blog

Year XIX – no. 43

BILL NUMBER 2,481/2022 – REFORM OF THE FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

12 de junho de 2025 | Notícias

Bill 2,481/2022, authored by Senator Rodrigo Pacheco, is currently being processed in the National Congress. This Bill aims to amend Law No. 9,784/1999 and presents itself as an opportunity to make the administrative process more efficient and modern, including allowing self-composition between the Administration and those individuals or legal entities under the Public Administration (“Persons”).

The Bill has already been discussed in the Constitution, Justice and Citizenship Committee and in the Temporary Committee for the examination of bills to reform the National Administrative and Tax Processes of the Chamber of Deputies and is currently in the Federal Senate.

The rules contained in the Bill, if approved, will apply not only within the scope of the direct and indirect Federal Administration, but also to the Administration of the States and Municipalities, in order to unify the rules of the administrative process at the national level.

Below, we will explain some of the important points of the aforementioned Bill.

Electronic Process and Use of Artificial Intelligence

The Bill specifies that administrative processes should preferably be processed electronically, which is already a reality in the context of judicial processes. The objective is standardization, aiming at procedural speed and greater transparency.

The Bill also contains specific provisions on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in administrative processes. The use of AI aims to modernize procedures and ensure greater efficiency and speed, as long as it does not compromise the rights of the Persons. 

According to the Bill, the use of AI systems must comply with the principles of transparency, auditability, and the possibility of human review. Another important aspect is the preference for using AIs with open codes (open-source code for use by all participants and collaboration), to facilitate training tools and their development in a collaborative environment, with integration between various agencies.

Furthermore, it is expected that the implementation of AI in administrative processes will be preceded by specific regulations, establishing objective criteria for its use and mechanisms for explaining automated decisions. The expected regulation will possibly follow the model of the regulation of the use of AI in judicial processes, already provided for in the Resolution of the National Council of Justice No. 615/2025. This Resolution established guidelines for the development, use and governance of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary.

Procedural Administrative Legal Transactions 

Art. 25-A of the Bill provides that public bodies and administrators may enter into procedural administrative procedural legal transactions, adapting the procedure of that process to the reality of the specific case.

This institute may seem like a novelty, but the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure already provides for the possibility of entering into procedural legal transactions, in its article 190. Procedural legal transactions can be entered into in processes that allow self-composition, so that the parties can make changes to the procedure so that they are adjusted to the specificities of the case.

Thus, the parties together with the Judge can, for example, decide on the establishment of a timeline for carrying out procedural acts[1].

The proposed Bill provides for the possibility of procedural legal transactions, but only after the legal body that initiated the process has expressed its opinion. There is a provision for setting a timeline for carrying out procedural acts, by mutual agreement between the parties and the administrative body.

The permission for procedural legal transactions is a step forward, in the sense of making administrative procedures more flexible and allowing processes to be based on consensus between the Public Administration and the Persons. 

Mediation and Arbitration

The Bill provides for the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, within the scope of Public Administration. The adoption of mediation and arbitration is very welcome in administrative processes in general and can make them much more efficient and faster. However, alternative dispute resolution methods may only be used if the person concerned agrees, as provided for in the Arbitration Law[2]. 

Counting Deadlines in Business Days

Counting deadlines in business days (Art. 69-B of the Bill) may seem like a simple change, but it has a major impact on the conduct of administrative proceedings. Currently, deadlines are counted in calendar days, which penalizes those who are fined, given that they have short deadlines to hire a lawyer and present defenses and statements.

With this change, defendants will have more time to defend themselves and present documents, complying with the principles of proportionality and reasonableness applied to administrative proceedings.

Furthermore, counting the deadline in business days harmonizes the counting of deadlines in judicial proceedings and administrative proceedings.

Deadlines for Completion of the Instruction and Decision-Making Phase

Uncertainty about the duration of administrative processes is a problem. Often, processes drag on for years without any prospect of their completion.

Bill 2,481 provides that the deadline for completing the procedural investigation phase will be up to 60 days and the deadline for issuing the administrative decision will be 30 days (Art. 49). In addition, the maximum deadline for completing the process will be 6 months, except for exceptions provided for by law. 

If there is a specific Law on a specific administrative process (for example, an administrative process within the scope of MAPA, ANVISA, ANATEL, etc.), which provides for a different deadline for the conclusion of the procedural instruction phase referred to above, the deadline of the specific Law will prevail, as provided for in article 29, §3 of the Bill.

Absence of Manifestation from the Administration

One of the proposals of the Bill to ensure greater effectiveness of the administrative process is to establish clear deadlines for the conclusion of the processes and consequences for the inaction of the Administration.

Among the provisions, it is worth highlighting that the omission of the Administration may result in the transfer of competence or the tacit rejection of the request, depending on the nature of the demand.

Furthermore, the Bill expressly provides that the lack of a decision, within the deadlines provided for in the project, constitutes a violation of a clear and certain right, which may facilitate the obtaining of judicial protection in certain situations.

These measures aim to ensure greater efficiency and accountability of the Public Administration, ensuring that the Persons are not harmed by the delay in the action of the Public Power.

Administrative Sanctioning Process

1. Express Provision of Retroactivity of the Law for the Benefit of those under Public Administration

It is not uncommon for laws, ordinances, and sub-legal rules to be published during administrative proceedings and to have a direct impact on the subject matter discussed in the proceedings. However, sometimes the provisions of such rules have a negative impact on the Persons, such as in the case of setting more severe penalties. The Bill expressly provides that the Law may only be retroactive in favor of the Persons (article 68-A). 

In practice, this will mean that new, more favorable rules may be applied to ongoing proceedings. 

Guarantee of Impartiality of Decisions

The fourth paragraph of article 68-G sets forth that the activities carried out during the investigation, inquiry, accusation, and judgment in administrative sanctioning proceedings must be segregated and carried out by different public agents. In other words, there cannot be an accumulation of functions in such a way that the person who judges cannot be the same agent of the Administration who investigated or ascertained the infraction. This ensures impartiality, full exercise of the defense of those under the Public Administration and respect for the principle of due process of law provided for in article 5, item LIV of the Federal Constitution.

Final Considerations

In PRACTICE, the changes proposed by Bill 2,481/2022, if approved, will contribute to making the administrative process more uniform, applying the same rules in the various spheres of Government and regulatory agencies, as well as making it more efficient, up-to-date and guaranteeing the rights of those individuals or legal entities under the Public Administration.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an opinion or legal advice. Each case requires its own specific assessment, based on its peculiarities and individual history.

BRENTANI RONCOLATTO ADVOGADOS

[1] Art. 191. By mutual agreement, the judge and the parties may establish a timetable for the performance of procedural acts, where applicable. – Code of Civil Procedure
[2] Law 9,307/96, art. 3.