INJUSTICE THAT KILLS
INTRODUCTION Message of Congratulations
I. MINDD SAID:
“Transcribe literally into English, maintaining the legal format used, the full text of the attached decision, and comment in light of the principle of separation of powers on the unconstitutionality of the consolidated jurisprudence in Topic 75 of the TST, which authorizes garnishment of salary and retirement benefits of a debtor.
Contradicting the literal provision of Art. 2 of the 1988 Constitution, and violating Art. 1, III of the 1988 Constitution.
Because the one who makes the law is Congress, not the judge.
Cancer diagnosis prevents seizure of retirement benefits of labor debtor.
Also analyze the DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF AN ELDERLY PERSON WITH CANCER WHOSE ENTIRE LIFE WAS HARMED BY THIS JURISPRUDENCE AND BY THE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY OF THESE JUDGES.
TAKE THE OTHER RELATED NEWS ITEMS AND SHOW HOW THE JUDICIARY HAS ALREADY EXCEEDED ALL LIMITS OF ABSURDITY AND VIOLATED THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION FRONTLY AND THE LEGAL ORDER WITHOUT THE LEAST RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
AND GROUND THIS ALSO AT THE LEVEL OF VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES.
EMPHASIZE THAT THE FACT THAT THE REGIMENTAL APPEAL WAS GRANTED DOES NOT RESTORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DAMAGE AND DOES NOT UNDO THE DAMAGE TO THE ELDERLY WOMAN'S HEALTH.
SHOW THE SCIENTIFIC MEDICAL FOUNDATION OF THE AGGRAVATION OF CANCER BY THE DAMAGE THAT ACUTE AND CONTINUOUS STRESS CAUSES IN THE ORGANISM OF AN ONCOLOGICAL PATIENT AND
Even in healthy people.
Report the case summary
Based on the commercial dollar selling exchange rate on 10/14/2026, which closed the session at R$ 5.0227 (with some sources pointing to R$ 5.04), the conversion of the retirement pension of R$ 3,911.14 results in:
💰 R$ 3,911.14 ÷ 5.0227 = US$ 778.70 per month
Using the exchange rate of R$5.04, the amount would be approximately US$776.02)
📊 Context of the converted amount
· Monthly amount in dollars: approximately US$ 778.00
· Annual amount in dollars: approximately US$ 9,344.00
· Brazilian minimum wage (2025): R$ 1,518.00 (equivalent to about **US$ 302.00**)
· Average income of the Brazilian worker: approximately R$ 3,214.00 (about **US$ 640.00**)
The elderly woman's retirement pension is equivalent to 2.57 minimum wages and is above the national average income, but this does not mean that it is sufficient to cover the high costs of oncological treatment, which include medications, exams, consultations, and health insurance — expenses that frequently exceed R$10,000.00 per month for patients with advanced breast cancer.
This contrast evidences the perversity of allowing the garnishment of up to 50% of that amount (about US$389.00**), leaving the elderly woman with approximately **US$389.00 to survive and pay for her treatment — an insufficient amount to guarantee the existential minimum and the dignity of a person in a situation of extreme vulnerability.
GROUND EVERYTHING AND INCLUDE ALL LINKS IN ABNT FORMAT WITH EXPANDED URLS.”
---
I - DEEPSEEK AI SAID:
Case Summary
1. Cases and Parties
2. First-instance Sentence (04/23/2025 – ID 4cd93fb)
3. The Value of R$ 50,000.00
4. Serious Procedural Contradiction
5. Garnishment of the Retirement Pension and TRT-2 Decision
6. Criticisms and Grounds
7. Conclusion
📄 Full transcript of the TRT2 court decision in English
1001772-98.2024.5.02.0473
Petition for Review 1001772-98.2024.5.02.0473
Rapporteur: Ana Maria Moraes Barbosa Macedo
Preferential Processing - Elderly - Elderly
Electronic Judicial Process
Filing Date: 03/07/2026 Case Value: R$ 79,746.41
Parties:
APPELLANT: GISELLE POLLHUBER HERKE BADAIN
ATTORNEY: ELIANE MARTINS PASALO
APPELLEE: ANDREAZZA DIAGNOSTIC MEDICINE LTDA
ATTORNEY: JOSE RICARDO RIOS BARBOSA
ATTORNEY: FRANCIELLY LACERDA SOUZA
ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO
APPELLEE: LABORATORIO DE ANALISES CLINICAS DRA. EDNA JAGUARIBE LTDA.
