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

Abstract

Abstract: This study was based on Case No. 19304-2019-XXXXX, which involved a constitutional protection action regarding State-sanctioned encroachment upon forest and protective vegetation areas in the Upper Nangaritza River Basin. The study analyzes the requirement for reasoned judicial decisions specifically examining first-instance rulings in Ecuador to determine whether the judges' decisions met the standards of sufficiency and proper reasoning mandated by the Constitutional Court in Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21. Manuel Atienza s analytical framework and a reasoning assessment questionnaire were applied to evaluate the presence of defects such as the absence, insufficiency, or merely apparent nature of the reasoning. The results show that, although the initial ruling met the standard for reasoning, it was overturned on appeal based on a formalistic approach despite the fact that the first-instance court had established the omission of duties by the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Non-Renewable Natural Resources, and the Mining Regulation and Control Agency (ARCOM). This study contributes insights for improving the quality of legal argumentation and enhancing legal certainty regarding first-instance judicial protection proceedings.