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

Abstract

Abstract: In this work, I have analyzed the ruling in which a protective action was filed by healthcare professionals against the Ministry of Public Health. The argument focused on the violation of constitutional rights due to their exclusion from the process for granting permanent appointments, as stipulated in Article 25 of the Organic Law of Humanitarian Support. During the COVID-19 pandemic, processes were initiated to recognize the work of physicians resulting from the emergency. The Ministry of Public Health maintained that the physicians did not belong to the "front line" and that the functions they performed were administrative, therefore they did not qualify for the benefit. In the analysis, documents, testimonies, and reports are evaluated, determining that the participation of the plaintiffs in the emergency should have been inclusive, in accordance with the provisions of the Law of Humanitarian Support. In this sense, the administrative omission generated uncertainty about their employment status, violating their right to legal certainty. Consequently, the court declared the protective action admissible, ordered the merit-based and competitive selection process, granted the permanent appointments, and mandated a public apology as part of the comprehensive reparation.