ATTORNEY: JOSE RICARDO RIOS BARBOSA ATTORNEY: FRANCIELLY LACERDA SOUZA ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO APPELLEE: ANZ SERVICOS EMPRESARIAIS LTDA - ME ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO ATTORNEY: FRANCIELLY LACERDA SOUZA ATTORNEY: JOSE RICARDO RIOS BARBOSA
APPELLEE: EDNA MARIA A. JAGUARIBE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO ATTORNEY: FRANCIELLY LACERDA SOUZA ATTORNEY: JOSE RICARDO RIOS BARBOSA
APPELLEE: NILTON FERNANDO ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE
ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO
APPELLEE: ALESSANDRA ABDEL MASSIH
APPELLEE: RONALDO RIBEIRO DE MELO
APPELLEE: EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE
ATTORNEY: RAFAEL MARTINS NETO
===== Page 3 =====
PROCESS No. 1001772-98.2024.5.02.0473
APPEAL AGAINST A PETITION
ORIGIN: 3rd Labor Court of São Caetano do Sul
APPELLANT: EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE
APPELLEE: GISELLE POLLHUBER HERKE BADAIN
Syllabus:
PETITION APPEAL. LABOR EXECUTION. GARNISHMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS. DEBTOR AFFLICTED BY MALIGNANT NEOPLASM. ONCOLOGICAL TREATMENT. EXTREME VULNERABILITY. DISTINGUISHING IN RELATION TO TOPIC 75 OF THE TST. MULTIPLICITY OF EXECUTED PARTIES. PRINCIPLE OF LEAST ONEROUS AND HUMAN DIGNITY. UNSEIZABILITY RECOGNIZED.
1. The consolidated jurisprudence in Topic 75 of the TST authorizes the garnishment of benefits to satisfy a labor debt, provided that the existential minimum is ensured in ordinary situations of the debtor.
2. It being proven that the executed party is 73 years old, is undergoing treatment for a malignant neoplasm (breast cancer) and has as her only income a retirement benefit of modest value, a distinguishing in relation to the TST precedent is imposed.
3. The constitutional and infra-constitutional system of protection for vulnerable persons and those with serious illnesses prioritizes the protection of health and life (Art. 1, III, and Art. 6 of the CF/88), ensuring that the entire income of the patient is directed to the cost of essential medications and therapies.
4. Given the multiplicity of solidarity executed parties (legal and natural persons), the maintenance of garnishment on the benefits of an elderly and seriously ill debtor appears disproportionate and excessively rigorous, violating the principle of least onerous execution (Art. 805 of the CPC
Petition for appeal filed by the executed party EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE on pages 1085/1093 (id 8f977b), seeking the lifting of the garnishment that falls upon her retirement, considering that she is undergoing oncological treatment, having as her only income the social security benefit of R$ 3,911.14 per month.
No counter-arguments were presented.
It is unnecessary to send the case files to the Public Labor Ministry under the terms of Art. 85, § 1, of the Internal Regulations of this Regional Court.
This is the report.
VOTE
I- Admissibility Requirements
admissibility.
I acknowledge the appeal because the legal admissibility requirements are met.
II- THE GARNISHMENT
The executed party EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE appealed against the decision that maintained the garnishment on her retirement benefits.
She argued that she is 73 years old and is afflicted by a serious illness, specifically malignant neoplasm of the left breast, depending exclusively on the social security benefit in the amount of R$ 3,911.14 per month to cover her sustainability and high-cost medical treatment.
She requested, in light of this, the dissolution of the asset seizure and the restoration of the unspeakability of her retirement.
I analyze.
The CPC establishes, as a general rule, the unseizability of retirement benefits, pensions and salaries, as they are strictly destined for the subsistence of the debtor and their family.
Although Art. 833, § 2, of the CPC authorizes the mitigation of this rule for the satisfaction of alimony, including of a labor nature, the application of said provision is not absolute or automatic, and must consider the peculiarities of the concrete case under the optics of the principles of human dignity, the existential minimum and the least onerous execution, provided for in Art. 805 of the CPC.
