Garantía de la motivación con análisis a partir de la nueva línea jurisprudencial de la Corte Constitucional

Abstract

The transit of the motivation of the resolutions, acts or rulings have presented variations, problems and limitations. In this, it has been pretended to provide such a force, that today it is understood as a guarantee of the legal systems, of course, its scope has been improved with the emergence of legal argumentation, the constitutionalization of rights, the establishment of fundamental rights. But, in the Ecuadorian framework, as it is in the Ecuadorian Constitution of 1998, the guarantee of motivation prescribed, however, it had reached greater relevance in 2008 when Ecuador, being a Constitutional State of rights and justice, recognizes and guarantees the exercise of the rights of people. For this reason, the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador in its article 76, establishes the basic guarantees of the process, and within it in its numeral 7 establishes the right to defense, literal l guarantees the motivation is guaranteed, which generates the public powers to enunciate the norms or legal principles, since the non-existence of said parameters produces the nullity of the acts, resolutions or rulings. Therefore, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court for the transition period came to issue various sentences in reference to the guarantee of motivation, where, before 2019, it focused on a fixed line of thought, which tried to apply and give faithful compliance with the motivation test, said test was based on reasonableness, comprehensibility and logic. Therefore, the Court at the time emphasized that any sentence or resolution will be motivated as long as its content complies with the three established parameters. However, on several occasions the new composition of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court has moved away from the motivation test, giving way to a new line of thought and determines other minimum parameters to understand that guarantee. One of the reasons why this occurs is because article 3 of the Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control authorizes that ̈The Court may distance itself from its precedents in an explicit and argued manner, guaranteeing the progressivity of the rights and validity of the constitutional state of rights and justice”. This leads to the systematization of a guiding criterion with guidelines that may be applicable to the subject under analysis, as well as it’s vices and deficiencies.