The Constitutional Court (CC) denied orders from toextension and clarification presented by former officials of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control (Cpccs) dismissed for failing to comply with the designation of the president of the Council of the Judiciary.
The Plenary of the Constitutional Court, with eight votes in favour, approved on March 15 the auto for clarification and expansion No. 1219-22-EP/23. Judge Richard Ortiz was absent on vacation leave.
Gina Aguilar, current president of the Cpccs, made a request for an extension as principal substitute director. The Court did not consider that request because it does not have legal standing to file the appeal. He clarified that Aguilar was not part of the origination process.
The Court did not analyze Juan Javier’s request either give themconsidering that it focuses on the modification of the sanction measure and not about a clarification and/or extension.
Likewise, the CC confirmed the resolution in the verification order No. 1219-22-EP/2023, issued on January 23, 2023 because “it is definitive and final”. That is, the dismissal of the seven members of the administration chaired by Ulloa.
It also provided that the phase of check of judgment No. 1219-22-EP/22 is maintained activa. He indicated that the writings received, which refer to matters unrelated to a clarification or expansion, will be dealt with at the appropriate procedural moment.
Ivan Saquicelapresident of the National Court of Justicedescribed the decision of the CC as important for the Judicial Function and as a historical precedent in Ecuador.
Arguments of denied orders
With the exception of Rivadeneira, Aguilera and the rest of the former directors presented their requests, individually, on January 26. The CC only analyzed the requests of four: Ulloa, Gómez, Almeida and Rosero.
The Court specified that the expansion is intended correct omissions pronouncement, while the clarification seeks to clarify obscure texts. Thus, requests for extension and clarification can be conceived as mechanisms of improvement of the resolutions or sentences. But they can’t in any way to alter what was resolved by the CC.
Ulloa He asked for clarification on the actions and regulations applied for his dismissal. The Court concluded that their arguments translate “into a mere disagreement with the decision of the Court and does not show an obscurity or an unresolved point in the verification order”.
orders for Almeida and Rosero agreed that the Court should analyze the presence of a most within the CPCCS, “the same that obeys the abuse of the Law and fraud to the law”, through a protection action. The CC said that they are not appropriate because these issues were not subject to self-verification.