Case Explained: Brazil’s Lula vetoes bill that could cut prison time for coup convicts – Legal Perspective

RIO DE JANEIRO (CN) — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on Thursday vetoed a bill that would change how criminal sentences are calculated and enforced, potentially reducing prison time for those convicted over the attempted coup on Jan. 8, 2023, including former President Jair Bolsonaro.

The bill, known in Brazil as the “dosimetria,” or sentencing calculation bill, was approved by the lower house and Senate last month.

Under the new rules, courts would no longer add penalties for the crimes of coup d’état and violent abolition of the democratic rule of law when they are committed in the same context. Instead, judges would apply the harsher sentence, with a variable increase determined at sentencing.

The changes also reduce the minimum time required for prisoners to transfer to less restrictive facilities, from one-quarter of the sentence to one-sixth, while expanding opportunities for sentence reduction through work and study — including for those under house arrest.

According to Antonio José Teixeira Martins, an associate professor of criminal law at Rio de Janeiro State University, Brazil followed a general rule until 2019 allowing prisoners to move to a lower-security facility after serving at least one-sixth of their sentence, provided legal requirements were met.

That model was changed by the 2019 “anti-crime package,” which introduced different progression rules based on the severity of the crime and whether the defendant was a first-time offender.

The sentencing calculation bill partially restores the one-sixth rule for some crimes while maintaining specific criteria for others.

Martins said sentence progression is a structural element of the criminal justice system and that easing the rules does not, in itself, represent a setback.

The problem, he said, “is the attempt to create a casuistic rule, carving out crimes against the democratic rule of law with the express intention of benefiting defendants recently convicted over the acts that culminated on Jan. 8.”

“It is an unjustified and harmful innovation,” Martins said. “Criminal law, like all law, must be general and apply equally to everyone. Changing the law to benefit specific individuals cannot be justified under the constitutional order.”

By the end of 2025, Brazil’s Supreme Court had convicted 810 people over the Jan. 8 attacks — 395 for more serious crimes and 415 for less severe offenses.

Another 564 people entered into nonprosecution agreements for lower-level offenses, which include requirements such as community service and mandatory courses on democracy. The agreements resulted in more than $600,000 reimbursed to public funds to repair material damage caused by the attacks.

A further 346 criminal cases remain in their final evidentiary stages, and 98 indictments have already been filed, most of them involving alleged financiers of the attacks.

In September, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison for five crimes related to the attempted coup following the 2022 election. He was arrested in November 2025.

Under the rules in place before the sentencing-calculation bill, Bolsonaro would have been required to serve nearly seven years of his sentence in a maximum-security cell before becoming eligible for transfer.

Under the new rules approved by Congress, his sentence could be reduced to 20 years and eight months, and time spent in the most restrictive facility could drop to about two years and four months, depending on how the court interprets the law during the sentence execution phase.

The bill advanced amid a broader political debate over accountability for the Jan. 8 attacks and repeated attempts in Congress to grant amnesty to those convicted. Proposals for broad amnesty, backed by Bolsonaro allies and centrist parties since 2023, faced strong opposition from the government and the Supreme Court, leading supporters to shift toward sentence reduction legislation.

The vote in the lower house was marked by turmoil and criticism of procedural tactics after the bill was unexpectedly placed on the agenda. Government-aligned lawmakers sought to delay the vote but were defeated on the floor.

In the Senate, the bill moved quickly through the Constitution and Justice Committee and the full chamber on the same day, prompting left-wing parties to challenge the legality of the process before the Supreme Court.

Outside Congress, the bill’s advance sparked protests in several Brazilian capitals.

Demonstrators from social movements, labor unions and leftist parties opposed both amnesty and sentence reductions, accusing lawmakers of attempting to rewrite Supreme Court convictions stemming from the coup attempt.

Bolsonaro allies argued the bill was meant to correct what they see as excessive sentences imposed by the judiciary.

“There is a consensus that the sentences were excessively harsh. The narrative that this is a ‘broad shield’ or anything of the sort is not true,” said Senator Esperidião Amin, the bill’s rapporteur in the Senate, during the debate.

Mayra Goulart, a political science professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said that while the proposal carried strong symbolic weight, it did not appear to rank high among the government’s core priorities.

“At key moments, the bill’s advance was tolerated or even endorsed as part of broader negotiations with Congress, particularly those tied to the approval of the budget and economic legislation,” she said. “The prevailing logic was to prevent the issue from becoming an obstacle to the government’s agenda, especially in votes considered critical to governability.”

According to Goulart, the government’s central political objective remains maintaining Bolsonaro’s ineligibility to run for office in 2026, which does not appear to be threatened by the bill.

The vetoed legislation now returns to Congress, which can override it by an absolute majority of lawmakers in a joint session.

“It is unlikely the government will spend significant political capital fighting an override if Congress chooses to pursue it, a scenario considered plausible,” Goulart said.

According to Martins, even if Congress overturns the veto, the law could still be struck down by the Supreme Court, a possibility he described as “quite significant.”

Courthouse News reporter Marília Marasciulo is based in Brazil.