The Tribunal de Justiça de Rondônia (TJ-RO) made headlines recently when it conducted over ten payments exceeding R$ 1 million to judges, thanks to the reintroduction of the quinquênio, or additional time-of-service pay. These hefty disbursements, which took place in February 2024, represent accumulated payments for the period between 2006 and 2022.
The quinquênio, also known as the Additional by Time of Service (ATS), had been abolished by the Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) back in 2006 but has since witnessed a revival following legal disputes and changes within the judiciary. This payment scheme allows for judges to receive 5% increments on their salaries for every five years of service, eventually capping off at 35% after 35 years of service.
Aside from the ten judges with payments surpassing R$ 1 million, more than 117 magistrates saw deposits exceeding R$ 500 thousand, indicating the wider financial impact of this restoration. The payouts stem from judicial decisions favoring judges who began their careers prior to the quinquênio’s elimination, asserting their rights to this additional compensation.
Historically, the CNJ argued against the continuation of such payments, encapsulated in Resolution 13. Nelson Jobim, then-minister of the CNJ, stated, “The monthly salary for magistrates consists solely of a single portion, banned from adding any other type of compensation.” This action signaled the move to incorporate the quinquênio as part of the overall salary structure, eliminating the need for separate payments. Interestingly, the recent climate has led to other regional courts, including the Tribunal de Justiça do Rio de Janeiro and the Conselho da Justiça Federal, to follow suit and reinstate these benefits.
The revival of the quinquênio came about after significant lobbying from judicial associations. The Associação dos Juízes Federais (Ajufe) asserted this payment as an “acquired right” for judges who commenced their roles before 2006. The judicial argument prevailed, leading to additional benefits also reflecting cost-of-living adjustments going back several years.
Finances surrounding this lucrative return, though, have faced scrutiny. The financial estimates are staggering; the Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU) suggested potential outlays of R$ 870 million just for federal judges, with aggregate costs for all tribunals possibly reaching billions. Concerns about transparency and accountability within judicial payrolls have also been flagged—only nine tribunals mentioned the terms “quinquênio” or “ATS” back in 2023, but alarmingly this number swelled to 35 by 2024. These discrepancies fuel debates around the clarity of financial documents submitted to the CNJ.
The backdrop to these payments seems to be rooted not only in legal entitlements but also within the intertwining political climate. The recent establishment of the Proposta de Emenda à Constituição (PEC) aims to extend the quinquênio to all judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, regardless of their starting dates. If adopted, the financial blowback could equal R$ 42 billion, raising eyebrows amid governmental attempts to cut public spending.
Beyond the contentious financial discussions, the reintroduction of these judges' benefits reveals much about systemic practices and the potential reformative steps needed within Brazil's judiciary. With the judicial establishment attempting to unravel years of perceived unjust compensations, the recent decisions have considerable ramifications not only for those currently serving but also for aspiring judges.
Echoing this sentiment, spokespersons from the TJ-RO defended these payments, stating the necessity for recognizing previously omitted compensatory packages as “fundamentally legal.” They emphasized claims of these sums accurately reflecting what judges consented to during their years of service—claims validated by progressive legal battles spearheaded by judicial institutions.
So, amid debates around privilege and the ethics of substantial judicial compensation, the inquiry continues: Can judicial systems effectively balance fair compensation with public accountability? With the talk of expanded benefits on the horizon, this question has never been more urgent.