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

Abstract

Abstract: This research focuses specifically on analyzing the reasoning behind the judgment issued in case No. 11333-2020-XXXXX, which concerned a constitutional protection action regarding the termination of a provisional appointment via administrative memorandum No. ARCOM-ARCOM-2020-0035-ME, issued by the ARCOM institution. The study aims to determine whether the judgment issued by the trial judge meets the requirements for sufficient and correct reasoning, in accordance with the constitutional, doctrinal, and methodological parameters applicable to the ruling. To this end, the judgment's argumentative structure is reconstructed by identifying the relevant facts, the legal issue, the normative and factual questions, the judge's responses, the supporting grounds for the decision, the *ratio decidendi*, and the *obiter dicta*. Furthermore, the standard of sufficiency and the criteria for correct reasoning are applied, primarily to verify whether the decision rests on clear, pertinent, and reviewable normative and factual foundations. The analysis of this judgment demonstrates that judicial reasoning is not satisfied merely by citing various statutes or precedents; rather, it requires a reasonable connection between the proven facts, the applicable law, and above all the conclusion reached by the magistrate. Consequently, the judgment explains how the administrative memorandum violated constitutional rights related to legal certainty, due process (specifically the guarantee of reasoned decisions), and the right to work. As a result, it is concluded that the ruling meets the standard of sufficient reasoning and presents legally sound reasoning, although aspects are identified that could be strengthened particularly regarding the assessment of evidence and the justification for the scope of full reparation.