96% of MPMG Prosecutors Received Extra Pay Above STF Limit in May
In May, 1,098 out of 1,142 prosecutors and attorneys general at the Public Prosecutor's Office of Minas Gerais (MPMG) received extra payments exceeding the limit set by the Supreme Federal Court (STF). This figure represents 96% of the career members, with only 44 individuals (3.9%) staying within the established ceiling. The STF had previously decreed that these additional payments, known as "penduricalhos" (bonuses, indemnities, converted vacation pay, etc.), could not surpass 35% of the constitutional ceiling, equivalent to R$ 16,228.16 per month, starting in May. The MPMG disbursed approximately R$ 12.3 million in excess of the STF's limit based on May's payroll data. Specifically, all 147 Public Attorneys received payments above the R$ 16,228.16 threshold, with 213 members, nearly one in five, receiving over double the limit in extra funds alone. The highest recorded extra payment was R$ 36,824.02 to a Public Attorney in a single month. While the STF maintained the financial limit in late June, it expanded the types of payments that could be included within this cap, such as cash payments for accumulated vacation and on-call duties prior to the ruling.
The data reveals a significant disconnect between the Supreme Federal Court's directive on supplementary payments and the actual compensation practices within the Minas Gerais Public Prosecutor's Office. While the STF aimed to cap "penduricalhos" at 35% of the constitutional limit, nearly all MPMG members exceeded this threshold in May. This suggests potential systemic issues in interpreting or implementing the STF's ruling, or perhaps a deliberate circumvention of its spirit. The substantial excess payments, totaling over R$ 12.3 million in a single month, raise questions about fiscal responsibility and equitable compensation within public institutions. Moving forward, clarity and consistent enforcement of these financial regulations are crucial to ensure public trust and adherence to judicial mandates, particularly as such practices can create disparities and potentially influence institutional incentives.
AI-generated to prompt reflection — not editorial opinion, not advice, not a statement of fact. How this works.