Preferencias académicas de los estudiantes de la carrera de Derecho y su vinculación con los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) a través del estudio de sentencia

Abstract

Abstract:This paper analyzes Judgment No. 344-16-SEP-CC of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, addressing the tension between administrative discretion and the direct application of fundamental rights, with an emphasis on the right to dignified housing. It examines whether the decision to order the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing (MIDUVI) to issue a housing voucher, despite the beneficiary's failure to comply with regulatory requirements, constitutes legitimate action within the framework of discretion or constitutes an arbitrary breach of the legal order. Through an analysis of this judgment, the study delves into the weighing of conflicting rights, specifically the tension between legal certainty and the effective enjoyment of constitutional rights. It questions whether public officials are empowered to disapply an express provision when strict compliance with it undermines fundamental rights, and whether such authority is subject to limits and oversight mechanisms. Using a qualitative methodology and an analytical approach, the research concludes that administrative discretion, although recognized in the legal system, must be exercised with reason, within respect for the principle of legality, and with a clear focus on the effective protection of human rights. Consequently, it is stated that the guarantee of constitutional rights may, in certain contexts, prevail over secondary norms, provided that such a decision is properly reasoned and supported by constitutional principles.