Rulers in Conflict with the Law

Abstract

The article examines the responsibility of public officials in implementing the rights of children and adolescents, arguing that state omission in complying with constitutional and statutory priorities constitutes a genuine conflict with the law. Starting from article 227 of the Federal Constitution and the guidelines of political-administrative decentralization and popular participation, the author analyzes the model established by the Statute of the Child and Adolescent for the formulation, execution, and monitoring of public policies aimed at childhood and youth, with special attention to the role of Rights Councils and Guardianship Councils. The text criticizes the persistence of practices and language associated with the old minor-centered paradigm that preceded the 1988 Constitution, as well as the resistance of public agents to recognizing children and adolescents as subjects of rights. It then highlights the insufficiency of the state structure in the Federal District, the low budget execution directed to Guardianship Councils, and the governmental preference for spending on publicity and other non-priority actions, in violation of the principle of absolute priority. In conclusion, it argues that disobedience to such normative commands may amount to administrative misconduct, political responsibility, and institutional dishonesty, advocating stronger social control, oversight by supervisory bodies, and an effective commitment by public officials to the full protection of children and adolescents.