Constitutional Amendment Process in Brazil

Introduction

The constitutional amendment process in Brazil is governed by Article 60 of the 1988 Federal Constitution. Brazil has a rigid constitution (constituição rígida), meaning constitutional amendments require a more demanding procedure than ordinary legislation. As of July 2026, the Constitution has been amended 132 times through Constitutional Amendments (Emendas Constitucionais) and six Review Amendments (Emendas Constitucionais de Revisão).

Proposal

Legitimate Proposers

Under Article 60, the following may propose constitutional amendments:

• At least one-third of the members of the Chamber of Deputies or the Federal Senate
• The President of the Republic
• More than half of the state legislative assemblies (Assembleias Legislativas), each by a simple majority vote

Requirements

The proposed amendment must be presented as a formal bill. No specific subject matter restrictions apply at the proposal stage, though the proposal must be clearly framed as a constitutional amendment.

Deliberation and Approval

Bicameral Approval

The proposed amendment must be approved by both chambers of the National Congress: the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate.

Voting Requirements

Approval requires: (i) three-fifths of the members of each chamber (308 of 513 deputies; 49 of 81 senators); (ii) in two rounds of voting (dois turnos); (iii) with a separate vote in each round.

Procedure

The amendment is processed through the Constitution and Justice Committee (CCJ) for admissibility review, followed by floor debate and voting. The President of the Republic does not participate — amendments are promulgated by the Congress itself.

Promulgation

Approved amendments are promulgated by the Bureau of the National Congress (Mesa do Congresso Nacional) and are published as Constitutional Amendments.

Temporal Limitations

No Amendment During Certain Periods

Article 60, §1 provides that the Constitution may not be amended during: (i) federal intervention (intervenção federal); (ii) state of defense (estado de defesa); or (iii) state of siege (estado de sítio).

Material Limitations (Entrenched Clauses)

Cláusulas Pétreas

Article 60, §4 establishes entrenched clauses (cláusulas pétreas) — matters that cannot be abolished or substantially restricted even by constitutional amendment:

• Federal form of the state (forma federativa de Estado)
• Direct, secret, universal, and periodic suffrage (voto direto, secreto, universal e periódico)
• Separation of powers (separação dos Poderes)
• Individual rights and guarantees (direitos e garantias individuais)

Scope

The STF has held that amendments that violate entrenched clauses are unconstitutional and may be struck down by direct action (ADI). The scope of the protection is debated: some scholars argue that only abolition is prohibited, while others contend that any substantial restriction is impermissible.

Review Amendments

The 1988 Constitution provided for a one-time review amendment process after five years (Article 3 of the Transitory Provisions), requiring only absolute majority approval. Six review amendments were adopted in 1994.

Judicial Review

The STF reviews constitutional amendments for compliance with: (i) formal requirements (proper proposal, deliberation, and voting); and (ii) material limits (entrenched clauses). The STF has struck down amendments in cases such as the attempt to limit judicial independence.

The Amendment System in Practice

Brazil has a relatively flexible amendment process compared to other rigid constitutions. This has allowed frequent amendments to address changing circumstances, including: (i) administrative reforms; (ii) social security changes; (iii) tax system modifications; and (iv) institutional adjustments. Critics argue that the frequency of amendments undermines constitutional stability.

Conclusion

The Brazilian constitutional amendment process balances flexibility with stability. The supermajority requirement and entrenched clauses ensure that fundamental constitutional commitments cannot be easily altered, while the relatively accessible proposal process allows adaptation to changing circumstances. The STF’s role in reviewing amendments for compliance with material limits provides additional constitutional protection.