Ecuadorian administrative law has a legal framework aimed at guaranteeing legality, legal certainty, transparency, administrative effectiveness, and the protection of citizens’ rights. However, its application does not always produce results consistent with these purposes, creating a paradox between normative strength and institutional practice. The objective of this critical review was to analyze how legal literature explains this paradox and its effects on the relationship between Public Administration and citizens. A qualitative, documentary, and bibliographic study was conducted, based on the analysis of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, the Organic Administrative Code, specialized doctrine, and legal studies related to legal certainty, administrative discretion, reasoning of administrative decisions, procedural formalism, administrative silence, and institutional control. The review identified that the paradox is associated with institutional gaps, uneven application of procedures, insufficient reasoning, and difficulties in controlling the exercise of administrative powers. It is concluded that the effective protection of citizens depends on reasoned, predictable, and controllable public action capable of integrating legality, effectiveness, and the protection of rights.
Ecuadorian administrative law has a legal framework aimed at guaranteeing legality, legal certainty, transparency, administrative effectiveness, and the protection of citizens’ rights. However, its application does not always produce results consistent with these purposes, creating a paradox between normative strength and institutional practice. The objective of this critical review was to analyze how legal literature explains this paradox and its effects on the relationship between Public Administration and citizens. A qualitative, documentary, and bibliographic study was conducted, based on the analysis of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, the Organic Administrative Code, specialized doctrine, and legal studies related to legal certainty, administrative discretion, reasoning of administrative decisions, procedural formalism, administrative silence, and institutional control. The review identified that the paradox is associated with institutional gaps, uneven application of procedures, insufficient reasoning, and difficulties in controlling the exercise of administrative powers. It is concluded that the effective protection of citizens depends on reasoned, predictable, and controllable public action capable of integrating legality, effectiveness, and the protection of rights. Read More