Within the scope of the powers of the National Assembly, the Constitution also establishes “control of government work” (Articles 129, 130 and 131).

It should be remembered that Art. 145 mentions how the holding of the presidential office ends, for the one holding it: “1. Upon termination of the presidential mandate; 2. voluntary resignation accepted by the National Assembly; 3. Dismissal, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; 4. due to permanent physical or mental incapacity that prevents him from performing his duties, which is confirmed by the commission of specialist doctors in accordance with the law, and determined by the National Assembly by a two-thirds majority of its members; 5. Due to abandonment of office, which was confirmed by the Constitutional Court and declared by the National Assembly by the votes of two thirds of its members; and 6. revocation of the mandate, in accordance with the procedure established in the Constitution”.

Social groups will wait for the Constitutional Court’s response to a possible request for the impeachment of Guillermo Lasso

The third basis, dismissal, is expressed in two possibilities: one, specifically political persecution, which is determined by Art. 129 – for the President and Vice President of the Republic – for the following cases: “1. For criminal offenses against the security of the state; 2. For criminal acts of extortion, bribery, embezzlement or illegal enrichment; and 3. For crimes of genocide, torture, forced disappearance of persons, kidnapping or murder for political reasons or reasons of conscience”. The second, in art. 130, the express rule to dismiss the President of the Republic, without specifying the specific criminal offenses listed in Art. In order to assume duties that are not mandated by the Constitution, a prior positive opinion of the Constitutional Court; and/or 2. Due to a serious political crisis and internal unrest”.

Impeachment: The Constitutional Court is not competent to determine whether wrongdoing against the President of the Republic has been proven

Due to the second cause of Article 130, an attempt was made to oust President Lasso in June 2022, and Ecuador was paralyzed by an indigenous uprising, but abstentions – including those of the PSC – prevented success. This power can only be exercised in the first three years, only once during the legislative period, which is why the Assembly has already lost it in relation to Lasso.

In order to limit the statement of the Constitutional Court to a checklist, it is called its siege.

As for other officials and bodies subject to impeachment, censure and dismissal, apart from the cases referred to in Articles 129 and 130, Art. 131., due to “failure to perform the duties assigned to them by the Constitution and the law”, without clarification of the two cited articles.

For cases from Art. 129. the “opinion of the Constitutional Court on admissibility” is necessary because it is about the specific clarification of a criminal offense, even when a previous criminal prosecution is not required, which could mean years of waiting. Is this “opinion” supposed to be just some kind of checklist or a limited formal check of appeals to reasons? Or should it be more legalistic about whether reasons are given or not?

If the admissibility was sustainable, Laso would be at great risk of being removed, because the opposition has enough votes in the Assembly.

In order to limit the statement of the Constitutional Court to a checklist, it is called its siege. (OR)