With a floor vote in the Chamber of Deputies scheduled for Wednesday (4), the proposal to amend the Constitution (PEC) on public security has shifted from a federal government priority to a politically sensitive issue. In an interview with Valor, the bill’s rapporteur, Congressman Mendonça Filho (Union Brazil), acknowledged that the electoral debate surrounding the proposal will be unavoidable.
“There is no way around it. Any public policy relevant to citizens will become part of the electoral debate. What I can say is that this has not contaminated the basic principles and elements included in our clean bill,” he said.
A contentious issue for the Workers’ Party (PT), lowering the age of criminal responsibility is expected to remain in the proposal and could be expanded to cover all violent crimes. The measure has become the main point of disagreement between left-wing lawmakers and supporters of the current draft.
Amid the impasse, Lower House Speaker Hugo Motta (Republicans) is seeking to build consensus to allow the bill’s approval. Despite resistance, Mendonça estimates the revised text, which substantially changes the version submitted by the executive branch, already has the backing of roughly 400 lawmakers.
Lower House approves anti-gang bill, drops new tax on betsWorkweek reform rapporteur urges caution in debate
Mendonça plans to include provisions allowing the reduction or even elimination of sentence progression benefits for leaders of criminal organizations and perpetrators of extremely violent crimes, such as femicide and crimes against children and adolescents. He also argues that concentrating coordination of public security policies at the federal level would be a mistake and would violate Brazil’s federal system, which he describes as a constitutional entrenched clause. The latest report diverges from the original executive proposal, which sought to centralize coordination under the federal government, and instead reinforces state autonomy.
The rapporteur said discussions with former Justice Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, who drafted the original proposal, were productive but marked by a more rights-oriented approach. By contrast, he described talks with the current minister, Wellington Silva Lima, as more pragmatic, with stronger representation from officials who have operational experience at the state level.
Below are the main excerpts from the interview with Valor:
Valor: Is it already possible to gauge political support for the new version of the proposal to amend the Constitution (PEC)?
Mendonça Filho: I would say support is overwhelmingly the majority. We are talking about something close to 380 votes, perhaps even near 400 votes, for our clean bill.
Valor: Will lowering the age of criminal responsibility remain in the proposal?
Mendonça: I support holding 16- and 17-year-olds criminally responsible, especially for violent crimes. Today, a young person who takes someone’s life can serve at most three years in a juvenile facility. That essentially only happens in Brazil. Most Western countries have a criminal responsibility age below 18. I do not support extremes such as lowering it to 14, but at 16, there is already maturity, including the ability to vote. We also created a specific prison regime. And we propose a popular referendum in 2028, away from the 2026 elections, to validate the change.
Valor: Do you intend to extend the lower age threshold to all crimes?
Mendonça: That is a discussion I intend to take to the final day of committee debates, listening to party leaders. For me, yes—particularly for violent crimes. Society is demanding it.
Valor: The Workers’ Party (PT) opposes lowering the age of criminal responsibility. What about other caucuses?
Mendonça: From the center to the right, support is total. I presented it to the Progressive Party (PP) caucus—100% support. The same with Republicans. Even sectors of the center-left show significant backing.
Valor: Could that lead the government to work against the proposal?
Mendonça: This is not a government position; it is a PT position, and historically a left-wing position. I respect that as a worldview. But my great public passion is education. Education transforms. Access to full-time education protects young people. It is the state’s duty to protect them. But you cannot imagine that a 16- or 17-year-old who commits a crime can be deemed not criminally responsible. That is untenable.
Valor: Public security has become a major electoral issue this year. Is it inevitable that politics will interfere?
Mendonça: I did not come here as rapporteur to present an electoral-political vision of this debate. I do not defend positions for cheering sections.
Valor: But is it possible to avoid the electoral debate?
