OAB/PA Criticizes Comparison Between Cuts to Judicial Payments and Slave-Like Labor

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The Pará state chapter of the OAB (Brazilian Bar Association) issued a public statement against remarks by an appellate judge of the state Court of Justice, who compared the limits set by the STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) on payments to judges to a regime of work analogous to slavery.

Context of the Remarks

On April 23, 2026, the Pará state chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association spoke out publicly about remarks made by Judge Eva do Amaral Coelho, a member of the 3rd Criminal Law Panel of the Pará Court of Justice. The remarks were made during a judgment session held on April 9 of the same year.

On that occasion, the judge criticized the limits the Supreme Federal Court has set on payments to members of the judiciary. She said judges could be counted among the workers who labor under conditions equivalent to work analogous to slavery. The comparison drew attention in the public debate and prompted a formal response from the professional body representing lawyers in Pará.

The Supreme Federal Court has addressed the so-called “penduricalhos” (add-on perks) and indemnity payments made to judges over the past several years. Its decisions set caps, restrict the nature of these line items, and require greater transparency in how they are granted. The constitutional court’s guidance reaches state, regional, and superior courts.

The Professional Body’s Statement

In its published statement, the Pará chapter acknowledged the judge’s career, marked by decades of work in the justice system, and noted the undeniable technical contribution she has built up over the years. Respect for her history and for the institutional role she plays was presented as a non-negotiable premise of the organization’s position.

Despite that acknowledgment, the OAB/PA found that her remarks called for greater care, given her institutional standing and the impact of her words on public debate. By resorting to comparisons that trivialize extremely sensitive issues, such as the fight against work analogous to slavery, the remarks overlook a grave reality that affects thousands of people living in degrading conditions and that demands responsible treatment.

By resorting to comparisons that trivialize extremely sensitive issues, the remarks overlook a grave reality that affects thousands of people living in degrading conditions.

The organization also voiced concern that, by mentioning financial difficulties experienced in a judicial career, the remarks may give society the impression of being out of touch with the reality of most Brazilians. The statement reaffirmed that debate over the value of the judicial career is legitimate, as long as it is conducted responsibly and with attention to the country’s economic and social situation.

Institutional Fallout and Public Debate

The chapter closed its statement by reaffirming its commitment to defending institutions and warning that statements of this kind can deepen the distance between justice institutions and society. It described the valuing of the judiciary as a legitimate and necessary topic, provided it is handled with balance and an awareness of the social impact of public statements.

The debate over how judges are paid is a recurring subject before the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the Supreme Federal Court itself, and judges’ associations. It involves the legal nature of these payments, the constitutional salary cap, and the principle of administrative morality set out in Article 37 of the Constitution.

From an institutional standpoint, the OAB’s intervention reinforces the idea of dialogue among the bodies that make up the justice system. By publicly stating its disagreement with a comparison made from the bench, the chapter puts pressure on the balance between a judge’s functional autonomy and social responsibility for the content of statements made in the exercise of the office. If you follow this subject and want to explore related questions, you can learn about the firm’s practice areas.

Experts in administrative law and judicial oversight note that episodes like this tend to revive discussions about institutional communication, professional decorum, and transparency in the courts. The contrast between the vocabulary the judge chose and Brazil’s social reality, in which conditions of work analogous to slavery persist, heightens the symbolic weight of the criticism voiced by the professional body. The episode adds to other recent statements that have put into debate the scope and limits of free speech for members of the judiciary during public sessions.

The Legal Framework for Judicial Indemnity Payments

The discussion about the so-called indemnity payments made to judges gained prominence through a series of decisions by the Supreme Federal Court and the National Council of Justice in recent years. The prevailing view is that these line items must be strictly indemnitary in nature, tied to reimbursement of actual expenses, and cannot be used to get around the constitutional salary cap set by Article 37, item XI, of the Federal Constitution.

Through specific resolutions, the CNJ has set stricter criteria for paying allowances, bonuses, and occasional benefits, requiring transparency on the courts’ official portals and national standardization. Resolution 13/2006 and its updates, together with the interpretation consolidated by the STF in a number of rulings on the salary cap, have defined which payments fall outside the limit and which must be counted toward it, narrowing the room for creating new line items on an ad hoc basis.

The topic resonates with the public because of the perception that indemnity payments are used as a tool to raise judges’ actual pay. Surveys by the CNJ itself and by transparency organizations indicate that many courts still maintain line items with sizable monthly payments, which contrasts with institutional statements about the financial difficulties of the career. The technical discussion, conducted at the constitutional level, coexists with a broader political and social debate about the limits of pay in Brazil’s public service.

Frequently Asked Questions

What prompted the statement from the Pará chapter?

The statement was prompted by remarks from a judge of the Pará Court of Justice, made during a session on April 9, 2026. She compared the limits the Supreme Federal Court has set on payments to judges to a regime of work analogous to slavery. The organization found the comparison inappropriate given the reality faced by victims of that regime in Brazil.

What institutional principles underlie the public statement?

The statement invokes the defense of institutions, a commitment to responsible public debate, and sensitivity to the country’s economic and social context. The organization stressed that valuing the judiciary is a legitimate topic but must be handled carefully so as not to create a disconnect from the reality experienced by most Brazilians.

Could the judge’s remarks have disciplinary consequences?

The organization’s statement is institutional in nature and does not, in itself, amount to a request to open a disciplinary administrative proceeding. Any accountability for statements made during a judgment session would go through review by the competent oversight body, taking into account the judiciary’s functional autonomy and the constitutional prerogatives of the office.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.