Seite 364 [364]
OSWALDO RUIZ-CHIRIBOGA
not have been approved by referendum. I do not advance any theory. Instead, I
present and analyze the proceedings that led to the referendum, the actions and
omissions of the TCCPSC, and their impact on the separation of powers and
the autonomy of the public functions. This is an empirical study based on the
Ecuadorian legislation and the regulations and decisions adopted by Ecuadorian
institutions.
THE SUBMISSION OF THE REFERENDUM QUESTIONS
TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
In September 2017, President Moreno announced his intention to call for a ref¬
erendum and a popular consultation. On October 2, 2017, Moreno sent the amend¬
ments proposal to the Constitutional Court. The amendments were contained in
five yes/no questions. Moreno also included two questions for a popular consul¬
tation.
The Admission Chamber of the Constitutional Court admitted Moreno’s request,
and two cases were opened: Case No. 0001-17-CP regarding the two popular consul¬
tation questions and Case No. 002-17-RC regarding the five referendum questions.
With an order of November 6, 2017, the judge-rapporteur of the referendum
case, Tatiana Ordefiana, summoned Moreno and all the individuals and organ¬
izations interested in presenting arguments to a public hearing. Additionally, in
accordance with Article 9 of the Codificaciôn del Reglamento de Sustanciación
de Procesos de Competencia de la Corte Constitucional (Codification of the Rules
for the Substantiation of Proceedings before the Constitutional Court, hereinaf¬
ter “CRSP”), Ordefiana suspended the deadline the Court had to decide on the
referendum questions.’ Specifically, the deadline that the judge-rapporteur sus¬
pended was the one established in Article 105 of the Ley Organica de Garantias
Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional (Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guar¬
antees and Constitutional Control, hereinafter “OLJGCC”), which provides: “If
the Constitutional Court does not decide on the summon, the introductory notes
and the referendum questionnaire within twenty days after having initiated the
respective prior constitutional control, it will be understood that the Court has
issued a favourable opinion”. The suspension of the legal deadline meant that the
days the Court took in preparing the public hearing and receiving the position of
the amici curiae do not count for the purposes of Article 105 OLJGCC.
The public hearing was held on November 15, 2017, as scheduled. After the
public hearing, the judge-rapporteur, in accordance with Article 9 CRSP, lifted the
2 Constitutional Court, Judge Ordefiana’s Order, Case No. 002-17-RC, November 6, 2017.
* 362 ¢