El principio de motivación en actos administrativos a la Luz de la Sentencia 1158-17-EP/21.

Abstract

The study aims to examine the principle of reasoning in administrative actions, analyzing ruling No. 1158-17-EP/21. Reasoning constitutes a fundamental guarantee of the right to defense and due process, as it requires public authorities to justify their conduct based on legal norms and proven facts, thereby preventing arbitrariness. From a historical-legal perspective, public administration has evolved from being an instrument of absolute power to becoming a mechanism at the service of citizen interest. For this reason, the Constitutional Court broadened the scope of its rulings by providing reasoning, leaving behind the former “motivational test” that reduced its analysis to mere formal requirements. Indeed, in the 2021 ruling, it was established that reasoning must be sufficient both in normative and factual terms in order to allow for the understanding and review of public decisions. Nevertheless, in administrative practice, motivational deficits such as insufficiency, nonexistence, or superficiality still persist, thereby infringing upon our fundamental rights. The research concludes that adequate reasoning is a cornerstone of legality, transparency, and legitimacy; moreover, for this reason, it should be enshrined in an Organic Law, as this is necessary to strengthen its effective application, guarantee legal certainty, and consolidate a true constitutional State that safeguards rights.