Lectures: 665
In the midst of an intense and polarized debate, the Chamber of the Chamber of Deputies and Deputies has approved by 89 votes in favor, 43 against, and 3 abstentions, the idea of legislating a project that seeks to regularize the crimes of illegal occupation of real estate and establish new penalties and restitution mechanisms. This decision has generated great controversy and conflicting opinions in society.
The project, in its second stage, has as its main objective to apply more rigorous sanctions to the crime of property usurpation. Among the proposed modifications are the introduction of custodial sentences for the crime of usurpation, the extension of the period in flagrante delicto, and the facilitation of the detention of the occupants. It also seeks to allow the early restitution of the property occupied during the investigation of the crime and when a civil lawsuit is filed, as well as the application of special investigative techniques to prosecute usurpations.
However, behind these changes apparently aimed at combating illegal occupations, questions arise about the possible social and legal impacts of this legislation. Among the critical voices, it is argued that the inclusion of the privileged legitimate defense of the owners and the concept of permanent flagrante delicto could open the door to situations of self-protection and confrontation. In addition, it is warned that the right to property should not lead to measures that criminalize poverty or threaten the lives of people.
Opponents of the law argue that its current wording could affect communities in the process of regularization and generate unnecessary conflicts. Given these concerns, the possibility of resorting to the Constitutional Court to analyze the constitutionality of the rule is even contemplated.
At the other extreme, the bill’s defenders maintain that it provides more effective tools to protect people’s right to property. They argue that stricter regulation is necessary to confront criminal gangs involved in illegal occupations and irregular subdivisions, as well as to address problems related to drug trafficking.
The intervention of the Minister of the Interior, Carolina Tohá, on behalf of the Executive, highlights the need to update the legislation to address situations of usurpation that vary from housing needs to violent actions in the southern macrozone. Tohá emphasizes that it is essential to differentiate and punish the crime without harming low-income people. The minister rejects self-protection and ensures that the Government seeks to avoid confrontations between citizens.
A relevant point to highlight is that the Executive has decided to remove the urgency from the processing of the project, which could allow necessary adjustments and modifications to achieve a better balance in future legislation.
Ultimately, the approval of this controversial law poses the difficult task of finding a balance between the protection of property and human rights, avoiding the criminalization of poverty and self-protection. As the project advances in its legislative process, it is expected that the discussions will continue and that a consensus will be sought that responds to the complexities of the social and legal reality at stake.
