Negligencia manifiesta y error inexcusable en las actuaciones judiciales, análisis de la sentencia No. 3-19-CN/20
Fecha
2022-09
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad deJurisprudencia, Ciencias Sociales y Políticas
Resumen
El presente estudio tiene como objetivo realizar un análisis de la sentencia No. 3-19-
CN/20 dictada por la Corte Constitucional y su correspondiente auto de aclaración y
ampliación. El fenómeno estudiado en contexto abarca los antecedentes procesales de
la sentencia objeto de estudio, los mismos que tienen su origen en el expediente
disciplinario abierto por el Consejo de la Judicatura; el cual, declaró responsable por Error
Inexcusable basándose en la reforma del artículo 109 numeral 7 del Código Orgánico de
la Función Judicial, al juez primero de la Familia, Mujer, Niñez y Adolescencia de
Esmeraldas en el año 2013. De ahí que, diversas posturas dicotómicas se derivan sobre
Error Inexcusable, Negligencia Manifiesta y Dolo. Por un lado, a favor de las atribuciones
disciplinarias del Consejo de la Judicatura; y por otro, sobre la exclusión debido al riesgo
de vulneración a la Garantía de Tutela Judicial Efectiva, Debido Proceso e Independencia
Judicial.
The objective of this study is to carry out an analysis of judgment No. 3-19-CN/20 issued by the Constitutional Court and its corresponding order of clarification and expansion. The phenomenon studied in context covers the procedural background of the sentence of the object of study, the same ones that have their origin in the disciplinary file opened by the Council of the Judiciary; which, declared responsible for inexcusable error based on the reform of article 109 numeral 7 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, to the first judge of the Family, Women, Childhood and Adolescence located in Esmeraldas in the year 2013. Hence, various positions dichotomous are derived on inexcusable error, gross negligence, and fraud. On the one hand, in favor of the disciplinary powers of the Judicial Council; and on the other, on the exclusion due to the risk of violation of the guarantee of effective judicial protection, due process right and judicial independence.
The objective of this study is to carry out an analysis of judgment No. 3-19-CN/20 issued by the Constitutional Court and its corresponding order of clarification and expansion. The phenomenon studied in context covers the procedural background of the sentence of the object of study, the same ones that have their origin in the disciplinary file opened by the Council of the Judiciary; which, declared responsible for inexcusable error based on the reform of article 109 numeral 7 of the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, to the first judge of the Family, Women, Childhood and Adolescence located in Esmeraldas in the year 2013. Hence, various positions dichotomous are derived on inexcusable error, gross negligence, and fraud. On the one hand, in favor of the disciplinary powers of the Judicial Council; and on the other, on the exclusion due to the risk of violation of the guarantee of effective judicial protection, due process right and judicial independence.
Descripción
Palabras clave
ERROR INEXCUSABLE, NEGLIGENCIA MANIFIESTA, DOLO, DEBIDO PROCESO, INDEPENDENCIA JUDICIAL.