Presunción de Inocencia y Legitimidad del Acto Administrativo. Estudio de caso no. 2038-15-EP CCE
Fecha
2021-10
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad de Jurisprudencia Ciencias Sociales y Polìticas
Resumen
La legitimidad del acto administrativo también conocido como presunción de legalidad,
consiste en presumir que el acto fue dictado conforme a derecho; esto es, que su emisión se
sujetó a todos los preceptos del orden normativo; en cambio, el principio de presunción
de inocencia constituye la garantía constitucional del imputado o administrado, que le permite
conservar su estado de “no autor del delito” en tanto no se expida una resolución judicial firme.
Será entonces necesario para ponderar estos principios, especificar cuándo se considera una
vulneración del derecho constitucional, y el rol del Juez Constitucional encaminar la viabilidad
de una acción de protección, enmarcada en lo que implanta la Ley Orgánica de Garantías
Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional en su artículo 42 en qué casos la acción de protección
no procede, específicamente, en el numeral 4 se refiere al acto administrativo; estableciéndose
por regla general, que procede la acción de protección si se demostraré que la vía administrativa
no fuere la adecuada ni eficaz. Esta investigación tiene como propósito determinar la
prevalencia del principio de legitimidad de los actos administrativos en relación a la buena fe
de los servidores públicos en contraposición al principio constitucional de inocencia, tomando
como base el análisis casuístico de la Sentencia No. 2038-15-EP/21, determinando en derecho
si la vía ordinaria es inadecuada e ineficaz para impugnar un acto administrativo.
The legitimacy of the administrative act, also known as the presumption of legality, consists in presuming that the act was dictated in accordance with the law; that is, its emission was subject to all the precepts of the normative order; On the other hand, the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes the constitutional guarantee of the accused or the person being administered, which allows them to retain their status as “non-author of the crime” until a final judicial decision is issued. It will then be necessary to weigh these principles, specify when a violation of constitutional law is considered, and the role of the Constitutional Judge to direct the viability of a protection action, framed in what the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control implements in its article 42 in which cases the protection action is not applicable, specifically, in number 4 it refers to the administrative act; establishing as a general rule, that the protection action proceeds if it will be shown that the administrative route is not adequate or effective. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the prevalence of the principle of legitimacy of administrative acts in relation to the good faith of public servants as opposed to the constitutional principle of innocence, based on the casuistic analysis of Judgment No. 2038-15-EP / 21, determining in law if the ordinary route is inadequate and ineffective to challenge an administrative act.
The legitimacy of the administrative act, also known as the presumption of legality, consists in presuming that the act was dictated in accordance with the law; that is, its emission was subject to all the precepts of the normative order; On the other hand, the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes the constitutional guarantee of the accused or the person being administered, which allows them to retain their status as “non-author of the crime” until a final judicial decision is issued. It will then be necessary to weigh these principles, specify when a violation of constitutional law is considered, and the role of the Constitutional Judge to direct the viability of a protection action, framed in what the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees and Constitutional Control implements in its article 42 in which cases the protection action is not applicable, specifically, in number 4 it refers to the administrative act; establishing as a general rule, that the protection action proceeds if it will be shown that the administrative route is not adequate or effective. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the prevalence of the principle of legitimacy of administrative acts in relation to the good faith of public servants as opposed to the constitutional principle of innocence, based on the casuistic analysis of Judgment No. 2038-15-EP / 21, determining in law if the ordinary route is inadequate and ineffective to challenge an administrative act.
Descripción
Palabras clave
ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO, ACCIÓN DE PROTECCIÓN, LEGALIDAD, PRESUNCIÓN DE INOCENCIA, VULNERACIÓN DE DERECHOS CONSTITUCIONALES.