A positive result of the consultation on leaving ITT oil in the field would have disastrous consequences for the country’s legal security and economy.

The individuals who make up the Court have the power to interpret the Constitution, a power that is not absolute and is limited by the responsibility to follow the law, even when that means voting against their personal preferences and the pressures around them. With the verdict in the case of the popular consultation presented by Yasunidos in 2013, the judges of the majority that enabled the said consultation to be held activate the Court. This is clearly explained in the preserved votes of judges Richard Ortiz, Carmen Corral and Enrique Herreria.

Failure to use Block 43 ITT would affect fiscal sustainability and would stop receiving $1.2 billion annually, the Guayaquil Chamber of Commerce warned

Judge Ortiz, who says that “although it is true that Article 104 of the Constitution regulates the citizen’s initiative for proposing public consultations, as a right to political participation (Article 61.4 of the Constitution), this right cannot be considered absolute and unlimited”. He then adds: “given that the right of citizens to propose public consultations is absolute, this would mean opening up the possibility that through this mechanism… the limits provided for in the Constitution itself are emptied”, where the exclusive powers of the state center are enumerated (Art. 313 and 262.).

Less than three months after the consultation, they are already thinking about how to compensate ITT’s income if the thesis on the end of exploitation wins at the polls

Ortiz recalls that Correa used Article 407 of the Constitution, which stipulates that only the president can, with a justification of national interest, request the Assembly to exploit non-renewable natural resources in protected areas, and this enabled him to make this exception. So, concludes Ortiz, “this decision of the National Assembly… could not be reviewed through the public consultation of the citizens’ initiative.”

(…) would have catastrophic consequences for the country’s legal security and economy.

Judges Corral and Herrería argue that the majority opinion cannot turn a blind eye to all that has changed since the consultation was proposed nearly 10 years ago. The goal of “keeping the ITT crude, known as Block 43, underground indefinitely” did not materialize. In fact, oil was extracted from Blocks 31 and 43 of the Yasuní National Park (PNY).

Since 2013, more than 900 contracts have been signed and infrastructural works have been developed to carry out field exploitation. Corral and Herrería correctly say that it is not appropriate to interpret based on future events, nor to interpret “keeping crude oil indefinitely underground” to mean “suspending or preventing the continued exploitation of oil within Block 43 PNY.” This would mean getting into the heads of those who signed their support for the consultation nearly 10 years ago and ostensibly speculating that they would think so now that the context has radically changed. Corral and Herrería remind the judges of the majority that the payment of damages, far from guaranteeing legal certainty, is a consequence of its violation.

All this so that the advisory would not achieve its purpose of avoiding all hydrocarbon activity within PNY. The consultation refers only to block 43, while it would leave block 31 in action (36.90% of the PNY intervened area). A lot of noise, a lot of damage to third parties and a little nuts. (OR)