Judge Carmen Corral did not waive the trial because CAL “classified the request as an impeachment, when it was observed that the petitioner did not have the support of the other applicants to present the ‘extent’ by which she corrected the confusion of the regime of political control of state bodies subject to this mechanism (LOFL). It is not a simple mistake, since for the first regime of political control of civil servants who are subject to this regulation, political responsibility for breach of duty is established, while for the second, only the commission of criminal acts established by the Constitution of the President and Vice President of the Republic”.

Constitutionalists analyze the decision of the majority of the Constitutional Court which accepted the impeachment of President Guillermo Lasso

In the same vein, Judge Enrique Herrería states that “the legislature did not follow the formal procedure provided for in the LOFL for the trial of presidential impeachment and that, since the power to release the scope is not allowed, the impeachment petition has no legal basis. Regarding the charges against the president, he says: “The acts related to the contractual sphere cannot be subsumed under the typical conduct described above, since his presidential mandate, and therefore the exercise of his powers and authority as president, follow the detailed facts in the request for charges therefore, it is observed that it does not correspond to what the legislator is looking for in the already indicated criminal type. It is added that the verification that the president knew certain facts is behavior described as a criminal type of embezzlement, and it is not observed that through the knowledge of alleged irregularities in the Flopec EP “redirected” funds from the state for the benefit of third parties or for one’s own benefit.

They are asking the Constitutional Court to supervise and control the verdict on the impeachment of President Guillermo Lasso

For Judge Teresa Nuques, the accusations lack sufficient factual motivation; and in the pre-CAL admissibility phase, this body was prohibited from including proposals or instructions to amend the revocation request; nor indicate the normative or factual arguments that, if included, would optimize the persuasiveness of the claim’s motivation, nor examine the persuasiveness, convenience, relevance or utility of the claim’s arguments, nor assess the levels of linguistic shadow (ambiguity or vagueness) or the validity and correctness of the motivation. In this sense, if CAL does not respect the specific role it has at this stage, it would mean a violation of the rules of procedure and even the constitutional principles of due process”.

Rafael Correa plans to establish a constitutional assembly to avoid the filters of the Constitutional Court if his political movement returns to power

I cannot understand… what was not enough for them to defend democracy and institutionality.

I emphasize from Dr. Herrería that “constitutional judges are obliged to distinguish their legal role in constitutional engineering, above their political role, in order to protect constitutional norms and the will of voters in a certain historical context. In short, the main function of a constitutional judge is to defend the supreme norm and rules that have been established as a guarantee of democracy, rights and institutionality”.

I don’t understand why the other six judges did not discern the desire to remove the president, which is hidden in distraction, ignorance and disorder in the proceedings. I cannot understand what was missing, what was not enough to defend democracy and institutions. (OR)