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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning behind Judgment No. 17240-2023-00025, issued in the context of a constitutional protection action (*acción de protección*) concerning the termination of a provisional public sector appointment. The study employed the "Puzzle Project" methodology, enabling the reconstruction of the judicial decision's argumentative structure and the identification of the legal issue, relevant questions, *ratio decidendi*, and the grounds supporting the ruling. Subsequently, the judgment was evaluated against the standards for sufficient reasoning established by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador in Judgment No. 1158-17-EP/21, as well as criteria for correct reasoning developed in legal doctrine and constitutional jurisprudence. The results demonstrate that the decision contains a normative and factual basis that clarifies the reasons justifying the finding of a violation of the right to legal certainty. A comparison with the appellate judgment confirmed the ruling's essential grounds and reinforced the conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the judicial reasoning. The study offers a practical application of constitutional standards for reasoning in the analysis of judgments concerning jurisdictional constitutional guarantees.