Palabras clave
Acción extraordinaria de protección
sentencia de reenvío
sentencia reemplazo
Administración de Justicia
control de méritos
acción
recurso.
Resumen
La Corte Constitucional del Ecuador ha catalogado a la garantía jurisdiccional denominada acción extraordinaria de protección (medio de impugnación similar al recurso de amparo en España) como una acción. Antes de dar por sentada esta idea proponemos abrir una discusión que nos lleve a determinar si en efecto esto es así en todos los casos. Compararemos dos perspectivas: la sentencia de reenvío y la sentencia reemplazo. En principio estudiaremos el debate generado en el contexto ecuatoriano sobre la naturaleza de la acción extraordinaria de protección. Seguidamente, avistaremos el contraste entre las sentencias de reenvío y reemplazo, deteniéndonos a realizar un análisis más profundo de esta última figura. Posteriormente, estableceremos las diferencias entre la acción y el recurso, y, finalmente, determinaremos si la garantía jurisdiccional es una acción o un recurso desde cada una de las perspectivas planteadas, y el rol que adopta el órgano constitucional en los distintos escenarios.
Keywords
Merits control; extraordinary action of protection; objective dimension; judgment on the merits; administration of justice.
Abstract
The Constitutional Court of Ecuador has characterized the jurisdictional guarantee known as the extraordinary protection action —comparable to the remedy of amparo in Spain— as an action. Prior to accepting this notion as definitive, we propose initiating a discussion aimed at determining whether this categorization holds universally true. Our discourse will center on the comparison of two viewpoints:
the referral judgment and the replacement judgment. Initially, we will scrutinize the discourse engendered within the Ecuadorian context concerning the intrinsic nature of the extraordinary protection action. Subsequently, we will juxtapose the distinctions between referral and replacement judgments, pausing to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the latter. Following this, we will delineate the disparities between an action and a remedy. Ultimately, we shall ascertain, from each of the perspectives outlined, whether the jurisdictional guarantee should be classified as an action or a remedy, along with the respective role assumed by the constitutional organ in these diverse scenarios.
the referral judgment and the replacement judgment. Initially, we will scrutinize the discourse engendered within the Ecuadorian context concerning the intrinsic nature of the extraordinary protection action. Subsequently, we will juxtapose the distinctions between referral and replacement judgments, pausing to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the latter. Following this, we will delineate the disparities between an action and a remedy. Ultimately, we shall ascertain, from each of the perspectives outlined, whether the jurisdictional guarantee should be classified as an action or a remedy, along with the respective role assumed by the constitutional organ in these diverse scenarios.