ADPF 1215 (Paving of BR-319)

In April, 2025, the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB) filed a Claim of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) with a request for a precautionary measure to remedy alleged unconstitutional actions and inactions perpetrated by the federal government that paralyze and hinder the implementation of the policy on paving the BR-319 highway, located in the northern region of the country. The party defends the importance of the highway for national integration and the economic and social development of the region. It alleges that the failure to pave the BR-319 represents a failure of the State to guarantee minimum infrastructure, which violates the rights of the Amazonian population, such as human dignity, access to education and health services, the right to come and go, the exercise of citizenship, the right to movement, and the principles of equality and efficiency. The PSDB argues that it is possible to align economic development with sustainable development, presenting the BR-319 as a viable and environmentally safe alternative to solve the Amazon's isolation and guarantee the social and economic rights of its residents. It emphasizes that the isolation imposed by the lack of a highway disproportionately affects indigenous, riverside, and traditional communities, which face difficulties accessing essential public services. The party argues that the region relies primarily on river transportation for connection with other areas, which is exacerbated during dry months, when navigation can become unfeasible. It points out that droughts are worsening due to climate change, putting the population at risk of total isolation, highlighting the need for paving the highway. It argues that a paved highway would ensure the continued flow of goods and essential services and would be a strategic route for responding to environmental, health, or climate crises. The plaintiff emphasizes that all concerns should have been overcome after three decades of technical studies presented on the highway's construction and operation. It argues that one of the reasons hindering paving is the existence of conflicting decisions in legal proceedings. As an example, it presents Public Civil Action 1001856-77.2024.4.01.3200, which challenges Preliminary License 672/2022 issued by IBAMA authorizing the paving of the highway. It questions it based on flaws in environmental governance, the lack of a climate impact study, and the lack of prior consultation with communities. As a precautionary measure, it requests that the Supreme Federal Court ensure the effectiveness and full effect of Preliminary License No. 672/2022 issued by IBAMA. On the merits, it requests recognition of the violation and threat to fundamental precepts of the Federal Constitution, in order to promote sustainable regional development and the integration of the Amazon region; and a declaration that it is the duty of the Government to ensure the regular, expeditious, and constitutional continuation of all stages of environmental licensing and the implementation of state public policies that guarantee the complete paving of Highway BR-319. Reporting Justice Luiz Fux denied the action due to the inadequacy of the chosen avenue. The reasoning emphasized that an ADPF (Advanced Process of Legislative Action) was not admissible for analyzing the specific situation, and that it could be challenged through ordinary channels. A procedural appeal was filed against the decision, but was dismissed. The final decision became final and binding. * The case was classified as unfavorable to climate protection. It is recognized that the argument in the case addresses, among other arguments, the adverse effects of climate change and the need for climate resilience measures. However, based on an analysis of the legal arguments of the lawsuit as a whole, it is understood that the overall objective of the lawsuit is not aligned with climate protection.