In exercising the authority entrusted to him by Article 148 of the Constitution, which regulates this exceptional authority of the President of the Republic to dissolve the National Assembly, as he did, the President referred the Constitutional Court for its favorable opinion. issue them and they can enter into force, two draft decree laws on economic urgency. The first, in which the tax burden was reduced, increased in the same period, received a favorable opinion from the Court; the second, which allowed for the creation of free zones, was rejected on the grounds that it related to long-term issues and was therefore not of an urgent nature. In another case, the president refused that the Court could qualify the quality, condition, urgency of the projects; all the more so as he plans to send new laws on decrees.

Since it is the Court that has the non-appealable authority to grant or withhold favorable opinions, this would be said to be a closed case.

Answering a question put to me by the newspaper EL UNIVERSO, published last Sunday – July 2 -, he pointed out that this is a transcendental matter that must be analyzed with a sense for the future. I say with a sense of the future, because today it is liberal legislation, proposed by a capitalist and liberal government, and tomorrow socialist governments can use it for the aims and purposes of their ideology and, in this way, proclaim the death of the cross, proposing with the nature of economic urgency laws amending existing ones in matters relating to private property, banking, etc.

As a rule, the President of the Republic assesses the urgency of proposals for economic laws by referring them to the National Assembly for special processing specified by the Constitution. In that case, the National Assembly can reject them, amend them or allow the ministry right to enter into force.

It seems reasonable that the Constitutional Court can determine whether the draft decrees of the law are of economic urgency or not., and this is convenient in the long run in order to prevent it from being used in the future to upset the legal system of the Republic. The same cannot be said for the irresponsible referendum that the Court allowed to take place ten years after its proponents proposed it. At that time, the jungle, in the ITT fields, was untouched. International funding was sought in vain so that it would not be used; today, exploitation is underway, and plugging the wells would have enormous costs and Ecuador would suffer a great loss. This will lead to a loss of revenue in the state treasury, which is unconstitutional and should have been declared by the Court.

In the consultation on banning mining in the Chocó Andino region, as I heard on Teleamazonas, since the consultation is not retroactive, the existing concessions would be respected. If so, the query on the ITT should receive the same treatment and respect what exists. (OR)