Empirical Analysis of the Conceptual Differences and Practical Risks of Denaturalization, Inadmissibility, and Manifest Inadmissibility in Constitutional Actions in Ecuador

Abstract

One of the most concerning phenomena in Ecuadorian constitutional justice is 
the abusive use of constitutional actions. On multiple occasions, these mechanisms 
have been denaturalized for purposes other than the protection of rights, causing 
serious harm to the administration of justice and to the public treasury. Despite 
their relevance, the concepts of denaturalization, inadmissibility, and manifest 
inadmissibility have not been clearly defined either by legal doctrine or by the 
jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. This article constitutes the 
first systematic study to address this issue through a mixed empirical analysis—
both qualitative and quantitative—of more than sixty rulings issued by the Court 
under two different compositions: 2019-2022 and 2022-2025. The findings 
show how the Court has applied these categories, their conceptual differences, and 
the practical effects they generate for petitioners, lawyers, and judges. The study 
concludes that a uniform definition of these figures is essential to reduce judicial 
discretion, prevent their arbitrary application, and strengthen the right to legal 
certainty.