From the CDB to the Vote - Who Writes the Rules When Money Gets Close to Those Who Interpret Them?

The Body-Citizen, the Biome, and the Rules We Choose for Tomorrow

Brazil’s 1988 Constitution was a fundamental milestone.

After a dictatorship, we expanded rights, strengthened democratic institutions, and placed health, education, freedom of conscience, social rights, environmental protection, and Indigenous rights within the constitutional framework.

Article 225 recognized the right to an ecologically balanced environment.

Article 231 recognized Indigenous social organization, languages, beliefs, traditions, and territorial rights.

That was enormous.

But recognizing the importance of 1988 does not mean imagining that our constitutional architecture has reached its final form.

Perhaps we can now ask together:

What should be the minimum unit of a State built to remain alive?

Before the State, there is someone feeling

BrainLatam proposes that we begin in the first person.

Before there is:

Congress;

Supreme Court;

Presidency;

company;

bank;

corporate registration,

there is a Body-Territory.

An organism that feels.

That has memories.

That imagines futures.

That compares possibilities.

That chooses.

That acts.

And that necessarily lives within a territory and a Biome.

From this starting point, we make a functional analogy between Religion, Politics, and Science.

We are not saying that they are literally identical to the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches.

We use these institutions to make operations of consciousness easier to perceive.

Religion

In first-person terms, it is the layer through which values, memories, beliefs, and expectations participate in constructing what we imagine as a better or worse future.

This is where our analogy with the Legislative branch appears:

we create rules today because we expect them to produce a certain tomorrow.

Science

Science is Doing.

Executing.

Experimenting.

Observing what happens in the world available to us now.

This is where our analogy with the Executive branch appears.

A public policy should not work merely because we believe in it.

We need to look at the result.

Politics

Politics is Judging.

Right or wrong?

Better or worse?

Did it work or not?

Do we continue or change?

And this judgment happens inside both Science and Religion.

We judge our expectations.

We judge our actions.

We judge the results.

Therefore:

Religion represents possible futures. Science acts upon the possible present. Politics continuously judges both.

We call the circulation among these operations Religare.

So can rights change?

Yes, but we need to be precise.

Brazilian rights are not completely available to any temporary political majority.

The Constitution itself prevents constitutional amendments aimed at abolishing, among other foundations, direct voting, separation of powers, and individual rights and guarantees.

But many things can change:

how a right is regulated;

how much funding it receives;

how it conflicts with another right;

who becomes protected;

which exceptions are created;

which interpretation becomes dominant.

In other words:

the constitutional text establishes limits, but the concrete life of rights continues to pass through Politics.

And here our first-person “Religion” appears again.

The people who enter Congress also have:

histories;

fears;

institutional religion or no institutional religion;

values;

economic interests;

ideas of family;

ideas of property;

development models;

expectations about the future.

They do not arrive empty when they vote.

In 2026, for example, Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies approved a constitutional amendment proposal expanding tax immunity for religious entities and associated organizations, sending the proposal to the Senate.

This is not automatically right or wrong.

It is a clear example of how a particular model of the future can become a constitutional rule under dispute.

The same happens with territory

The Constitution recognizes Indigenous rights.

But in 2023, Congress approved Law 14,701, establishing rules for Indigenous land demarcation, including the so-called time-limit thesis.

President Lula vetoed parts of the law.

Later, 321 deputies and 53 senators overturned a large part of those vetoes.

The constitutionality of these rules continues to be debated in the Supreme Court.

Observe the spiral.

Body-Territory

↓

vote

↓

Congress

↓

rule

↓

Supreme Court

↓

interpretation

↓

Indigenous territory

↓

Biome

↓

other Body-Territories.

Then:

those people feel the result.

They judge.

They vote again.

The spiral returns.

Perhaps 1988 can be expanded

Here we introduce a BrainLatam proposal.

What if, in a future evolution of Brazil’s constitutional architecture, the Body-Citizen — understood as Body-Territory — were recognized as the minimum unit of the State?

Not only:

taxpayer ID.

Consumer.

Worker.

Taxpayer.

Voter.

But:

a conscious organism that needs material conditions to feel, move, choose, and continue existing.

And what if, at the same time, economic rules were also designed according to:

the needs of Body-Citizens

and

the capacities, productivity, and limits of Biomes?

That would change the order of the question.

Today, many decisions follow something close to:

there is an economic opportunity

↓

we produce

↓

we monetize

↓

we calculate the impact

↓

we try to compensate for it.

We could experiment with another sequence:

what can this Biome sustain?

↓

what do Body-Territories need?

↓

what can we produce without reducing future possibilities?

↓

what kind of economy fits within those conditions?

The Biome would no longer enter only afterward, as an “environmental impact.”

It would participate in the earlier question.

Latin America is already asking something similar

This idea does not emerge completely from nowhere.

Latin American researchers have been studying constitutional and judicial experiences in which nature no longer appears only as an object of ownership or protection.

Research published in 2023 examined the rights of nature in Colombia, Ecuador, and Bolivia, showing different legal paths toward recognition.

Another 2023 study analyzed decisions from Colombia and Ecuador in which components of nature were recognized as rights-bearing subjects and discussed how States and companies respond to such changes.

In 2024, Michael Hantke-Domas analyzed environmental constitutionalism in Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador, highlighting how parts of Latin American constitutionalism are attempting to incorporate relationships among human beings, ecosystems, and collective rights.

BrainLatam does not need to copy any of these models.

We can ask:

What happens if Body-Territory and Biome are thought together?

Because perhaps Brazil is still a “thing for the rich”

Not because wealth is a crime.

But because money creates options that others do not have.

More companies.

More investment funds.

More corporate registrations.

More lawyers.

More time to litigate.

More ability to hire researchers.

