French MPs have just passed the “Philippine Act,” named after the young student killed in 2024 by an illegal immigrant who had been ordered to leave the country. The new law extends the period of administrative detention for undocumented migrants deemed to be dangerous. At the same time, the Lyhanna case is fuelling calls for the ‘comprehensive bill’ against sexual violence to be finally examined, after being pushed down on the parliamentary agenda.
Both pieces of legislation stem from the same need: to address the French public’s growing anger over the state’s failure to fulfil its primary duty of protecting its citizens. Uncontrolled immigration, repeat offences, violence against children: these are all issues that officials are now being called out on for inaction or administrative delays. Faced with their responsibilities, the authorities have no choice but to translate into action a determination to take a firm stance, which has become a key expectation of the public.
The first reform is named after Philippine, a 19-year-old student murdered in September 2024. The main suspect, who had previously been convicted of rape, was subject to a never-enforced order to leave French territory. The case had caused a public outcry and reignited criticism of the administration’s inability to remove the most dangerous foreign offenders. The law, passed by a large majority of MPs on Tuesday, June 16th, is specifically designed to address this shortcoming by extending the maximum period of administrative detention for certain categories of undocumented foreign nationals who pose a serious threat to public order. The new legislation gives the authorities more time to organise the effective deportation of criminal aliens. It also provides for the issuing of a psychiatric detention order for the most dangerous individuals or those suspected of terrorism.
As could be expected, the Left unanimously opposed the legislation, denouncing it as “yet another xenophobic law.”
At the same time, the Lyhanna case has brought another legislative initiative back into the spotlight. The child’s death has reignited questions about the handling of sexual violence against minors and the institutional failings that may leave victims without adequate protection. Previously relegated to the backwaters of the parliamentary calendar, the proposed ‘comprehensive bill’ is now facing growing political pressure to be examined swiftly.
The bill aims to provide a comprehensive response to the issue of sexual violence. In particular, it provides for improved identification of high-risk situations, better coordination between the police, the judiciary, health services and child protection agencies, enhanced support for victims, and a tightening of certain measures for the prevention and monitoring of perpetrators. For example, victims would be able to file a complaint at healthcare facilities whilst receiving treatment. Article 2 of this comprehensive bill would make it compulsory to interview the victim “without delay” and to interview the accused “systematically.” The collection of physical, digital or forensic evidence would have to be “immediate.” Specialised criminal courts would be set up. At the heart of the system lies the need to handle reports more effectively, to improve the recording of victims’ accounts, and to ensure that repeated alerts do not go unheeded until a tragedy occurs.
Under fire from critics, as the presidential campaign gets underway, the government has no political choice but to demonstrate its determination on issues as sensitive as irregular immigration and sexual violence—issues linked by a shared concern amongst the French public regarding the deterioration of their security and the state’s responsibility. In the Philippine and Lyhanna cases, public opinion was not only shocked by the gravity of the incidents but was also struck by the feeling that the authorities already had information, warnings or means of action at their disposal but did not use them in time.
Legislative overreach is a double-edged sword. The criticism levelled at the authorities is less about a total lack of legal tools than an inability to deploy them effectively. Many laws exist, but they are not enforced. Simply creating new ones is not enough. Citizens want to be sure that removal orders are carried out, that alerts are acted upon, that dangerous individuals are monitored, and that victims are protected before it is too late; and in May 2027, they will place their trust in the candidate who can reassure them on these points.
