Page 364 [364]
OCR
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 referendum and a popular consultation. On October 2, 2017, Moreno sent the amendments proposal to the Constitutional Court. The amendments were contained in five yes/no questions. Moreno also included two questions for a popular consultation. 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 consultation 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 organizations 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, hereinafter “CRSP”), Ordefiana suspended the deadline the Court had to decide on the referendum questions.’ Specifically, the deadline that the judge-rapporteur suspended was the one established in Article 105 of the Ley Organica de Garantias Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional (Organic Law on Jurisdictional Guarantees 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 ¢
