The application of the principle of proportionality in the control of constitutionality of constitutional rights: doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis in Ecuador.

Abstract

This research examines whether the application of the principle of proportionality in Ecuador respects the subsidiary nature established in Article 3 of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control, or whether the Constitutional Court has developed an interpretative practice that reformulates this normative design when resolving conflicts between rights. Within this framework, the main objective was to verify the congruence between the legal structure of Article 3 and the ratio decidendi of judgments 6-17-IN/25, 107-21-IN/25, 105-23-IN/25, 40-21-IN/25, 33-19-IN/25, and 16-21-IN/25, issued during 2025. To this end, a qualitative methodology with a descriptive scope and documentary design was employed. The results show that the Court does not apply a uniform method, but rather a differentiated criterion depending on the structure of the conflict. When faced with precise constitutional rules, it maintains the legal sequence and disregards proportionality. Conversely, in the face of conflicts between principles, severe restrictions, or regressive measures, it directly activates the proportionality test. The study concludes that there is no break with Article 3, but rather a jurisprudential modulation that transforms formal subsidiarity into a residual principle determined by the type of constitutional problem, thus consolidating a stable and predictable standard.