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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning behind judgments issued by first-level judges in Ecuador, conceived as an essential element of due process and the right to a defense. Based on the study of case No. 21333-2023-00283, it demonstrates that the absence or deficiency of reasoning in judicial or administrative decisions violates fundamental rights and generates legal uncertainty. The work reviews the Ecuadorian constitutional framework, especially Articles 76 and 82 of the Constitution, as well as the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and the doctrines of Ferrajoli, Dworkin, and Atienza, who maintain that a reasoned decision must be sufficient, correct, logical, and coherent. The results show that adequate legal reasoning strengthens transparency, institutional legitimacy, and public trust in the judicial system, preventing arbitrary or discretionary decisions. It is concluded that motivation not only fulfills a legal function, but also a social and ethical one, by guaranteeing public oversight of decisions and the effective protection of rights. Therefore, sound argumentation stands as a pillar of the constitutional rule of law and justice in contemporary Ecuador.