One of the main repercussions of time in the legal system are deadlines. Some deadlines – which are measures of time relative to certain legal behaviors – assume decisive social importance. Think about the deadline for the voluntary termination of pregnancy or for filing a paternity termination action. The passage of such deadlines has legal consequences that do not need to be highlighted, they are so relevant.
A deadline of the greatest importance, due to the legal effects of its duration, is the legal period of 60 days, which limits the duration of detention in preventive detention centers for foreign citizens who enter the country illegally and who are awaiting a decision on the deportation process.
The Government, remembering the case of the 40 immigrants who disembarked in the Algarve, in the summer, from Morocco, and who had fled the place where they were, before the deportation process was completed, so as not to be seen again, concludes that that deadline is “unrealistic” and cannot be met, and should be increased to a maximum period of 18 months.
This intention warrants careful analysis.
Why can’t the deadline be met? Sixty days does not seem like an excessively short period of time, if we bear in mind that the deportation decision is not very complex and that, even if it is subject to legal challenge, it does not seem very complicated either. And even though, while the process is ongoing, the illegal emigrant is deprived of his freedom.
Apparently, the Government did not come up with another plausible explanation: what if the deadline became unfulfillable just because the human and material resources committed – by decision or omission of the same Government – in the deportation processes are not sufficient?
When, as part of Operation Zarco, three Madeiran defendants were detained for 15 days before being interrogated by the judge, in serious and blatant violation of the criminal procedure rule that imposes a 48-hour deadline for that purpose, no one defended, I believe, that the problem would be resolved by increasing this period. Much less nine times!
The idea that things don’t work because the deadline is short is excellent for making a Government unaccountable.
Suppose a patient treated at the SUS needs to undergo cardiac catatherism. The SUS guarantees an execution period of 30 days after clinical indication. Let’s imagine – and it doesn’t require much imaginative effort – that the shortage of personnel or equipment caused significant non-compliance with this deadline.
Simple and economical solution: extend the deadline to, say, three months. With an additional “benefit”: some patients would not avoid the tragic consequence of losing their lives, reducing the number of catatherisms to be performed and relieving the pressure on the SUS.
Leave a Reply