Límites de la acción de protección frente a los actos administrativos en el Servicio Público.

Abstract

This essay examines the nature and limitations of the protective action in Ecuador, particularly as it relates to administrative acts of the public service. Although the Constitution recognized it in 2008 as a jurisdictional guarantee protecting against direct violations of fundamental rights, its use by various public officials has distorted its general purpose, employing it to challenge ordinary administrative resolutions. This has led to an overload of constitutional justice, creating legal uncertainty and weakening administrative jurisdiction. On the other hand, the legal framework of the Organic Law of Jurisdictional Guarantees, the Organic Administrative Code, and the Constitution stipulates various effective ordinary mechanisms; the protective action is not required in these cases. It is worth noting that the Constitutional Court emphasized that its function should only be used to review the legality of actions in situations of serious and direct violations of rights. This essay distinguishes between void acts and those that are subject to challenge, the latter being an ordinary procedure. At the same time, the relevance of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality in judicial analysis is highlighted, specifically in situations involving dismissals from public service. Finally, it is emphasized that the protective action should be of an extraordinary nature, ensuring constitutional supremacy without replacing oversight of administrative legality. Therefore, this study suggests consolidating jurisprudential criteria to prevent abuses and strengthen the justice system.