The Rejection of the “Shielding Constitutional Amendment” (“Pec Da Blindagem”) In Brazil: An Important Reaffirmation of the Rule of Law and Popular Sovereignty

On 24 September 2025, following a unanimous rejection by the Constitution and Justice Committee, Brazil’s Senate halted the so-called “Shielding Constitutional Amendment” (“PEC da Blindagem”), a constitutional reform initially approved by the Chamber of Deputies that aimed at expanding parliamentary immunity and limiting judicial oversight of lawmakers. In this article, Juliano Zaiden Benvindo and Matheus de Souza Depieri trace how the Bill sparked nationwide debate and mobilization, examining the interplay between legislative manoeuvring, judicial oversight, and public engagement. They explore how the Senate’s rejection reflects the resilience of Brazil’s rule of law, the capacity of the public to check political power, and the ongoing challenges and possibilities for democratic accountability in the country.

Composed at the height of Brazil’s military dictatorship by songwriters Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil in 1973, the song Cálice became a cry against censorship and a national symbol of resistance to authoritarianism. Decades later, the same yearning for voice and resistance re-emerges as Brazilians thronged the streets to confront Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3/2021 and lawmakers‘ attempt insulate themselves from judicial scrutiny and accountability. Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil, now in their eighties, joined other great Brazilian musicians in taking Cálice to the streets once again. It was a decisive moment that profoundly reshaped the country's political landscape.

For the last months, (...) Congress appeared to have had a single overriding agenda: to grant amnesty to former President Jair Bolsonaro and his close associates.

The recent developments in Brazil have made it clear that Congress is more concerned with protecting its own interests than with addressing the pressing needs of Brazilian society. For the last months, particularly within far-right circles but also with support from right-wing and centre-right parties, Congress appeared to have had a single overriding agenda: to grant amnesty to former President Jair Bolsonaro and his close associates. These developments gained momentum after Bolsonaro’s conviction to more than twenty-seven years in prison in September 2025, and became particularly critical when, in an attempt to secure far-right support, Speaker of the House Hugo Motta submitted for deliberation both an urgent motion for the controversial Amnesty Bill—aimed at granting pardons or reducing sentences for individuals convicted in connection with the January 2023 attacks on government institutions and that could have led to the amnesty of Bolsonaro—and Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3/2021, a reform introduced in 2021 to expand parliamentary immunity and limit the judiciary's ability to hold lawmakers accountable. While the former was not yet included in the legislative agenda (though the motion for urgent deliberation was approved), the latter was deliberated and approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 16 September, with 314 votes in favour and 168 against.

This provoked widespread public protests across the country. In response to this mobilisation, the Senate quickly rejected the proposal. This unanimous rejection, supported by senators from different political parties, clearly demonstrates the decisive role of the public in holding political actors accountable. The impact was equally significant: for the first time in many years, it was not the far-right that filled the streets, but Brazilians from across the political spectrum who came together to defend democracy. It became evident that the tide had already turned. For many politicians who still believed that progressive and other democratic movements lacked the strength to confront the far-right in the streets, this came as a genuine surprise.

What is the "Shielding Constitutional Amendment" ("PEC da Blindagem")?

As soon as it was reintroduced, Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3/2021 triggered intense public debate in Brazil. The proposal received several nicknames, including "PEC da Blindagem" ("Shielding Constitutional Amendment"), "PEC da Impunidade" ("Impunity Constitutional Amendment"), and "PEC da Bandidagem" ("Banditry Constitutional Amendment").

This mechanism would have hindered, or even prevented, the criminal prosecution of parliamentarians for acts that should be subject to accountability, and would have curtailed the role of the Supreme Federal Court in initiating and adjudicating such cases.

In brief, the Bill aimed to expand parliamentary immunity and limit the judiciary's ability to hold lawmakers accountable. In the version of the Bill approved by the Chamber of Deputies, it was proposed that criminal proceedings against Members of Parliament could only move forward if the respective legislative house expressly authorised the prosecution. In fact, according to the Bill’s second paragraph 'members of the National Congress shall not be subject to arrest, except when caught in the act of committing a non-bailable offense, nor may they face criminal prosecution without prior authorisation from their respective Chamber'. Such authorisation to prosecute, according to the third paragraph would be held 'by secret ballot and require an absolute majority of the members of the respective Chamber'. This mechanism would have hindered, or even prevented, the criminal prosecution of parliamentarians for acts that should be subject to accountability, and would have curtailed the role of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in initiating and adjudicating such cases.

The requirement of legislative authorisation for criminal prosecution of lawmakers is not unprecedented in Brazil. Under the 1988 Constitution, no criminal proceedings could be initiated against members of Congress without the prior consent of their respective Chamber. If authorisation was denied or not considered, the STF was barred from proceeding with the case. This rule was an emblematic mechanism of impunity. During the thirteen years of its enforcement (until 2001), the parliamentary "shielding" mechanism prevented more than 200 criminal proceedings against deputies. According to CNN, out of the 217 STF requests submitted to Congress to investigate lawmakers in that timeframe, the Chamber of Deputies approved only one. The offences under investigation ranged from corruption to homicide. In 2001, however, Constitutional Amendment No. 35 was enacted, abolishing the legislative veto power and marking an important step toward strengthening accountability.

The Legislative Procedure: How was the Bill Rejected?

