La Evolución del principio de motivación en la jurisprudencia constitucional del Ecuador.

Abstract

Abstract: In Ecuador, there are three landmark rulings by the Constitutional Court related to the guarantee of judicial motivation. In the case 1158-17-EP/21, the Court made a decisive leap in assessing judicial reasoning. It departed from the outdated motivation test, which evaluated reasonableness, logic, and understandability in a limited manner, and established that a decision must have a complete minimum structure of reasoning: it must clearly present the relevant facts, the applicable legal norms, and a logical, coherent evaluation of evidence and arguments. Moreover, it introduced a typology of deficiencies, ranging from the total absence of reasoning, through insufficient motivation, to what it called the appearance of motivation that is, when reasoning is present but riddled with legal defects. These changes sparked a doctrinal revolution, as they made it clear that a decision must be thoroughly justified in fact and law, not merely meet formal standards. In 2901-19-EP/23, although it initially dealt with a specific habeas data issue (errors in credit records), the Court reaffirmed this approach. In that case, the Appellate Chamber did not even address the substantial arguments regarding the violation of rights, nor did it differentiate between rectification and deletion of data. The Court found that due process had been violated and, due to this deficient motivation, ordered concrete measures: removal of incorrect information and a public apology. The point was that this decision confirmed that if factual and legal reasoning is not properly articulated, the motivation fails and becomes unacceptable. Likewise, in 1852-21-EP/25, it was made clear that motivation is key to protecting the right to defense and due process. Sound motivation not only informs the parties why a decision was made, but also allows for effective appeal. It compels judges to decide based on law, to reason clearly, and to avoid arbitrariness. Finally, the Court noted that not every deficiency in a ruling amounts to a violation of rights. If a decision has errors, they can be corrected through ordinary mechanisms such as appeals or legal remedies. But if the decision is sufficiently motivated and does not affect the substance of rights, there is no constitutional violation. In summary, the Court concluded that the contested ruling was legal and legitimate that its motivation was sufficient and clear and that the employee received a fair and proper process. Therefore, the extraordinary action of protection was dismissed.