Argumentative rationality of judicial motivation within the framework of ecuadorian constitutional due process

Abstract

The argumentative rationality of judicial reasoning constitutes one of the essential pillars of the constitutional state of rights and justice, particularly in legal systems that guarantee rights, such as Ecuador's. This judicial reasoning is not limited to the formal exposition of applicable norms, but rather requires a rational, coherent, sufficient, and comprehensible argumentative construction that justifies jurisdictional decisions to the parties involved in the proceedings and to society. The object of this study was to establish the argumentative rationality of judicial reasoning within the framework of Ecuadorian constitutional due process. A documentary design methodology was applied, and the study is explanatory and bibliographic in nature. The findings demonstrate that rational judicial reasoning is also directly related to the principle of effective judicial protection. A properly reasoned decision ensures that the parties understand the legal grounds for the decision and can adequately exercise their right to defense through the corresponding appeals. Conversely, unmotivated or seemingly motivated decisions generate legal uncertainty and violate fundamental rights, affecting public trust in the administration of justice. Several recent studies have shown that one of the persistent problems in the Ecuadorian judicial system is precisely the existence of apparent, ambiguous, or insufficient motivations, especially in lower courts. These studies conclude that argumentative rationality becomes an indispensable element for guaranteeing the legitimacy of judicial decisions and preserving legal certainty.