It is inadmissible for the constitution to allow the termination of the democratic order and institutionality of the country with the death cross, which means the overthrow of the democratic order, the dissolution of the legislative body and practically the removal of the president within six months.

The fact of calling new elections is a consolation, but it does not remove the violence of the constitutional provision. In the Ecuadorian legislation, we have a serious problem of poor quality laws, which are drawn up and issued by politicians of low quality, and not by lawyers who have experience in the magistracy, in professional life or in the Academy. This is how this Constitution from 2008 was born, in which each political group tried to put their domestic projects, their illusory rights, public administration bodies that did not result in reality, and constitutional practices that could be useful in the countries of the first world, but that in this the corrupt third world induces judges to favor criminals, knowing that compassion for them is cruelty to honest and peaceful citizens, men and women.

As a result, they put in the Constitution that democratic violation that was solved in the previous laws, because when there were two houses, representative and senatorial, representatives were elected every two years, in such a way that citizens could change. deputies if they saw that they were working against their interests, not like this Constitution with which they last four years, a time in which the state could not bear the legislative incompetence, and the president completely ended the legislative periods and agreed to leave the Presidency. .

(…) they put in the Constitution that democratic violation that was solved in the previous laws…

Some dismissed legislators filed a public complaint for the unconstitutionality of the fund before the Constitutional Court, seeking the suspension of the rules. The receiving room court simply refused the claim for processing; It seems to me that the Chamber did not resolve the lawsuit that way, nor did it motivate it. If the same Article 148 of the Constitution says: “The President, that is, the President of the Republic can dissolve the National Assembly when he considers…”, then only according to the President’s opinion, and the Reception Council should have said so, and rejected it there. As for decree laws, the last paragraph of the same article also states: that the president “may, after a favorable verdict of the Constitutional Court, issue decree-laws of economic urgency”. The Chamber also rejected economic urgency, when economic urgency is the exclusive qualification of the President of the Republic and they had to decide on the content, eliminating what was not the President’s authority, such as law reform.

Although some believe that the resolutions still had an effect on the pacification of the country, any result that would end the filth that was the National Assembly, in which they passed acts and laws that protect corruption and do not serve the people or make a better country, could well be accepted by the citizens . (OR)