were heard.104 In their interventions, the judges set out their reasoning with regard to the rulings and argued the illegality of establishing responsibility for having voted in one way or another on the rulings.105 86. Once the statements of the judges had concluded, the congressmen who had tabled the motions of censure were invited to speak. In particular, congressmen Serrano and Posso took the floor. Congressman Posso stated that the dismissal on November 25, 2004, had been arbitrary and that the appropriate proceeding to remove the judges was by means of impeachment.106 The judges did not present a rejoinder. 107 87. A vote was then held on the motions of censure. The result of each motion was as follows: a) On November 30, 2004, congressman Marco Proaño had withdrawn his motion of censure (C) of June 16, 2003;108 b) Congressman Luis Villacís withdrew, orally, his motion of censure (A) of June 13, 2003, during the session of December 1, 2004;109 c) The first motion of censure (D) tabled by congressman Segundo Serrano Serrano on June 11, 2003, in relation to the fourteenth salary was not approved, because it did not obtain the necessary votes;110 104 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 923 a 975). 105 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 923 a 975). 106 Cf. National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1002). 107 In this regard, the Speaker of the National Congress stated that “by law and the regulations, it was in order […] for the members of the Constitutional Tribunal who had been accused to present a rejoinder. [He asked] whether they w[ould] present a rejoinder. They w[ould] not present a rejoinder. [Mr. Secretary, p]lease read the provision concerning the conduct of the proceedings from now on, once the interventions by the congressmen who have brought the charges have been heard and there [has been] no rejoinder by the judges.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1005). 108 Regarding the withdrawal of the motion of censure, congressman Proaño stated that “[m]ore than 18 months ha[d] passed since the submission of the impeachment proceeding, which had been processed as established in the Constitution and in the Organic Law of the Legislative Function. […] The setting of the date for the debate and the continuation of the proceedings was determined more than 17 months later and, only recently, on November 26, 2004. […] It was detrimental to the reputation of Congress to seek to process an action that, furthermore, [was] totally time-barred; it c[ould] no longer be implemented and w[ould] not achieve its legal effects, because: […] the law on which the impeachment was based relating to the fourteenth salary, [was] fully in effect. […] To continue the impeachment of individuals who no longer perform that public function [was] futile […]. It was inappropriate to proceed with this parliamentary action because it was time-barred and inopportune. Consequently, and in exercise of [his] powers as a legislator, [he] withdr[ew] the motion of censure and dismissal tabled on June 16, 2003.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folios 917 and 918). 109 In this regard, congressman stated that “18 months ha[d] passed since [he and congressman Marco Proaño Maya had] tabled the accusation [… . T]he impeachment proceedings were not undertaken opportunely. 18 month ha[d] passed and they ha[d] just been presented. On June 16, 2003, [they had] presented the motion of censure and […] the time indicated in the Organic Law of the Legislative Function had passed […] and the right moment had not been found. […] Consequently, […] it [was] futile that the issue [was] being dealt with at [that] time and, therefore, since the matter relating to the fourteenth salary [was] also time-barred, [they] also withdr[ew] [their] motion of censure.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 919). 110 The result of the vote was “43 abstentions. Against: 21. In favor: 20. Valid votes: 41.” National Congress Record No. 24-326 of December 1, 2004 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1037). 29