As things are going, one of the scenarios that we could live in Ecuador is that of the so-called “cross death”, a mechanism that was born for the first time in Ecuadorian constitutionalism with the Constitution of 2008 and consists of the removal of the National Assembly by the President or vice versa.

It is death, because whoever does it, eliminates the other power of the state; and it is crossed, since the one who implements it is also eliminated.

38.69% of Ecuadorians believe that it is better for Guillermo Lasso to finish his term, according to a survey by Click Report

In the constituent, as stated in the minutes, the need to incorporate this mechanism is justified in order to ensure an absolute and complete balance of powers between the legislative and executive authorities, and according to what they said: “The fundamental goal is not to respect this, not to execute (…), but to really realize the space of cooperation and co-responsibility between the powers of the state” (excerpt from document number 87).

In other words, voters are naively betting that this mutual threat could help the two functions of state maintain a common agenda depending on the country.

The second political trial of the president would go to the decision of the Constitutional Court, which will observe the specifics of the accused violations

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

Thus, the activation of the death of the cross is not a free phenomenon; there are specific causes that must be motivated and demonstrated to be achievable, including causes with subjective terms such as political crisis or internal unrest.

If there is a death on the cross, we, the citizens, owners of power, democracy, will remain alive…

In the case of the president, only once in the first three years of his mandate, he can dissolve the National Assembly when, in his opinion, it has assumed functions that are not within its constitutional competence, after a favorable verdict of the Constitutional Court. Court; or if it repeatedly and unjustifiably obstructs the execution of the National Development Plan or due to a serious political crisis and internal unrest. Note that these last two reasons do not require the opinion of the Constitutional Court. After the exercise of power, presidential and legislative elections must be called, and during this period the president can, after a favorable verdict of the Constitutional Court, issue decrees-laws on economic urgency.

In the case of the Assembly, only once during the legislative period and in the first three years of this, the president may be dismissed for appropriating functions that are not constitutionally suitable for him, a prior favorable opinion of the Constitutional Court; and due to a serious political crisis and internal unrest (without a previous verdict). In the same way, after taking office, early legislative and presidential elections will be called on the same date for the other respective periods.

There is no rule preventing the President from exercising this power in the midst of a political trial; There is no norm that prevents either the Assembly or the President from taking constitutional action against the act of crucifixion if they believe that rights have been violated or that action has been taken against the constitution. It is only understood that the authority is exhausted if the dismissal of another body has been carried out, so the dismissal attempt is not taken into account.

If there is death on the cross, we, citizens, holders of power, democracy and the last word remain alive. (OR)