Politics & Governance4 Nov 2026 · about 6 min

Lula government wants to approve Security PEC without voting on lowering the age of criminal responsibility

The brief

A PEC is a Proposta de Emenda à Constituição, or constitutional amendment proposal. It changes the country’s Constitution rather than ordinary legislation. This matters because the Lula government says the Constitution must include the security framework before the president can create the Ministry of Public Security, a campaign promise. The proposal would place the Sistema Único de Segurança Pública in the Constitution. That system was created by law in 2018. José Guimarães said, “The president needs the constitutionalization of the PEC” to create the ministry. The government therefore wants the Senate to approve the text exactly as it came from the Chamber. If senators change it, the proposal returns to the Chamber. If they approve it unchanged in two required rounds, it goes directly to promulgation, allowing the government to pursue the ministry.

What is a PEC, and why is this constitutional amendment needed to create a Ministry of Public Security?

The proposal would place the Sistema Único de Segurança Pública in the Constitution. That system was created by law in 2018. José Guimarães said, “The president needs the constitutionalization of the PEC” to create the ministry.

The government therefore wants the Senate to approve the text exactly as it came from the Chamber. If senators change it, the proposal returns to the Chamber. If they approve it unchanged in two required rounds, it goes directly to promulgation, allowing the government to pursue the ministry.

What is the Lula government trying to approve in the Senate, and why does it want the proposal passed without changes?

The Lula government is trying to approve the PEC da Segurança Pública in the Senate. The proposal would constitutionalize the Sistema Único de Segurança Pública and support the creation of a Ministry of Public Security. The ministry is one of Lula’s campaign promises and a priority for the end of the year.

The government wants the Senate to reject every amendment and preserve the version approved by the Chamber in March. This would avoid sending the proposal back for another vote. It also seeks to keep the reduction of the age of criminal responsibility outside the PEC’s final text.

The opposition, led in this dispute by Rogério Marinho, wants a separate vote on that reduction. The government’s preferred route repeats the Chamber’s approach: remove the age issue from the PEC and handle it through a separate proposal now moving in a special committee.

How many votes and voting rounds are required for the PEC to pass in the Senate, and how large is that threshold compared with the Senate’s total membership?

The Security PEC requires at least 49 votes in each of two voting rounds in the Senate. Both the number of votes and the number of rounds matter. Falling short in either round prevents the proposal from passing through the Senate.

The Senate has 81 members, so 49 votes represent about 60.5% of the chamber. In practical terms, the proposal needs more than a simple majority. It must secure support from a broad coalition, especially because the government wants approval without amendments.

The article says the text was approved by the Chamber in March and is now before the Senate. If senators preserve it proceeds directly to promulgation. If they alter it returns to the Chamber, extending the legislative path and potentially reopening negotiations.

What practical changes would the Security PEC make to policing, prisons, security funding, and cooperation among federal, state, and municipal governments?

The proposal would put the Sistema Único de Segurança Pública into the Constitution and reinforce cooperation among the federal government, states, and municipalities. It would give security policy a stronger shared framework instead of leaving coordination only in ordinary law.

For policing, municipalities could create their own police forces, while the Federal Highway Police could operate on railways and waterways. For prisons, faction and militia leaders would face tougher sentences, maximum-security imprisonment, and restrictions on moving to less severe regimes. Half of the national security and penitentiary funds would go to states and municipalities.

These measures would change responsibilities, enforcement, and funding at several government levels. Their implementation would depend on approval of the PEC and the resulting constitutional framework. The government considers that approval essential for creating the Ministry of Public Security.

What does reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 or 14 mean, and which crimes would the different proposals cover?

Reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 or 14 means applying criminal responsibility at a younger age than the current 18-year threshold described in the dispute. The proposals differ over whether the lower age would apply broadly or only to especially serious offenses.

Senator Camilo Santana proposed lowering the age to 16 for heinous crimes. Senator Rogério Marinho supports 16 as a general rule and 14 for heinous crimes, torture, drug trafficking, and terrorism. The PL wants these questions voted on separately.

The issue is politically central because it delayed the PEC’s planned vote before the second round. Lula has historically opposed the measure but signaled during the campaign that he might support it for heinous crimes. The government wants the age question handled in a separate proposal instead of inside the Security PEC.

What happens to the PEC’s legislative path if the Senate approves amendments, and how is the government trying to handle the age-of-responsibility issue separately?

If the Senate changes the PEC, it returns to the Chamber, which approved the proposal in March. That means the text must undergo another stage of consideration instead of moving directly to promulgation. Keeping the Chamber’s version is therefore the government’s fastest route.

The age dispute is the main obstacle. The PL has filed a separate voting request so senators must take a position on reducing the age of criminal responsibility. Camilo Santana proposed 16 for heinous crimes, while Rogério Marinho supports 16 generally and 14 for several serious offenses.

The government wants to repeat the Chamber’s solution. There, the age question was removed from the PEC in exchange for a separate proposal. That measure is now in a special committee. The Senate must decide whether to follow this route or vote on the issue within the current process.

Why do constitutional systems often require supermajorities and multiple votes to change the constitution, rather than allowing a simple majority to do so?

Constitutions establish the basic rules of government, rights, and institutions. Requiring more than a simple majority helps prevent a temporary majority from changing those rules too easily. It encourages negotiation and gives the amendment broader democratic support.

Multiple voting rounds add another safeguard. They create time for lawmakers, opposition groups, and the public to examine the proposal. A measure that survives repeated votes is less likely to reflect a sudden political impulse. Brazil’s Senate requirement in this case is at least 49 votes in each of two rounds.

The article does not explain why constitutional systems use these procedures. In general, the goal is stability balanced with democratic change. The trade-off is that amendments can take longer and may fail even when they have ordinary majority support. Here, any Senate amendment would also send the PEC back to the Chamber.

This brief was written by AI from the original reporting and checked by other models. Names, figures and quotes come from the source; read it for full context.