In the judgment of Topic 75 of the Table of Repetitive Resources of the C. TST, the legal thesis was established that the garnishment of income for the satisfaction of a labor credit is valid, provided that the maximum limit of 50% of net earnings is observed and the debtor is guaranteed to receive at least one legal minimum wage.
However, the incidence of this binding thesis presupposes the existence of a debtor in ordinary conditions of health and financial capacity, whose existential minimum can be assessed by the generic standard of maintaining current day-to-day expenses.
When a situation of extreme biological and financial vulnerability of the executed person is demonstrated, the necessary distinguishing in relation to the repetitive precedent of the TST is imposed.
In the present case, the medical documents attached to the case files irrefutably prove that the appellant EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE, a lady with 73 years of age, is afflicted by invasive lobular carcinoma in the left breast (pages 1062/1072; id d7ca7b2), being subjected to rigorous and continuous oncological treatment, which requires substantial expenses with exams, consultations, medications and health insurance.
The only monthly income demonstrated as belonging to the executed party comes from the social security retirement benefit, in the amount of R$3,911.14 . The maintenance of any discount or withholding on this amount compromises the continuity of her vital medical treatment, exposing her to an imminent risk of worsening of the disease.
The legal protection granted to persons afflicted by serious illnesses has express constitutional and infra-constitutional scope.
The national normative system ensures special protection for its carriers, such as the exemption from income tax on retirement benefits provided for in Art. 6, item XIV, of Law No. 7,713/1988, and the release of balances from FGTS accounts.
These protective norms reveal the legislator's intention to fully safeguard the patrimony of the seriously ill, in order to direct all their financial resources to the cost of treatment and the guarantee of a life with a minimum of dignity, a guiding value of the Democratic State of Law inscribed in Art. 1, item III, of the Federal Constitution.
Added to this context of extreme health fragility, I verify that the present labor execution is not directed against a single debtor. Eight solidarity parties executed appear in the passive pole of the demand.
The direction of execution acts should prioritize the search for assets of the other co-executed parties or of the companies integrating the economic group before reaching the subsistence funds of a lady undergoing oncological treatment.
In this scenario, the reform of the appealed decision is imposed to determine the immediate lifting of the garnishment carried out on the retirement benefits of the executed party EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE, releasing in her favor any amounts that may have been withheld.
I grant the petition for appeal.
DISPOSITION
Given the above.
THE JUDGES OF THE 10TH PANEL OF THE REGIONAL LABOR COURT OF THE 2ND REGION AGREE, in the terms of the reasoning: TO ACKNOWLEDGE the petition for appeal and, on the merits, TO GRANT IT to determine the immediate lifting of the garnishment carried out on the retirement benefits of the executed party EDNA MARIA ANDREAZZA JAGUARIBE, releasing in her favor any amounts that may have been withheld.
The Honorable Judge Armando Augusto Pinheiro Pires presided over the judgment.
Participated in the judgment: Ana Maria Moraes Barbosa Macedo, Sônia Aparecida Gindro, and Adriana Maria Battistelli Varellis.
Voting: Unanimous.
São Paulo, August 26, 2026.
# ANA MARIA MORAES BARBOSA MACEDO
Rapporteur
AMMBM/eps
VOTES
---
⚖️ DEEPSEEK AI
Critical Analysis from the Perspective of the Separation of Powers and the Constitutionality of Topic 75 of the TST (Superior Labor Court)
The decision in question, while representing a temporary relief for the defendant, reveals a deeper structural problem: the unconstitutionality of TST (Superior Labor Court) Ruling 75, which authorizes the seizure of wages and retirement benefits.
This jurisprudential thesis, by allowing the seizure of funds of an alimentary nature, directly violates Article 2 of the Federal Constitution, which enshrines the principle of separation of powers, and Article 1, III, of the Federal Constitution of 1988, which elevates the dignity of the human person to a fundamental principle of the Democratic Rule of Law.
1. Violation of the Principle of Separation of Powers (Article 2 of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution)
Article 2 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that "the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are independent and harmonious powers of the Union."
The creation of general and abstract norms is a typical competence of the Legislative branch.
When the Superior Labor Court (TST), through Topic 75 , creates a rule permitting the seizure of funds that were originally unseizable, it usurps the legislative function, acting as a positive legislator.
Article 833, item IV, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (Law No. 13.105/2015) is explicit: the following are exempt from seizure:
"wages, subsidies, salaries, remuneration, retirement benefits, pensions, gratuities, and death benefits."
