Furthermore, the technical areas emphasized that, once the benefit is transferred to the registered family's account, the money becomes the property of the account holder, and the government loses any influence over its destination.
The petition was filed in the form of a statement of clarification, an instrument used to request clarification on points of a court decision. In it, the AGU asks the STF to indicate how the government should comply with the court's ruling, given the obstacles listed, and to grant a "reasonable period" for the implementation of these measures.
The AGU based its argument on technical arguments from two executive bodies, the Secretariat of Prizes and Bets (SPA) of the Ministry of Finance and Senarc (National Secretariat of Citizen Income) of the Ministry of Social Development.
Senarc pointed out that the bank account used to pay Bolsa Família benefits, used by 99% of the families covered, is not for the exclusive use of the program and can handle funds from other sources, such as work. Only 1% of families make full withdrawals using the program's card.
"Regarding Bolsa Família payment accounts, only 9.67 million heads of households regularly make Pix payments from the benefit account and, on average, made only 2.5 transactions, with a value of R$355 (US$59) each (data from August/2024). Furthermore, the more than 9.67 million families that made Pix transactions moved around R$8.5 billion (US$1.4bn), but only received R$6.5 billion (US$1.1bn) from the program, therefore, it is essential to understand that any blocking of the account invades the private sphere, where the citizen moves other income," says the document.
In the document, the AGU states that it does not intend to discuss the decision again or express disagreement with it, but to clarify doubts about its content. The vote of the rapporteur, Minister Luiz Fux, was unanimously ratified by the court.
"Although concern for the economic situation of vulnerable individuals and families is commendable and necessary, the adoption of 'immediate measures' encounters practical barriers that are difficult to overcome, which is why it is essential to clarify the appealed decision," says the AGU.
The legal body also requests clarification on other points of the court decision that, in the government's assessment, caused confusion. One of them is the expression "similar", in the section in which the Supreme Court determines the adoption of immediate measures to prevent spending on gambling with resources from social and welfare programs; "such as Bolsa Família, Benefício de Prestação Continuada and similar programs."
The AGU questions whether this means that the decision goes beyond Bolsa Família and BPC to other federal benefits and also to income transfer programs maintained by the states — especially given the fact that they are also authorized to explore the betting modality.
The government also asked the STF to indicate whether, by the decision, the states are also obliged to observe the regulations of the Ministry of Finance regarding the commercial exploration of the fixed-odds betting lottery modality, which includes rules for operation, monitoring and advertising.
In the decision, Fux had determined that measures prohibiting advertising and promotion of bets targeting children and adolescents should come into effect immediately. The decision was submitted to the panel for consideration on November 14 and was ratified by the other ten judges.
"It is clear that the current scenario of evidently insufficient protection, with immediate harmful effects, especially on children, adolescents and on the family budgets of beneficiaries of welfare programs, constitutes a manifest 'periculum in mora' (danger in delay), which must be immediately removed," said the minister at the time.
The issue is being discussed in a lawsuit filed by the National Confederation of Commerce (CNC). The entity questions the constitutionality of the law approved by the National Congress in 2023 that regulates sports betting houses, arguing that the legislation is unable to protect families from the risk of financial losses from betting.
Financial education
Considered one of the founders of Bolsa Família, economist Ricardo Paes de Barros tells Folha that the increased penetration of sports betting, known as bets, is not just a problem for poorer families, but for all of Brazilian society.
According to him, supervising the beneficiaries of the social program and their consumption choices will not solve the problem, which will only be solved with more robust regulation of betting to limit its advertising and financial education actions for the population.
"We are giving poor Brazilians the freedom to choose what they want to spend their money on. And I think that should be the right way to do things," says Paes de Barros.
"Instead of restricting the poor's alternatives and focusing on what they can or cannot do with their money, I would address this [regulation of betting]. Brazil needs to know whether this is allowed or not, or what the limits of this thing are," he adds.
The economist suggests that financial education become a condition for beneficiaries of government social programs.
Source: Folha
