69. The Supreme Court’s resolution of June 27, 2001 referred to by the Constitutional Tribunal in its decision of December 2, 2004, was a ruling to clarify the guidelines applicable in matters of constitutional amparo. 97 The Constitutional Tribunal’s decision of December 2, 2004 cites Article 2 a) of the aforesaid resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice, which reads: In particular, the amparo action is not admissible and shall be rejected outright when brought with respect to: a) Regulatory provisions issued by a public authority, such as organic and ordinary laws, decree laws, decrees, ordinances, statutes, regulations and generally binding (erga omnes) resolutions, since in order to suspend their effects because of a violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, an unconstitutionality suit must be brought before the Constitutional Court. 98 3. Denial of amparo remedies lodged by several dismissed members of the Constitutional Tribunal 70. On December 7, 2004 the Twelfth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled in the amparo suit filed by Luis Vicente Rojas Bajaña, one of the dismissed members of the Constitutional Tribunal. 99 This decision “denied the processing of this constitutional remedy,” pursuant to the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling of December 2, 2004 “leaving an unconstitutionality suit before the Constitutional Tribunal open for the case.” 100 71. Similarly, on December 13, 2004 the First Civil Court of Pichincha handed down a decision in the amparo suit filed by Miguel Angel Camba Campos, one of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal who were dismissed, against the National Congress Resolution No. R-25-160. 101 This ruling stated that it was “public knowledge that the […] National Congress, on Wednesday December 8 of the current year, proceeded with the impeachment of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal […] by a majority of its members, in an action that wa[s] eminently legal and legitimate, since it is provided for in the Constitution, and thus enjoys full legal effect, including the censure caused by the immediate dismissal of the official.” 102 It also cited the Constitutional Tribunal’s resolution of December 2, 2004, concluding that “based on the content of the preceding ‘whereas´ clauses, the amparo action w [as] inadmissible and must be rejected outright, without examining the merits of the matter.” 103 pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2259), and Resolution of the Constitutional Court of December 2, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 208 to 209). 97 Cf. Official Record No. 378 of July 27, 2001 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 211 and 212), and Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 208 to 209). 98 Official Record No. 378 of July 27, 2001 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 211 and 212); Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 208 a 209), and Decision of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 2, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 198). 99 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 7, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 215). 100 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 7, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 215). 101 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 13, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, pages 217 to 225). 102 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 13, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 224). 103 Cf. Decision on amparo remedy of December 13, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume I, page 224). 25