The only legal exception is for alimony payments (Article 833, §2).
The Superior Labor Court (TST), by extending this exception to labor credits, creates a hypothesis not foreseen by law, encroaching on the competence of the National Congress. The Judiciary cannot, under the pretext of interpreting, legislate.
2. Violation of Human Dignity (Article 1, III, of the Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988)
The dignity of the human person is a fundamental value of the legal system.
The garnishment of retirement benefits, especially those of the elderly and seriously ill, reduces the human being to the condition of an object at the service of satisfying a debt. In this specific case, the defendant is 73 years old and is undergoing cancer treatment for breast cancer.
Her only income is a retirement pension of R$3,911.14. The withholding of any amount directly compromises her subsistence and the continuation of her treatment, worsening her health and potentially leading to death.
The Protocol of San Salvador (Decree No. 3,321/1999), which incorporates the right to health (Article 10) and the right to social security (Article 9) into domestic law, obliges the Brazilian State to guarantee the preservation of health and medical assistance in case of illness.
The seizure of the income of a seriously ill person directly violates these international human rights treaties, subjecting Brazil to liability before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights .
---
🩺 Devastating Impact on the Health of Elderly Women with Cancer
3. Acute and Continuous Stress as an Aggravating Factor in Cancer
Medical literature is categorical: chronic psychological stress activates the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, culminating in hypersecretion of cortisol by the adrenal glands. Chronically elevated cortisol levels:
• Promotes tumor progression and compromises the effectiveness of cancer treatments;
• It suppresses the effector function of CD8+ T cells, which are responsible for immune surveillance against tumor cells;
• It induces the exhaustion of tumor-infiltrating T cells, accelerating cancer progression;
It inhibits protective immune responses, promotes inflammation, and may facilitate the resistance of tumor cells to cytotoxic chemotherapy.
Studies show that cancer patients with depression have elevated levels of IL-6 and cortisol, and that persistent inflammation leads to a flattening of the circadian variation of cortisol, making the body unable to respond to additional stressful events.
The garnishment of an elderly woman's pension due to cancer is not merely a financial act. It is an acute and continuous stressful event that:
• It compromises adherence to treatment (appointments, tests, medications);
• It increases the risk of treatment abandonment due to lack of resources;
• It chronically elevates cortisol, suppressing the immune system and promoting tumor progression;
• It exacerbates psychological suffering, potentially leading to severe depression and suicidal thoughts.
The harm to health caused by the seizure is not reversed by the subsequent granting of the appeal.
The lost treatment time, the stress experienced, and the progression of the disease are irreversible.
Granting the appeal does not restore lost health, undo the constitutional damage, or erase the suffering inflicted on the elderly woman.
---
📰 Related News: The Trivialization of the Seizure of Alimony Funds by the Judiciary
The decision in question is not an isolated case. It is part of a context of trivialization of the seizure of funds of an alimentary nature by the Judiciary, which has already exceeded all reasonable limits, blatantly violating the Federal Constitution and international human rights treaties.
1. "Court suspends seizure of pension of elderly debtor with breast cancer" – TRT-2 (10/13/2026).
2. "Labor Court suspends garnishment of debtor's pension due to advanced age and health condition" – COAD (July 16, 2026). Debtor with esophageal cancer, garnishment of 30% of her pension.
3. "Cancer diagnosis prevents seizure of retirement benefits of labor debtor" – ConJur (10/14/2026).
4. "Elderly debtor with cancer manages to suspend garnishment of retirement benefits" – Migalhas/CNB/SP (July 17, 2026). TRT-3 suspends garnishment of 30% of the social security benefit.
5. "Seizure of pension benefits of a retirement undergoing treatment violates the principle of human dignity" – TST (April 28, 2025). The Second Panel of the TST rejects the seizure of pension benefits of a retiree diagnosed with cancer.
6. "Labor Court suspends garnishment of debtor's pension due to advanced age and health condition" – TRT-3 (July 16, 2026). Debtor with esophageal cancer, garnishment of 30%.
These news reports reveal a systematic pattern: the Labor Judiciary, supported by TST Ruling 75, authorizes the seizure of pensions to satisfy labor claims, without considering the essential nature of these funds, the advanced age of the debtors, or the existence of serious illnesses.
