104. In the ruling of December 13, 2004, the First Civil Court indicated that it was “public
knowledge that, on Wednesday, December 8 that year, most of the members of the
National Congress had proceeded to hold an impeachment proceeding against the members
of the Constitutional Tribunal […], an act that was eminently legal and legitimate, because it
was established in the Constitution, so that it had legal effects, including the censure that
resulted in the immediate removal of the official.”153 In addition, it cited the ruling of the
Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004, and concluded that, “based on the preceding
considerations, the action for amparo was inadmissible, and should be rejected outright,
without examining the merits of the matter.”154
105. In addition, on December 14, 2004, the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha refused to
admit the remedy of constitutional amparo filed by Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos,
dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal. This court indicated that an “action for
amparo is inadmissible […] when it is filed in relation to […] legislative acts issued by a
public authority.”155 The reasoning for this decision was based on the ruling of the Supreme
Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, establishing that this type of action “should be filed
before the Constitutional Tribunal.”156
106. Furthermore, on December 15, 2004, the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha refused to
admit the action for constitutional amparo filed by Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán, dismissed
member of the Constitutional Tribunal. The court took this decision based on the
Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of December 2, and “reject[ed] outright [the remedy and
would] not admit the action for amparo.”157
107. On the same date, the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled on the action for amparo
filed by Freddy Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, dismissed member of the Constitutional Tribunal.
Based on article 2(a) of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 27, 2001, and the
ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004, it refused to admit the action for
amparo.158
108. Some of the judges who decided these actions for amparo had, at first, suspended
temporarily the decision of Congress ordering the termination of the members of the
Constitutional Tribunal.159 As a result of this suspension, congressman Luis Fernando
Almeida Moran submitted briefs to four of the courts in which he indicated that, if the
judges did not revoke the said suspension and did not recuse themselves from continuing to
153
Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III,
folio 1084).
154
Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 13, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III,
folio 1084).
155
Decision of the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha of December 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome
III, folio 1086).
156
Cf. Decision of the Eleventh Civil Court of Pichincha of December 14, 2004 (file of annexes to the report,
tome III, folio 1086).
157
Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 15, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome
III, folio 1088).
158
Decision of the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 15, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome
III, folio 1090).
159
Cf. Decision of the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome
III, folio 1365); Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the report,
tome III, folio 1405), and Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha of December 3, 2004 (file of annexes to the
report, tome III, folio 1517).
35