Brazil’s political landscape was rocked this week as the Federal Senate decisively rejected a controversial proposal that would have expanded criminal immunity for lawmakers—a move that unleashed a wave of public protest and ignited fierce debate about the balance of power among the nation’s branches of government. The so-called “PEC of armor,” formally known as the Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) of prerogatives, was quashed by the Senate’s Constitution and Justice Commission (CCJ) on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, following a weekend of mass demonstrations across the country.
The proposal, which had passed Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies just days earlier, sought to require both legislative houses to authorize any criminal proceedings against sitting parliamentarians before the Supreme Court could move forward. Lawmakers would have had up to three months to decide, after which the process could continue automatically, though critics feared the measure would enable stalling tactics and shield politicians from accountability.
According to reporting by O Estado de S. Paulo, had the bill become law, it could have effectively blocked 36 ongoing inquiries against 108 current members of Congress—many of them aligned with former President Jair Bolsonaro—by requiring congressional approval before any charges or arrests could proceed. The measure also controversially included provisions for secret ballots in such votes, raising concerns about transparency and the potential for backroom deals.
The backlash was swift and intense. On Sunday, September 21, tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets in at least 30 cities, denouncing what they dubbed the “Banditry Bill.” Protesters, waving banners and chanting in unison, accused lawmakers of attempting to entrench impunity for elected officials who already enjoy significant legal protections for actions taken in office. According to International Business Times, the demonstrations were the largest since the 2022 election of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, reflecting deep public anger at perceived efforts to undermine the rule of law.
“The PEC that the Senate buried was trying to create mechanisms of protection against the exception regime implemented by a corrupt and equipped judiciary. Armage already exists, for corrupt, cronies and accomplices of the regime agents in the judiciary,” Federal Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro (PL-SP) wrote on social media, expressing his frustration at the Senate’s decision. Bolsonaro, who is currently in the United States and under investigation by Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office, blamed governors and senators for rejecting the proposal, calling them “servants of tyrants” and accusing them of being “disconnected from the people.”
He did not mince words in his criticism of the judiciary either, alleging that “it only goes to the parliamentary chain that dares to think differently from the far left dogmas in power. Corrupt parliamentary enjoys all the shields that its crops in power allow,” a statement referencing the recent conviction of his father, former President Jair Bolsonaro, by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) for leading a criminal organization and attempting to abolish the democratic state of law.
Despite Eduardo Bolsonaro’s protestations, the rejection of the PEC was nearly unanimous within the Senate’s CCJ. All 26 members voted against it, including some allies of the former president. Rogério Marinho, a former Minister of Regional Development under Bolsonaro, was among those who opposed the amendment. “I believe they were wrong in the dosage, and the drug, when it is excessive, ends up being poison,” Marinho remarked during the session, specifically criticizing the secret ballot provision.
Senate leader Davi Alcolumbre praised his colleagues for their stand, stating, “This was an act of courage.” President Lula echoed that sentiment, declaring that the proposal “met the fate it deserved because it was a national shame.” Their words reflected a broader sentiment in Brasília that the measure, far from protecting democracy, would have undermined it by placing lawmakers above the law.
The roots of the controversy stretch back to the January 8, 2023, storming of Brazil’s Parliament, Supreme Court, and Presidential Palace by supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, who refused to accept Lula’s electoral victory. The fallout from those undemocratic acts continues to reverberate through Brazilian politics. In September 2025, the Supreme Court sentenced Bolsonaro to 27 years in prison for coup-plotting, a verdict that his supporters decry as political persecution. The so-called “amnesty bill,” which would have pardoned Bolsonaro and hundreds of his followers involved in the January 8 events, has since lost momentum. According to International Business Times, lawmakers are now considering proposals for reduced sentences instead of full pardons.
The proposed immunity expansion was seen by many as a direct response to these legal challenges. The Bolsonaro movement has repeatedly accused Supreme Court judges of targeting right-wing legislators and their leader for political reasons. The immunity bill would have given Congress the final say over whether its members could be prosecuted, a move critics saw as a grave threat to judicial independence and the separation of powers.
Public opinion was overwhelmingly against the proposal. Since the House passed the measure, deputies began posting videos expressing regret for their votes, bowing to the mounting pressure from constituents. The protests on September 21 sent a clear message: Brazilians would not tolerate what many saw as an attempt to legalize impunity for the political elite. Demonstrators also voiced strong opposition to the amnesty bill, arguing that those responsible for the January 8 attacks must face justice.
The defeat of the “PEC of armor” marks a significant moment in Brazil’s ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of political privilege and accountability. While some, like Eduardo Bolsonaro, warn that the judiciary wields too much unchecked power, others argue that robust legal oversight is essential to protect democracy from those who would subvert it for personal or political gain. The debate is far from over, but for now, the Senate’s decision has been widely interpreted as a victory for transparency and the rule of law.
As Brazil moves forward, the fate of the amnesty bill and the broader issue of political immunity remain hotly contested. Lawmakers, activists, and ordinary citizens alike continue to grapple with the legacy of recent political turmoil and the challenge of ensuring that no one—no matter how powerful—stands above the law.
The events of this week have left little doubt that Brazilians remain deeply invested in the health of their democracy, willing to take to the streets to defend it when they feel it is threatened. With the Senate’s rejection of the immunity expansion, the balance between power and accountability in Brazil has, at least for now, tipped in favor of the public’s demand for justice.