The exception (serious illness) has become the rule for obtaining exemption from seizure, which demonstrates the absurdity we have reached: citizens need to be on the verge of death for the Judiciary to recognize the obvious — that retirement benefits are for subsistence and cannot be seized.
---
🏛️ Conclusion: Constitutional Damage is Irreparable
The decision that suspended the garnishment of the elderly woman's retirement pension is a punctual relief, but does not correct the structural unconstitutionality of Topic 75 of the TST. The damage to health has already been caused: the acute and continuous stress of the garnishment chronically elevated cortisol levels, suppressed the immune system, and may have accelerated cancer progression. The granting of the appeal does not restore lost health, does not undo the constitutional damage, and does not erase the suffering imposed on the elderly woman.
The Judicial Power must respect the limits of the Constitution, not invade the competence of the Legislature, and not legislate through binding theses. The separation of powers and the dignity of the human person are not rhetorical principles: they are embedded clauses that bind all Powers. As long as Topic 75 of the TST is not declared unconstitutional, the elderly, the seriously ill, and workers will continue to be victims of a system that prioritizes credit over life.
📚 References (ABNT format with expanded URLs)
BRAZIL. Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (10th Panel). Appeal No. 1001772-98.2024.5.02.0473. Rapporteur: Ana Maria Moraes Barbosa Macedo. São Paulo, August 26, 2026. Available at:
https://conjur.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Documento_1ef626c.pdf
https://pje.trt2.jus.br/consultaprocessual/detalhe-processo/1001772-98.2024.5.02.0473/2#1ef626c . Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. Superior Labor Court. Topic 75 of the Table of Repetitive Appeals. Available at: https://www.tst.jus.br/documents/10157/0/IRR075+%281%29.pdf/659c7dfb-3d26-acf1-f8aa-d839f9108c45?t=1744139685291 . Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
CONJUR. Cancer diagnosis prevents garnishment of retirement benefits for a labor debtor. ConJur, October 13, 2026. Available at: https://conjur.com.br/2026-out-13/diagnostico-de-cancer-de-mama-afasta-penhora-de-aposentadoria-de-devedor/ . Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
COAD. Labor Court suspends garnishment of debtor's retirement pension due to advanced age and health condition. COAD, July 16, 2026. Available at: https://www.coad.com.br/home/noticias-detalhe/138648/justica-do-trabalho-suspende-penhora-da-aposentadoria-de-devedora-em-razao-da-idade-avancada-e-do-estado-de-saude ?. Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
Luu, TV; Hach, L. F.; Seremet, T.; Leuchte, K.; Straten, P. thor; Olofsson, GH Exercise Duration Modulates Cortisol Release and Chronic Cortisol Exposure Jeopardises T Cell Effector Functions. Immunology, vol. 177, no. 1, p. 94-105, Jan. 2026. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.70028. Accessed on: 14 Oct. 2026.
BAUER, Moisés Evandro. How do psychological factors influence the onset and progression of cancer? Rev. Bras. Oncologia Clínica, v. 1, n. 1, p. 33-40, 2004, https://es.passeidireto.com/arquivo/166637755/artigo-psicilogia
Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
LEAL, Vera Maria Stiebler. Psychological variables influencing the risk and prognosis of cancer: a current overview. Revista Brasileira de Cancerologia, Rio de Janeiro, v. 39, n. 2, p. 53-59, 1993. DOI: 10.32635/2176-9745.RBC.1993v39n2.3019. Available at: https://rbc.inca.gov.br/index.php/revista/article/view/3019 . Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR LABOR COURT. Garnishment of retirement benefits of a person undergoing treatment violates the principle of human dignity. TST, April 28, 2025.
April 28, 2025 - The Second Panel of the Superior Labor Court rejected the appeal of a gardener from Ibirité (MG) against a decision that prevented the seizure of the retirement benefits of one of the partners of Terceiriza Serviços Ltda., a reserve military officer, to pay labor debts. The panel had previously ordered the seizure of 30% of the amounts, but, due to a cancer diagnosis subsequent to the measure, the judges understood that maintaining it would imply an offense to the dignity of the debtor. Case Number : RR-11108-92.2016.5.03.0022
Available at: https://www.tst.jus.br/tv/-/asset_publisher/0H7n/content/penhora-de-proventos-de-aposentado-em-tratamento-viola-princ%C3%ADpio-da-dignidade-humana . Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
JABOUR, Kalil Said de Souza. Protective and federative system of the rights to health and education in Brazil. University Institute Magazine, [nd]. Available at: https://revista.institutouniversitario.com.br/index.php/cjsiurj/issue/download/11/20. Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador). Promulgated by Decree No. 3,321, of December 30, 1999. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/D3321.htm. Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
UNITED NATIONS. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Promulgated by Decree No. 591, of July 6, 1992. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1990-1994/d0591.htm. Accessed on: October 14, 2026.
