The rapporteur for the reform of the Pension Reform in the CCJ, Delegate Marcelo Freitas, presented on Tuesday opinion on the admissibility of the proposal, but recommended that “adjustments” be made in the legislative technique and asked that the merit be analyzed in depth to verify the “convenience” and “justice” of the new rules.
“Our opinion is for the admissibility of the proposal, which is followed by a new and highly recommended recommendation that the Special Committee when discussing and discussing the merits, thoroughly examine the appropriateness, timeliness, and fairness of the parameters set,” he said. Freitas in opinion.
At the end of the reading, as had previously been agreed between deputies governing and opposition, a collective view was given to the opinion. The discussion of the same must occur from next Monday, to be voted until the 17th.
In the text presented on Tuesday, after arguing that the role of the Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) is limited to the analysis of admissibility, the rapporteur refers to Welfare as a “time bomb” and tries to dismiss the accusations of unconstitutionality of controversial points of the proposal, such as changes in welfare benefits, the so-called deconstitutionalization of social security rules, and capitalization, in addition to warnings of social setbacks.
“We urgently and courageously need to modify our Constitution, so that we do not only have to pay welfare and interest expenses, since without investments to generate economic growth and, therefore, tax collection, we will increasingly depend on bank financing to support us “, Says the rapporteur in the opinion.
In the case of the changes promoted by the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution (PEC) in the so-called Continuous Benefit Benefit (BPC), one of the points that brought most resistance among parliamentarians, the rapporteur denies any unconstitutionality.
Currently, the BPC guarantees the transfer of a minimum wage to those who are over 65 and to disabled people of any age who prove a condition of miserability – family income less than 1/4 of the minimum wage per person.
With the reform, another criterion to be fulfilled to request the benefit will be family equity of fewer than 98 thousand reais. From there, access rules will continue to be the same for the disabled but will change for the elderly. At the age of 60 they will already be eligible to receive the BPC, but 400 reais. Only after the age of 70 will the amount jump to a minimum wage, today at 998 reais.
“Given the fact that it is not a salary and not a benefit, it is a welfare benefit, which in this condition is similar to other benefits, such as the family wage, for example, we do not see unconstitutionality regarding the proposed initial value, all the more so because that value is fixed in a context of five years’ advance in the requirement of the age of concession, “the opinion said.
In the case of the deconstitutionalization of issues related to retirement, a key strongly beaten by the opposition, Freitas also denies any unconstitutionality, as well as denying that changes in the age requirements for retirement and contribution time can set social retrogression.
“The proposed solutions do not promote social retrogression. On the contrary, they seek the effectiveness of all rights, because the fiscal imbalance caused by the high costs of our Social Security has greatly compromised the guarantee of other rights.”
He also points out that there is no clause in the Constitution that deals with the form of financing of Social Security, which is why he does not understand any unconstitutionality related to the capitalization regime.
Freitas also attacks complaints that there was no isonomic treatment for reform categories – the main reference concerns the military, who had their retirement rules modified in a project sent later to the National Congress, accompanied by a restructuring of the career, but also there are criticisms about the treatment of women.
For him, the PEC “contains distinctions and regulations that respect the principle of isonomy, attending, in this specific point, the constitutional commandments”
“We can discuss in the special commission whether the differentiation that has been made can be extended to the police, for example, or whether the rules of the proposition are the most just or appropriate. What we can not do is deny the existence of isonomic treatment as an argument to hinder admission, “he argued.
The rapporteur also advocates that the special committee should discuss rate escalation, as well as changes in death pensions.