything while knowing most people will never find it. That's not accountability—that's the appearance of it.
So the court already ruled this unconstitutional. Why is it still happening?
Because the ruling said the mechanism itself was illegal, but it didn't set up enforcement. No one was punished. No one was forced to stop. So Congress and the ministries just found new ways to do the same thing—add items to budget bills, use PIX transfers instead. The court has to actually make them comply.
What's the difference between the old secret budget and these PIX amendments?
Speed and invisibility. The old system at least left a paper trail, even if it was hard to read. PIX amendments skip the paperwork entirely. Money goes straight to municipalities with almost no documentation of why it was needed or what it's for.
Who benefits from keeping this opaque?
Congresspeople who want to direct money to their districts or allies without public scrutiny. It's about political power—being able to say you brought resources home without having to justify it to voters or the press.
Can the court actually force compliance this time?
That's what the hearing is supposed to determine. But the fact that Gilmar Mendes—who voted to keep the secret budget alive before—now has the PIX case on his desk suggests the court itself is divided on how far to push.