More advertising.

More capacity to repeat a version of reality.

And, in the BrainLatam hypothesis of 5D Consciousness, repetition matters.

What returns repeatedly to the perceptual field may gain greater availability to participate in:

attention;

emotion;

judgment;

decision.

This does not mean automatically controlling someone.

It means competing for perceptual time.

So another inequality appears:

those with more money may also possess a greater capacity to make a certain future keep appearing before us.

Meanwhile:

a river has no press office.

A forest cannot buy advertisements.

A murdered Body-Territory cannot return tomorrow to repeat its own story.

From the CDB to the vote

The Banco Master case offers a contemporary example of how different layers can meet.

We begin with something apparently simple:

a CDB.

Then appear:

fundraising;

bank;

funds;

contracts;

regulation;

lawyers;

investigations;

Supreme Court;

media;

politics.

On September 1, 2026, Justice André Mendonça lifted the confidentiality of conversations found on Daniel Vorcaro’s phone and defended bringing the new material before the Supreme Court’s plenary session.

We do not know whether that decision will change votes.

We should not attribute such an intention to Mendonça without evidence.

But we do know that the information immediately moved to another scale.

It left the case file.

Entered the press.

Reached social networks.

Reached political demonstrations.

On Brazil’s September 7 Independence Day, candidates and supporters began using the Supreme Court crisis electorally and publicly expressed support for Mendonça.

So we can observe:

money

↓

bank

↓

investigation

↓

Supreme Court

↓

public information

↓

repetition

↓

emotion

↓

judgment

↓

vote

↓

Congress and Executive

↓

new economic rules.

From the CDB to the vote.

And from the vote to the next CDBs.

Who writes the rules?

Here our question is no longer only:

“who funded whom?”

It becomes:

which possibilities remain before the population long enough to become political choices?

If an alternative reduces the monetization of:

people;

land;

forest;

water;

debt,

who has an economic incentive to repeat it?

This is the subtler dimension of a “thing for the rich.”

Perhaps economic power does not simply purchase a decision.

It may purchase something earlier:

a greater capacity to make certain possibilities repeatedly exist before those who will decide.

Drex Citizen and Biome Income

It is within this question that BrainLatam proposes two political hypotheses.

Drex Citizen is not the official current project of Brazil’s Central Bank.

Our hypothesis asks whether a future public digital monetary infrastructure could guarantee a material base directly to the Body-Citizen, reducing the centrality of debt and survival pressure in everyday choices.

Biome Income asks:

if maintaining forests, water, soil, biodiversity, and territorial continuity produces collective value, why could that production not generate income for those who maintain these conditions?

The question is not:

“how do we pay people not to destroy?”

It is deeper:

why does our system account so easily for what we extract and so poorly for what continues working because we did not destroy it?

These proposals would need to be tested.

Inflation.

Fraud.

Governance.

Indicators.

Incentives.

Results.

Here Science enters again.

We act.

We measure.

And Politics judges:

did it work or not?

Religare the Republic

Perhaps a future Constitution needs to do what we expect from a healthy Body-Territory.

Religion / Legislative:

What future do we want to make possible?

Science / Executive:

What did we actually do, and what results appeared?

Politics / judgment:

Did it work?

Was it fair?

Who gained?

Who lost?

Can the Biome continue?

Are Body-Citizens living better?

And then:

the result needs to return and revise the rule.

When it cannot return, dogma begins.

The 1988 Constitution was fundamental because it expanded what the Brazilian State was capable of recognizing as a right.

Perhaps our next transformation needs to expand where we begin when asking about those rights.

Not only:

what right does the citizen have?

But:

what conditions allow a Body-Citizen capable of exercising any right to continue existing?

And not only:

how much can Brazil produce?

But:

how much can our Biomes sustain while continuing to produce life for people who have not yet been born?

BrainLatam Question

If the rules we call rights are continuously interpreted, regulated, and disputed by people who imagine different futures, how can we build a Republic in which no temporary majority can forget that every law will eventually end somewhere in the spiral — in a Body-Territory inside a Biome?

Perhaps this is the next step after 1988:

not to abandon its rights, but to bring them down to their most concrete unit — a body that feels within a territory that must remain alive.

References

Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (1988). Articles 5, 60, 225, and 231.

Guimarães, D. S. (2022). A Tarefa Histórica da Psicologia Indígena diante dos 60 anos da Regulamentação da Psicologia no Brasil. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 42.

Silva, A. et al. (2022). Addressing the opportunity gap in the Latin American neuroscience community. Nature Neuroscience, 25, 1115–1118.

Vargas-Chaves, I.; Cumbe-Figueroa, A. (2023). Los derechos de la naturaleza en Colombia, Ecuador y Bolivia. Revista Catalana de Dret Ambiental, 14(1).

Guzmán Jiménez, L. F.; Botina Gómez, A. M. (2023). Análisis de la responsabilidad del Estado y las empresas en la protección de los derechos de la naturaleza en la jurisprudencia de Colombia y Ecuador. Foro: Revista de Derecho, 39.

Tzul Tzul, G. (2023). La forma comunal de la resistencia indígena. LASA Forum, 54(3), Guatemala.

Hantke-Domas, M. (2024). Constitucionalismo ambiental en América Latina. Revista de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, 29, 63–90.

CEPAL (2025–2026). Reports and Action Plan under the Escazú Agreement regarding environmental human-rights defenders in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Brazilian National Congress / Chamber of Deputies (2023–2026). Law 14,701/2023, congressional overturning of presidential vetoes related to the Indigenous land time-limit thesis, and constitutional proposals concerning tax immunity for religious organizations.

“Religion represents possible futures. Science acts upon the possible present. Politics continuously judges both — and democracy depends on allowing lived results to return and change the rule.”