The Justice Commission of the Ecuadorian Congress has recommended to the Legislature that the partial veto carried out by President Guillermo Lasso on the law for the termination of pregnancy in cases of rape be referred to the Constitutional Court, since presidential observations on the law are justified in alleged cases unconstitutionalities. The legislators of the commission consider that the highest constitutional authority must resolve whether or not the objections raised by Lasso violate the precepts established in the Ecuadorian Constitution.
By raising the rule to the Constitutional Court to issue an opinion, the 30-day period for the processing of the law in congress following the presidential veto would be suspended and counted again as soon as the Court notifies the Assembly of its resolution.
Legislator Alejandro Jaramillo, chairman of the legislative committee, believes that he will get 70 votes in the plenary session of the congress for the partial veto of Lasso to be examined by the Court. According to Jaramillo, Lasso had to consult the Constitutional Court before issuing his veto: “he dropped article 138 of the Constitution, because if he considered that there were unconstitutional issues, he had to have the Court's ruling,” said the assembly member. This agrees with the legislator Yajhaira Urresta, who pointed out that of the president's 61 objections, 60 claim alleged unconstitutionalities, hence the procedure in the Constitutional Court is appropriate.
Among the president's objections is that the National Assembly defines the procedure for the termination of pregnancy in cases of rape as a right, this conceptualization would be contrary to the legal order. According to Lasso's partial veto, abortion cannot be considered a constitutional right and ensures that recognizing it as such would violate article 45 of the Constitution which mandates that “the State shall recognize and guarantee life, including care and protection from conception”.
According to the Executive, the congress has exceeded what was decided by the Constitutional Court, which, in April 2021, deleted the text of an article from the Comprehensive Criminal Code of Ecuador and decriminalized abortion in cases of rape for all women who have been victims of this type of sexual violence. It was then that the Court ordered the Assembly to legislate on access to abortion in cases of rape. According to Lasso, legislators do not comply with defining requirements for access to termination of pregnancy in such cases.
The president's partial veto is based on the fact that conscientious objection, within the law on access to abortion in cases of rape, violates article 84 of the Constitution, which states that “in no case shall the reform of the Constitution, laws, other legal norms or acts of the public authority violate the rights that recognizes the Constitution”. The physicians' conscientious objection was one of the most debated points within the project, because there are centers in the health network where there is only one doctor in charge, so if that professional refused to perform abortion in the event of rape, the victim's access to such an abortion would be violated procedure.
The original text provided that abortions due to rape in Ecuador could be performed up to 12 weeks, with the exception of girls, adolescents and women from rural and indigenous areas, because for them the deadline was extended to 18 weeks. The argument used by advocates for the right to decide has been that, among these segments of the women's population, access to sexual health institutions is limited. The response to the presidential objection suggests that the deadline refers to the viability of the fetus and not to the pregnant woman. In this case, the viability of the fetus, as an autonomous organism of its pregnant woman, says the objection, should be the same for all women regardless of age or origin.
The partial presidential objection, in the broad sense, means that the President of the Republic is entitled to propose changes to a legal text approved by the National Assembly. However, the partial veto does not mean that abortion will be criminalized again under criminal law, but that other time-limit specifications are proposed, for example.
KEEP READING: