At least thirteen amicus curiae They were presented from May 19 to June 2 by groups, trade union organizations, foundations, lawyers in free practice and politicians about the two decree laws sent by the president Guillermo Lasso to the Constitutional Court after the application of the cross of death which dissolved the Assembly. In order for them to enter into force, the opinion of the Court is required.
The court invited the public to send amicus curiae for two decree laws: the first that appears under item 1-23-UE is a tax reform that consists of reducing the tax burden and thus injecting more liquidity into the economy and household consumption. The second, under case 2-23-UE, seeks to create free zones that would make the country attractive for investment, based on various tax incentives, thus generating more business and employment.
Without certainty about the time that the Constitutional Court will need to decide on legal decrees, a quick response is expected
And so far they have received thirteen: twelve opinions on tax issues and one on the topic of free zones. They show the polarity of the criteria that exist in the country. In the tributary, five out of twelve have arguments against, while seven acknowledge the positivity of the norm or make some contribution to it. Among the main observations made is the debate on whether the law really has the character of economic urgency and who is responsible for that determination, looking at the issue of transparency in Article 17 and the loss of resources or fiscal impact. Several of them will be heard at hearings scheduled for June 6 and 8, where tax issues and free zones will be discussed.
1) May 19
2) May 25
The sports forecast company and SRI were the first to present ‘amicus curiae’ to the Constitutional Court with the tax reform decree
3) May 29
4) May 29
5) May 29
6) May 29
7) May 29
8) May 30
9) May 30
10) May 31
11) June 1
12) June 2
Regulation on free zones
As for the decree of the law on free zones, until June 2 only one amicus curiae, Virgilio Hernández, former member of the correísmo assembly. In his writing, he says that he does not agree “with the assertion of the President of the Republic that he passes laws disguised as emergency economic laws, and that there is no adequate justification for this.”
He also quotes the judgment of the Constitutional Court, which establishes the parameters of what an emergency economic law means: they must be temporary, regulate individual matters and establish transitional regulations. In addition, several urgent economic laws cannot be processed at the same time.
He believes that the legal regulation does not have these characteristics. It indicates that it is unconstitutional for the fund that the privileges established for companies that are in the free zone regime create market distortions that put them at an advantage over domestic companies, for example, with “tax incentives”. Additionally, he says, if we add to that that the benefits are permanent, a monopolistic practice occurs.
Well, he’s asking for it The executive order is declared unconstitutional.
In the meantime, On May 29, Grace Azucena Russo Chauvín, from the Fundación de Juristas en Acción y Victoria, presented an official letter under the right to petition. In doing so, he requests that the Court reject the decree on free zones. He explains that in his opinion it is not urgent, it is not widespread or socialized. He believes that a thorough and conscientious analysis is needed.
There is also evidence in the case of 2-23-UE (free zone) a amicus curiae platforms for the citizens of Piensa Ecuatoriano, but it corresponds to the cause of 1-23-UE (tax law).
Source: Eluniverso
Alia is a professional author and journalist, working at 247 news agency. She writes on various topics from economy news to general interest pieces, providing readers with relevant and informative content. With years of experience, she brings a unique perspective and in-depth analysis to her work.