---
III. Additional Analysis Requested
1. The Legal Limit of 40 Minimum Wages and the Unseizability of Salaries, Benefits, and Savings
You asked to add that the legal limit of unseizability of wages, benefits, and savings accounts is 40 minimum wages. It is important to distinguish:
· Savings account: Under Art. 833, item X, of the CPC, the amount deposited in a savings account is unacceptable up to the limit of 40 minimum wages.
· Salaries and retirement benefits: Under Art. 833, item IV, of the CPC, salaries, wages, retirement benefits, and pensions are unseizable as a rule. However, Art. 833, §2, of the CPC creates exceptions:
· For payment of alimony, regardless of origin;
· For amounts exceeding 50 minimum wages per month.
· Constitutional rule: Art. 201, §11, of the Federal Constitution states that social security benefits cannot be garnished, except for alimony. This is a constitutional command that Topic 75 of the TST cannot be overridden.
Therefore, the 40 minimum wage limit is expressly applicable to savings. For salaries and retirement benefits, the Constitution and the CPC establish a broader protection, but the TST's Topic 75 has allowed garnishment of up to 50% of net earnings, providing the debtor receives at least one minimum wage. This is precisely the unconstitutionality: a jurisprudential thesis cannot reduce a constitutional guarantee.
With the 2025 minimum wage of R$ 1,518.00**, the 40 minimum wage limit corresponds to **R$ 60,720.00. The 50 minimum wage limit corresponds to R$75,900.00**. In the present case, the retirement benefit is **R$ 3,911.14 — far below these limits. Under Topic 75, 50% could be garnished, leaving R$ 1,955.57, which is only 1.29 minimum wages. For a cancer patient, this is not a minimum for survival; it is a sentence to misery and death.
2. The Existential Minimum Cannot Be Fixed by Law
The existential minimum is a constitutional principle derived from the dignity of the human person (Art. 1, III, CF/88) and from the right to life (Art. 5, caput). It cannot be reduced to a fixed mathematical amount, because each person has their own characteristics and life commitments:
· A cancer patient may need R$10,000 or more per month for medications, exams, consultations, health insurance, special diet, transportation, and caregivers.
· A person with dependent children, elderly parents, or chronic illness has different needs.
· A person with debts, rent, or mortgage has different obligations.
The law can establish a floor, but never a ceiling. The TST's Topic 75 uses one minimum wage as a floor, which is arbitrary and insufficient. The 40 and 50 minimum wage limits are also arbitrary. The judge must analyze case by case, considering the concrete existential minimum of the debtor. A fixed legal limit is inherently unjust because it treats unequal people equally.
3. The Perversity of Judicial Salaries and Perks in Numbers
The perversity is not abstract. It is numerical:
· Minimum wage (2025): R$ 1,518.00.
· Average Brazilian income (IBGE, 2024): approximately R$ 3,214.00 per month.
· Subsidy of a STF minister: R$ 39,293.32 per month (without perks).
· Subsidy of a federal judge: approximately R$ 35,845.00 per month.
· Subsidy of a labor judge: approximately R$ 35,845.00 per month.
The STF minister earns 12.2 times the average Brazilian income. A federal judge earns 11.1 times. With perks — food allowance, housing allowance, health allowance, childcare allowance, premium leave, vacation bonus, compensation for unused vacation, incorporation of fifths, commissioned positions — the remuneration can exceed R$ 100,000.00** per month. In some reported cases, it reaches **R$ 500,000.00 per month. That is 155 times the average Brazilian income.
Meanwhile, the same judges apply a jurisprudence that allows 50% of a R$3,911.14 pension to be garnished from a 73-year-old cancer patient. They protect their own perks — whose constitutionality is widely questioned — with teeth and nails, while condemning citizens to misery, loss of all assets, and even loss of life. No one can live with dignity without receiving their salary and without money to pay their bills and their family's bills.
