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

Abstract

Abstract: This research examines how trial-level judges in Ecuador provide the reasoning for their rulings, taking Constitutional Court judgment 690-21-EP/25 as a starting point. The primary objective is to analyze whether such reasoning is correct and sufficient. To achieve this, an analytical method was applied alongside document analysis, utilizing questionnaires regarding standards of sufficiency and correct reasoning, as well as the argumentative framework proposed by Atienza. The study focuses on a constitutional protection action filed by a public servant who was dismissed abruptly amidst a fiscal austerity policy. While the Provincial Court of Justice of Manabí formally met the requisite legal and factual standards, it overlooked a fundamental aspect concerning the consent the worker gave when signing the termination settlement agreement, failing to account for the power imbalances inherent in public-sector employment relationships. The data obtained from this research demonstrated that the reasoning applied in this judgment is valid but lacked the necessary depth regarding the *pro homine* principle and the right to effective judicial protection, revealing a tension between the constitutional guarantee-based approach and the protection of rights.