The uniformity of criteria regarding the constitutionally valid purpose in the jurisprudence of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court

Abstract

This study addresses the application of the proportionality test in Ecuadorian constitutional review, focusing on the analysis of the constitutionally valid purpose as the primary logical threshold. The central problem lies in the unstable and contradictory application of this parameter by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, demonstrating the absence of a homogeneous dogmatic standard regarding restrictions on rights. Given this reality, the research aims to systematize recent jurisprudential criteria, identify logical antinomies in case resolution, and structure a unified conceptual framework that precisely defines the applicable level of scrutiny. To this end, a methodology based on the systematic review of constitutional rulings is employed, qualitatively and dogmatically contrasting judgments that use different levels of methodological rigor. The results reveal a profound interpretive dispersion within the highest court. On the one hand, there are decisions that respect the sequential structure of the review process, declaring immediate unconstitutionality due to the lack of a legitimate purpose. On the other hand, there are rulings that force the analysis toward the stages of suitability and necessity for mere convenience, distorting the logical purpose of the test. Furthermore, there is an oscillation between positions of broad legislative deference based on the general interest and positions of strict scrutiny that demand a compelling state interest. It is concluded that this hermeneutical instability opens a dangerous space for judicial decisionism, seriously undermining predictability, legal certainty, and constitutional supremacy. It is urgent to establish clear prior rules regarding the intensity of the review, the burden of proof, and the unalterable order of the phases to guarantee the rationality of the review process.