Mendonça: It is an issue with strong electoral relevance because it reflects a major social demand. Today, 26% of Brazil’s population lives under the influence or direct control of criminal organizations. That is terrifying. There is no way around it. Any public policy relevant to citizens will become part of the electoral debate. What I can say is that electoral politics did not contaminate the core principles of our clean bill.
Valor: The government argues for greater federal centralization in coordinating public security policies. Why do you disagree?
Mendonça: It is a major conceptual mistake and misreading of Brazil’s reality. We are a country of 8.5 million square kilometers, 27 federative units, and 5,500 municipalities. Centralizing any major public policy in Brasília will not produce results on the ground. It is dysfunctional and unconstitutional. We are a federation. The key word is not centralization but integration and cooperation—data sharing, intelligence, criminal databases, and joint operations.
Valor: But a central element of the government’s proposal was to grant the federal government authority to set general public security guidelines. Doesn’t removing that alter the proposal fundamentally?
Mendonça: Centralization contradicts a constitutional entrenched clause: federalism. State autonomy is enshrined in the Constitution. Moreover, 80% of public security spending comes from state budgets. It makes no sense to centralize coordination at the federal level when the central government provides only 12% of funding. In practical terms, no country of continental dimensions adopts a fully centralized public security policy.
Valor: What concerns did Federal Police Director-General Andrei Rodrigues raise in discussions with you?
Mendonça: He expressed concerns about the Integrated Task Forces to Combat Organized Crime (FICOS). Overall, I showed that we significantly strengthened the Federal Police in the original proposal, including expanding its authority to combat interstate organized crime and environmental crime, in addition to its traditional roles—international drug and arms trafficking and border control. We also advanced funding by permanently unfreezing resources from the Federal Police fund, Funapol.
Valor: Are there suggestions you intend to incorporate into the new report?
Mendonça: There are concerns about how the FICOS are structured, particularly regarding their role and composition. We are respecting the autonomy of police forces and the role of state and federal prosecutors’ offices. Prosecutors already have their own mechanism, a special group, GAECO, which plays a strong role in combating organized crime. There is currently no constitutional legal framework formalizing this integration. We are strengthening that possibility with a more robust framework.
Valor: Funding has been a sensitive issue. How will the amendment address it?
Mendonça: First, we permanently unfreeze three federal funds: Funapol, the National Public Security Fund, and the National Penitentiary Fund (Funpen). Second, we triple the potential volume available to the National Security Fund and Funpen. Last year, about R$2 billion was executed; it could reach up to R$6 billion. That is modest compared to the more than R$150 billion spent on public security nationwide, but it is meaningful additional support. Today, nearly 80% of funding comes from states, around 12% from the federal government, and the remainder from municipalities. State forces number more than 400,000 officers. The Federal Police and Federal Highway Police combined total around 26,000. You cannot centralize that at the federal level.
Valor: What other innovations do you intend to include?
Mendonça: We will create a special regime for extremely violent crimes and leaders of criminal organizations. The Constitution will allow legislation to further reduce or even eliminate sentence progression in such cases. We have included femicide and crimes against children and adolescents among those eligible for reduction or elimination of progression.
Valor: You negotiated extensively with Lewandowski. Now, there has been a transition to Minister Wellington Silva Lima. Has the government’s stance changed?
Mendonça: Dialogue with Lewandowski was always courteous. But his team had a more rights-oriented, more ideological approach. Minister Wellington assembled a team with practical experience in the field. National Public Security Secretary Chico Lucas, for example, served as a state secretary in Piauí. He understands the reality of the states, operational bottlenecks, and challenges. The official responsible for the prison system also previously served in Espírito Santo state. Wellington himself, as the former prosecutor general of Bahia state, experienced the fight against organized crime firsthand. These are very different backgrounds from that of a career judge. Whether one likes it or not—and this is not criticism, just observation—they are worlds apart from those operating in the political arena of public security. But dialogue was always open under both administrations, with reciprocity and good faith.