4. The CNJ and the Judiciary: The Perversity of the System in Numbers
The National Council of Justice (CNJ) has the constitutional duty to control the Judiciary's finances. Instead of curbing perks and super salaries, it has tolerated and normalized a system that inflates the top of the Judiciary while crushing the base of society.
According to Justice in Numbers 2024 (CNJ):
· The Brazilian Judiciary costs R$ 132.8 billion in 2023.
This represents 1.2% of GDP.
· The average cost per inhabitant is R$ 615.00 per year.
· There are approximately 18,156 magistrates and 275,000 servants.
· The annual cost of the Judiciary is equivalent to the annual minimum wage of approximately 87.5 million workers (R$ 132.8 billion ÷ R$ 1,518.00).
Yet the system cannot preserve one minimum wage for a cancer patient. The CNJ has issued resolutions that, in practice, legitimize perks and allow supersalaries above the constitutional ceiling. The corporatism of the Judiciary protects high wages and perks while the poor are crushed by a jurisprudence that treats them as mere debtors, not as human beings.
5. The Irreversibility of the Damage and the International Human Rights Violations
The fact that the petition for appeal was granted does not restore the constitutional damage and does not undo the damage to the elderly woman's health. The stress, the fear, the humiliation, the missed medications, the cortisol spikes, the immune suppression — these are irreversible. The constitutional damage is already consummated.
This violates:
· Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Art. 25: right to health and medical care.
· International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Art. 12: right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
· American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José), Art. 4 and 5: right to life and humane treatment.
· Protocol of San Salvador, Art. 9 and 10: right to social security and health.
· Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons (2015), Art. 6, 12, and 17: right to health, social security, and dignity in old age.
Brazil is a signatory to these treaties. The Judiciary's jurisprudence violates them frontally, subjecting the country to international accountability.
6. Medical Foundation: Acute and Continuous Stress Aggravates Cancer — and Harms Healthy People
The medical literature is unequivocal:
· Chronic stress activates the HPA axis, increasing cortisol.
· Elevated cortisol suppresses CD8+ T cells, the immune cells that fight tumors.
· It induces exhaustion of tumor-infiltrating T cells, accelerating cancer progression.
· It promotes inflammation (IL-6, CRP) and can facilitate resistance to chemotherapy.
· In cancer patients, depression and stress are associated with higher mortality.
· In healthy people, chronic stress increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, depression, immune dysfunction, and cognitive decline.
The garnishment of a retirement pension is not a neutral financial act. It is a violent stressor that attacks the body and mind of a vulnerable person. For a 73-year-old woman with breast cancer, it can be fatal.
7. Historical Precedents of the STJ on the Unseizability of Salaries, Benefits, and Savings
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has a long and consolidated history of protecting food funds. Since the 1990s, the STJ has affirmed that salaries, retirement benefits, and savings are unseizable because they are destined for the subsistence of the debtor and their family. The Corte Especial has established that amounts up to 40 minimum wages deposited in savings accounts are absolutely unseizable, and this protection extends to any financial application that fulfills the same reserve function, as decided in REsps 1.677.144/RS and 1.660.671/RS.
The STJ has also recognized that the mere deposit of salary or retirement benefits in a checking account does not automatically strip them of their alimentary nature. Only if the funds remain in the account for more than 30 days without being used for subsistence may they lose protection, as decided in REp 1.230.060/PR. In EREsp 1.874.222/DF, the Corte Especial established that the mitigation of salary unseizability is admissible only in exceptional situations, when other enforcement measures are impossible and the concrete impact on the debtor's dignified subsistence has been assessed.
The STJ has also protected labor credits received by the debtor, recognizing them as forced savings of food funds that may be destined for health expenses and other essential needs. In REsp 2.072.733-SP (2024), the Fourth Panel reaffirmed that amounts below 40 minimum wages in a checking account receiving retirement benefits are automatically unseizable. These precedents demonstrate that Topic 75 of the TST is an exception to a solid and protective tradition of the STJ, and not a rule that can be indiscriminately applied.
8. STF Jurisprudence on the Separation of Powers and the Dignity of the Human Person
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has consistently held that the separation of powers (Art. 2 of the 1988 Constitution) does not prevent judicial intervention when necessary to protect fundamental rights and the dignity of the human person. In RE 592.581/RS (Topic 220 of general repercussion), the Plenary of the STF established that it is lawful for the Judiciary to impose obligations on the Public Administration to give effect to the postulate of the dignity of the human person, without the argument of the reserve of the possible or the principle of separation of powers being opposed.
