The jurisdictional role of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador from a critical perspective

Abstract

This article examines the concept of Merit Control within the framework of the Extraordinary Protection Action in the Ecuadorian constitutional system, addressing its jurisprudential evolution, doctrinal foundations, and institutional tensions. Through a qualitative approach of doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, the study reviews key rulings by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, as well as expert opinions in constitutional law, with the aim of clarifying the legal nature, guarantee-oriented function, and practical implications of Merit Control. This mechanism has become a corrective and guiding tool that enables the Court to conduct a substantive review of final judicial decisions when there is an alleged violation of fundamental rights that have not been adequately protected. The study shows that, although Merit Control strengthens effective judicial protection and facilitates the issuance of binding jurisprudence, it also generates tensions with the principle of legal certainty and raises concerns regarding judicial independence and the legitimacy of its application, particularly due to the absence of an explicit normative basis. The article identifies challenges such as judicial overload, the lack of objective parameters for its application, and the risk of arbitrary use. Finally, it proposes reforms aimed at enhancing the institutional framework of this mechanism, including greater professionalization of constitutional judges, clear delimitation of competences, and the creation of an admission chamber to streamline the preliminary assessment of cases.