Court Refuses Tarcisio Bid to Call Water Rise No Increase

BRAZIL · ELECTIONS Key Facts — The ruling TRE-SP judge Domitila Manssur rejected the Tarcisio campaign's request on Monday 8 September 2026. — Who filed Governor Tarcisio de Freitas, not Fernando Haddad, brought the case. He was the complainant. — What he wanted A right of reply against a Haddad campaign advert, under Article 58 of Law 9.504/1997. — The argument His campaign said calling the Sabesp 6.11% adjustment an increase was knowingly false, because it recomposes 16 months of inflation. — The court's answer The disagreement belongs in the campaign itself, not in a censorship order. — The pattern Ten of the twelve representations the campaign filed against Haddad between 28 and 31 August concern the same water claim. Tarcisio de Freitas asked an electoral court to rule that a 6.11% water tariff rise is not an increase. It declined. TRE-SP Rejects Tarcisio Water Bill Argument Every listed company in Latin America — financials, ownership and structure for 1,450+ companies across 26 exchanges, in one place. Browse the directory → RT Ask Rio TimesWhat this means, and what's next › Open the full Ask Rio Times → Sao Paulo's electoral court has refused to order a right of reply against a Fernando Haddad campaign advert about water bills. The decision came on Monday 8 September 2026. Who Was Suing Whom The procedural posture matters here, because it is the reverse of how the story is often told. Governor Tarcisio de Freitas was the complainant. His campaign asked the Tribunal Regional Eleitoral de Sao Paulo to grant a right of reply against an advert from the Haddad campaign. The remedy sought was the one set out in Article 58 of Law 9.504 of 1997. That remedy is available when campaign material carries information that is knowingly false. The bar is deliberately high. The case was decided by Domitila Manssur, a juiza auxiliar of the court. That is the single-judge role that handles propaganda complaints during a campaign. The Argument the Court Would Not Accept The Tarcisio campaign did not dispute that Sabesp tariffs rose. It disputed the word. Its position is that the 6.11% adjustment is a reajuste, a recomposition of 16 months of inflation, rather than a real increase. Describing it as an aumento, on that reading, is false. The judge disagreed that this is a question of fact for a court. She wrote that the campaign could contest the interpretation in the campaign itself. The exact wording is that the disagreement 'pode ser contraposta e esclarecida no proprio ambiente da propaganda eleitoral'. The Advert and a 2022 Promise The Haddad advert asks whether someone who has lied so often deserves a vote of confidence. It then replays Tarcisio's own 2022 campaign line. In that clip he says the claim that he would raise water bills is a lie, and that he will not. The advert sets that against the January adjustment. That is why the case is about a single word. If the rise counts as an increase, the 2022 clip becomes a broken promise. The court declined to settle that for either side. What the Tariff Actually Did Arsesp, the Sao Paulo utilities regulator, authorised an adjustment of 6.1106% effective 1 January 2026. A separate PIS and Cofins component of 0.3558% takes the combined figure to roughly 6.47%. The regulator based it on inflation between June 2024 and October 2025, a 16-month window. That window is the basis of the campaign's inflation argument. For a household using 11 to 20 cubic metres a month, the rate moved from 6.01 to 6.40 reais per cubic metre. It was the first adjustment since privatisation. Tarcisio has said publicly it came in about 15% below what a state-owned Sabesp would have charged. The Privatisation Behind It Sao Paulo completed the sale of 32% of Sabesp on 23 July 2024, raising 14.7 billion reais. The state's holding fell from 50.3% to 18.3%. Equatorial Energia became the reference investor with 15%, paying 6.9 billion reais, or 67 reais a share, and gained the right to name three directors. The concession contract brought forward universal service targets from 2033 to 2029, against a planned 69 billion reais of investment. Tarcisio has called the privatisation the most transformative project of his administration. That is precisely why the tariff line is a campaign weapon. What to Watch The first marker is whether the campaign appeals. A juiz auxiliar decision can ordinarily be challenged before the full court, though no appeal has been reported. The second is the remaining representations. Ten of the twelve filed against Haddad in late August rest on the same water argument. The electoral prosecutor's office had already advised against granting a right of reply in at least two of them, citing freedom of expression. The third is the vote itself. Tarcisio is standing for re-election as governor under Republicanos, number 10; Haddad is the PT candidate, number 13. More: Brazil news in English, every day from The Rio Times. Frequently Asked Questions Who brought the case to the electoral court? Governor Tarcisio de Freitas's campaign brought it. He asked for a right of reply against a Fernando Haddad advert, and the court refused. How large was the Sabesp increase? Arsesp authorised 6.1106% from 1 January 2026, with a further 0.3558% PIS and Cofins component, for a combined figure near 6.47%. Why does the wording matter? Tarcisio promised in 2022 that he would not raise water bills. If the adjustment counts as an increase, the Haddad advert stands. Is Tarcisio running for president? No. He is a declared candidate for re-election as governor of Sao Paulo for Republicanos, with Felicio Ramuth of the MDB as running mate. Sources: TRE-SP, Metropoles, Arsesp, Poder360, Agencia Brasil, InfoMoney. This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error