Fundamentación jurídica sobre la nulidad procesal y la nulidad constitucional

Luis Geovanny Granja Mejía; Estefany Karina Intriago Lara

doi:10.70577/asce.v5i2.938

Authors

Luis Geovanny Granja Mejía Pontifica Universidad Católica Santa Rosa https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4287-0586
Estefany Karina Intriago Lara Pontifica Universidad Católica Santa Rosa https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1434-636X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70577/asce.v5i2.938

Keywords:

procedural nullity; constitutional nullity; due process; fundamental rights; legal security; constitutional guarantees; effective judicial protection.

Abstract

This study analyzes the legal foundations of procedural nullity and constitutional nullity in the Ecuadorian legal system, considering their importance as mechanisms for protecting due process, legal certainty, and fundamental rights. The study emerges from the need to distinguish the legal consequences derived from procedural irregularities versus those actions that directly violate constitutional norms and affect the validity of the judicial process. The objective was to determine the scope, foundation, and practical application of these legal institutions, especially in the penal field. The research was conducted using a mixed-methods approach, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional design, through doctrinal, normative, and jurisprudential legal analysis, complemented by surveys administered to 15 judges in the town of Morona, Morona Santiago province. The results showed that 86.67% of the judges consider that procedural nullity constitutes a mechanism for protecting due process, while 93.33% recognize that the violation of constitutional rights in a judicial process can result in constitutional nullity. Similarly, 80% identified differences between procedural nullity and constitutional nullity, emphasizing that the first relates to violations of procedural rules and the second to the direct violation of fundamental rights. Moreover, 86.67% indicated that the incorrect application of nullity can affect legal security. It is concluded that both institutions serve a protective function in the constitutional state of rights and justice by allowing the control of judicial actions and ensuring that processes are compatible with constitutional principles.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bustamante-Fajardo, A. P., & Molina-Torres, V. (2023). La garantía de motivación desde la línea jurisprudencial de la Corte Constitucional Ecuatoriana (Vol. 6). Revista Metropolitana de Ciencias Aplicadas, 6(1), 90-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62452/ert5ty86

Contreras Pérez, F. (2021). El derecho al debido proceso a partir de la Sentencia Constitucional 4-19-EP/21 (Vol. 4). Revista Metropolitana de Ciencias Aplicadas. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62452/s8dhm012

Corte Constitucional del Ecuador. (2021). Sentencia No. 1158-17-EP/21: Garantía de la motivación.

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2020). Cuadernillo de Jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Debido proceso. San José.

Duran Chavez, C., & Fuentes Aguila, M. (2021). El debido proceso penal y su constitucionalización en Ecuador (Vol. 6). Polo del Conocimiento.

Durán Chávez, C., & Henríquez Jiménez, C. (2021). El principio de imparcialidad como fundamento de la actuación del juez y su relación con el debido proceso. (Vol. 8). Revista Científica UISRAEL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35290/rcui.v8n3.2021.478

Ferrajoli, L. (2001). Derecho y razón: teoría del garantismo penal (5 ed.). Madrid: Editorial Trotta.

Guachizaca Peralta, S., & Aranda Peñarreta, F. (2024). La nulidad del procedimiento como garantía impropia del derecho al debido proceso en el procedimiento administrativo (Vol. 5). LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i5.2803