El control constitucional concentrado en el Ecuador y su impacto en la justicia constitucional: contraste con modelos difusos y mixtos.

Abstract

The present study analyzes the model of centralized constitutional review in Ecuador and compares it with the decentralized and mixed systems applied in other legal systems. The relevance of this study lies in the fact that constitutional review constitutes the primary mechanism for guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution, limiting public power, and ensuring the effective protection of fundamental rights in a constitutional state based on rights and justice. The general objective of the research is to examine the functioning of Ecuador’s concentrated model, identify its practical implications, and compare it with alternative models that grant greater review powers to ordinary judges. The subject of this study is the institutional framework of constitutional review in Ecuador, while the scope of the analysis focuses on the distribution of powers between the Constitutional Court and ordinary judges, as well as on the effectiveness of each model in safeguarding rights. Methodologically, a qualitative approach is employed, based on documentary, normative, and jurisprudential analysis, complemented by the comparative method to evaluate the differences between concentrated, diffuse, and mixed models. The results show that the Ecuadorian model, being strictly concentrated, has limitations regarding immediate judicial protection, creates institutional dependence on the Constitutional Court, and restricts the ability of ordinary judges to ensure constitutional supremacy in specific cases. A comparison with diffuse and mixed systems reveals that these offer a more agile response to normative conflicts, although they carry risks of a lack of uniformity. In conclusion, the paper highlights the need to strengthen coordination between ordinary judges and the Constitutional Court and to promote mechanisms that optimize constitutional justice in Ecuador.