Camba Campos, Luis Rojas Bajaña, Simón Zavala, Manuel Jaramillo and Jaime Nogales voted in favor of this judgment, while Judges Milton Burbano, René de la Torre, Enrique Herrería and Mauro Terán abstained.88 The alternate judge, Manuel Jaramillo participated in this ruling, replacing Judge Oswaldo Ceballos. 79. The Constitutional Tribunal decided an appeal on unconstitutionality owing to the content of articles 105 and 106 of the Election Act, which indicated that the D’Hondt system for the distribution of seats disregarded the intentions of the electorate in those countries with electoral systems based on open lists.89 The Constitutional Tribunal admitted the arguments submitted and declared the unconstitutionality of articles 105 and 106 of the Election Act. In the decision, it indicated that the D’Hondt method was a system for assigning seats, the application of which: “[was] inappropriate with the system of open elections [… given that] it is implemented based on the votes received by the list, not by the individual, the effect of which is contrary to the effect sought. […] For this reason, the D’Hondt method is appropriate and successful in closed system elections, where it achieves the objective of providing proportional representation to minorities. […] Although it is true that the D’Hondt method guarantees the representation of minorities, it disrupts the open election system, because it counteracts the specific democratic power of the electorate to choose candidates of their preference from a list or between lists, in the case of open lists, and has the effect of producing important differences as regards the representativeness that the elector sought and, consequently, the legitimacy of various persons who accede to the respective public offices becomes debatable.”90 3. The motions of censure against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal 80. In this case, six motions of censure were presented with regard to the rulings adopted by the Constitutional Tribunal in relation to the “fourteenth salary” and the D’Hondt method (supra paras. 74 to 79): a) On May 6, 2003, congressman Luis Villacís Maldonado filed an accusation against Oswaldo Cevallos, Luis Rojas, Jaime Nogales, Miguel Camba and René de la Torre based on their votes on the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal in Ruling No. 0004-2003-TC (fourteenth salary).91 The motion of censure (A) was presented on June 13, 2003;92 for a system of open lists. […] [17.] The D´Hondt Method established in articles 105 and 106 of the Elections Act and article 111 of its General Regulations is not the appropriate system to conciliate the spirit embodied in the Constitution by the principle of open lists with that of the proportional representation of minorities, so that it contravenes article 99 of the Constitution of the State, violates the democratic participation of Ecuadorian citizens embodied in articles 18, 26, 27 and 97(17), of this instrument, and fails to respect the principle of constitutional rank that, in our legal system is established in article 272 of the Constitution, which stipulates that the Constitution has prevalence over any law and anything that contradicts it is ineffective.” Ruling No. 025-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 627, 628 and 629). 88 Cf. Ruling No. 025-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 627 and 628) 89 633). Cf. Ruling No. 025-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 90 Cf. Ruling No. 025-2003-TC of the Constitutional Tribunal (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 627 and 628). 91 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 915 and 916). 92 Cf. Motion of censure of June 13, 2003 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 593). In this motion, the congressman alleged that the judges “had assumed functions of legislators, reserved only to the members of Congress of the Republic” and that the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision to rule on the form and not on the substance of the law in question had “resulted in chaos and an objectionable inequality among Ecuadorians.” 26