Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This research paper analyzes the sufficiency of judicial reasoning in accordance with the Constitution. The study focuses on Judgment No. 13338-2020-00925, issued by a first-level judge in a child support case for a pregnant woman. It examines whether the decision is sufficiently reasoned and correct when it involves individuals requiring priority attention. The study demonstrates that the judgment, although formally valid because it is based on a conciliation agreement, has legal flaws and is therefore substantively incorrect. The judge prioritized expediency over the constitutional mandate of priority protection (Article 43 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador) by omitting the use of the Pension Table as a legality control. Analytical methods are applied, breaking down the judgment to evaluate each structural element according to the sufficiency standard and the correct motivation questionnaire, identifying the central and secondary ideas of the judgment on which the resolution was based. This study also proposes recommendation criteria to strengthen judicial motivation and offers contributions for the study of similar future cases.