The Bill was initially introduced in 2021 but was not deliberated under the previous legislature. Following the 2022 federal legislative elections, Deputies Pedro Lucas Fernandes and Joaquim Passarinho requested its reinstatement, and the Chairman authorised its reintroduction into the legislative agenda in August 2025. Then, in September 2025, the Bill was unexpectedly submitted for deliberation in Parliament without prior opportunity for public participation. Within only two days, the Chamber of Deputies approved the Bill by a vote of 314 in favour and 168 against.

The legislative process proved highly controversial. Several Members of Parliament filed writs of mandamus before the STF (for example, MS 40508-DF and MS 40504-DF), alleging serious procedural irregularities that undermined the constitutional legislative process. Among the alleged defects were the lack of adequate notice, in violation of the principle of publicity, as the report was orally presented only minutes before voting, contrary to the Chamber's internal rules.

On 21 September, protests took place in at least twenty-three state capitals across Brazil, mobilising hundreds of thousands of citizens.

Before the STF could rule on the constitutionality of the proceedings, the Bill provoked widespread and immediate public backlash. Only days after the Chamber's approval, large-scale demonstrations erupted across Brazil against the Bill and other contentious measures, particularly the Amnesty Bill. On 21 September, protests took place in at least twenty-three state capitals across Brazil, mobilising hundreds of thousands of citizens. The mobilisations were marked by the participation of Brazilian artists (such as Caetano Veloso, Chico Buarque, and Gilberto Gil) who were historically associated with resistance against the military dictatorship.

In response to this intense wave of popular mobilisation, the Senate expedited consideration of the proposal. On 24 September, the Senate's Committee on Constitution and Justice unanimously voted against the Bill. Under Brazil’s legislative procedure (Article 133(7) of the Senate Internal Proceedings), this rejection resulted in the proposal being definitively rejected and archived, without the need for plenary deliberation.

What does the rejection of the "Shielding Constitutional Amendment" represent for the Rule of Law in Brazil?

In Brazil, a young democracy and developing country, some progress has been made over recent decades toward consolidating the rule of law; however, this progress has not been linear. The country has been repeatedly challenged by large-scale corruption scandals (such as the Mensalão and Lava Jato operations, as well as fraud cases involving the National Social Security Institute), which have deeply undermined public confidence in accountability and institutional integrity.

Public perceptions in Brazil, as reflected in the 2022 World Justice Project General Population Poll, indicate that the public does not trust that public officials who commit wrongdoings will be held accountable. According to the poll, only 24% of respondents expressed confidence that high-ranking government officials would be held accountable for violations of the law. Additionally, members of political parties and the National Congress are perceived as the most corrupt actors in Brazil, and approximately 77% of respondents believe that "most or all members of Brazilian political parties and the legislature are involved in corrupt practices". Given Brazil's history of corruption scandals and the prevailing negative public perception of the legislature, it is unsurprising that citizens reacted negatively to a Bill seeking to extend lawmakers' immunity beyond the bounds of the rule of law.

The rejection of the "Shielding Constitutional Amendment" is a landmark example illustrating that, even in a context of persistent institutional challenges, citizens can (and should) actively participate in protecting the rule of law and its enforcement.

This episode offers important lessons and hopes for the strengthening of the rule of law and democracy in Brazil. Public mobilisation occurred immediately and effectively, demonstrating that the public can still constrain legislative overreach and reaffirming that popular sovereignty remains a fundamental check on political power. Faced with widespread opposition one year before the next general elections, Senators quickly rejected the proposal, while Members of Parliament pursued a crisis-management agenda—either by apologising for supporting the amendment, or by engaging with other bills to improve their public image, such as approving a bill exempting income tax for those earning up to R$5,000 per month only a week later. The rejection of the "Shielding Constitutional Amendment" is a landmark example illustrating that, even in a context of persistent institutional challenges, citizens can (and should) actively participate in protecting the rule of law and its enforcement.

Moreover, the defeat of the Bill transcended mere parliamentary procedure. It represented a democratic reaffirmation by popular mobilization. What originated as public indignation against political self-protection evolved into a broader affirmation of the resilience of Brazil's constitutional values and the rule of law. The voices that once protested against censorship are now amplified by citizens unwilling to accept renewed efforts to shield corrupt politicians from accountability. In this context, Cálice regained significance beyond its musical legacy: it served as evidence that the rule of law, like democracy, requires society’s capacity and willingness to mobilize, organize, and challenge power. Despite its profound structural problems, Brazilian democracy has demonstrated a resilience that exceeds what many observers around the world might expect. Whether through street mobilization or institutional mechanisms, a process of democratic learning appears to be unfolding and, crucially, proving its practical strength. The rejection of the Bill stands as compelling evidence that, even amid recurring institutional crises, Brazil’s constitutional democracy still has the capacity for collective renewal.

Juliano Zaiden Benvindo is Associate Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the University of Brasília, CNPq Research Fellow, and Director of the Center for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Brasília.

Matheus de Souza Depieri is Associate Editor of the International Review of Constitutional Reform and Director of the Center for Comparative Constitutional Studies at the University of Brasília. He holds a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of Cambridge (King’s College).

♦ ♦ ♦ 

Suggested citation: Juliano Zaiden Benvindo and Matheus de Souza Depieri, ‘The Rejection of the “Shielding Constitutional Amendment” (“Pec Da Blindagem”) In Brazil: An Important Reaffirmation of the Rule of Law and Popular Sovereignty’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 13 October 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/rejection-shielding-constitutional-amendment-pec-da-blindagem-brazil

Click here for updates on constitutional developments in Brazil.

If you are interested in contributing a Voices from the Field piece on constitutional change in your country, please contact us at constitutionnet@idea.int.