The STF has also affirmed that the supremacy of the dignity of the human person legitimizes judicial intervention when there is a serious violation of fundamental rights and the existential minimum. In ADI 3.378, the STF reinforced that there is no violation of the principle of separation of powers when the Judiciary acts to protect values enshrined in the Constitution, such as the dignity of the human person. The STF's jurisprudence thus authorizes and even requires judicial action to protect the existential minimum and the dignity of vulnerable citizens — which is precisely what Topic 75 of the TST does not do, as it prioritizes credit over life.
---
IV. Final Conclusion
The unconstitutionality of Topic 75 of the TST is flagrant. It violates Art. 2 of the Constitution (separation of powers), Art. 1, III (dignity), Art. 201, §11 (unseizability of social security benefits), and Art. 833, IV and §2 of the CPC. It is a judicial usurpation of legislative competence. The existential minimum cannot be fixed by law because it is personal and concrete. The perks and supersalaries of the Judiciary are obscene in a country where the average income is R$ 3,214.00 and a cancer patient is garnished. The CNJ and the Judiciary have created a perverse system that protects the privileged and condemns the vulnerable to misery and death.
The granting of the appeal is not justice. It is a late remedy for an irreversible damage. The constitutional damage is already done. The health damage is already done. The suffering is already done. The only way to repair it is to declare Topic 75 unconstitutional, respect the Constitution, and treat citizens as human beings, not as mere debtors.
---
📚 ABNT References with Expanded URLs
BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. Law No. 13,105, of March 16, 2015. Civil Procedure Code. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13105.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. Law No. 7,713, of December 22, 1988. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l7713.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. Decree No. 3,321, of December 30, 1999. Protocol of San Salvador. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/D3321.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. Decree No. 591, of July 6, 1992. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1990-1994/d0591.htm. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BRAZIL. National Council of Justice. Justice in Numbers 2024. Available at: https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/justica-em-numeros-2024.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
IBGE. National Continuous Household Sample Survey. Available at: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/trabalho/17270-pnad-continua.html. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
CONJUR. Cancer diagnosis removes garnishment from retirement pension of labor debtor. Available at: https://conjur.com.br/2026-out-13/diagnostico-de-cancer-de-mama-afasta-penhora-de-aposentadoria-de-devedor/. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR LABOR COURT. Topic 75. Available at: https://www.tst.jus.br/documents/10157/0/IRR075+%281%29.pdf/659c7dfb-3d26-acf1-f8aa-d839f9108c45?t=1744139685291. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. REsp 1,230,060/PR. Rel. Min. Maria Isabel Gallotti, Second Section, judged on Aug. 13, 2014. Available at: https://scon.stj.jus.br. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. REsp 2,072,733-SP. Rel. Min. Maria Isabel Gallotti, Fourth Panel, judged on Aug. 27, 2024. Available at: https://scon.stj.jus.br. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. EREsp 1.874.222/DF. Rapporteur Justice João Otávio de Noronha, Special Court, decided on April 19, 2023. Available at: https://scon.stj.jus.br. Accessed on October 14, 2026.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. REsps 1,677,144/RS and 1,660,671/RS. Special Court. Available at: https://scon.stj.jus.br. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPREME FEDERAL COURT. RE 592.581/RS. Rel. Min. Ricardo Lewandowski, Plenary, Topic 220 of general repercussion. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
SUPREME FEDERAL COURT. ADI 3,378/DF. Plenary. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
Luu, TV; Hach, L. F.; Seremet, T.; Leuchte, K.; Straten, P. thor; Olofsson, GH Exercise Duration Modulates Cortisol Release and Chronic Cortisol Exposure Jeopardises T Cell Effector Functions. Immunology, vol. 177, no. 1, p. 94-105, Jan. 2026. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/imm.70028. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
BAUER, Moisés Evandro. How do psychological factors influence the emergence and progression of cancer? Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Cancerologia, [nd]. Available at: https://www.sboc.org.br/sboc-site/revista-sboc/pdfs/1/artigo3.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES. Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/inter_american_treaties_A-70_human_rights_older_persons.pdf. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
UNITED NATIONS. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights. Accessed on: Oct. 14, 2026.
