14 matters of constitutional amparo. The Constitutional Court’s December 2, 2004 decision cites Article 2.a of the aforesaid resolution from the Supreme Court of Justice, which reads: In particular, 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 lodged with the Constitutional Court must be brought. 25 E. Amparo remedies lodged by five terminated members of the Constitutional Court 56. On December 7, 2004, the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled in the amparo suit filed by Luís Vicente Rojas Bajaña, one of the members of the Constitutional Court who had been terminated. This decision “denied the processing of this constitutional remedy” pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s resolution of December 2, 2004, “leaving an unconstitutionality suit before the Constitutional Court open for the case.” 26 57. Similarly, on December 13, 2004, the First Civil Court of Pichincha handed down a decision in the amparo suit filed by Miguel Ángel Camba Campos, one of the members of the Constitutional Court who were terminated, against National Congress Resolution No. R-25-160. That resolution states that “it is public knowledge that the National Congress, on Wednesday, December 8 of the current year, proceeded with the impeachment of the members of the Constitutional Court (…) by a majority of its members, in an action that is eminently legal and legitimate in that it is provided for by the Constitution and thus enjoys full legal effect, including the censure caused by immediate dismissal of the official.” 27 It also cites the Constitutional Court’s resolution of December 2, 2004, and concludes that “based on the content of the above ‘whereas’ clauses, the amparo action is inadmissible and must be rejected outright, without examining the merits of the matter.” 28 58. Similarly, on December 14, 2004, the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled inadmissible the constitutional amparo suit lodged by Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos, one of the terminated members of the Constitutional Court. 29 59. Likewise, on December 15, 2004, the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled inadmissible the constitutional amparo suit lodged by Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán, one of the terminated members of the Constitutional Court.30 On that same date, the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha ruled on the amparo suit brought by Mr. Freddy Oswaldo Cevallos Bueno, a terminated member of the Constitutional Court. Based on Article 2.a of the Supreme Court’s resolution of June 27, 2001, and on the Constitutional Court’s resolution of December 2, 2004, it ruled the amparo action inadmissible. 31 25 Annex 17. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated June 27, 2001. (Annex to the initial petition). 26 Annex 18. Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 7, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition). 27 Annex 12. Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 13, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30, 2004.) 28 Annex 19. Decision of the First Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 13, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received) 29 Annex 20. Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 14, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition). 30 Annex 21. Decision of the Tenth Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 15, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition) 31 Annex 22. Decision of the Eighth Civil Court of Pichincha, dated December 15, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition)