| dc.description.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. | |
