The judges of the Constitutional Court ruled as inadmissible the Ecuadorian congress's request to issue Guillermo Lasso's partial veto on the law guaranteeing the voluntary termination of pregnancy for girls, adolescents and women in the event of rape. The vote of the judges was unanimous. With this result, Ecuadorian legislators will have to rule on Lasso's partial objection until this Friday.
The first week of April, Ecuadorian congressmen submitted a constitutional consultation to the Court. The legislators argued that Lasso's observations to the law are justified by alleged unconstitutionalities, so they considered that the highest constitutional authority should resolve whether or not those objections raised by Lasso violate the precepts established in the Ecuadorian Constitution. The initiative was accepted by 75 out of 137 assembly members.
According to legislators, of President Lasso's 61 objections to the bill, 60 argue alleged unconstitutionalities, so they thought it appropriate for the Court to qualify the constitutionality of the bill.
In the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the high court has indicated that the action of the National Assembly, of submitting the partial veto of the president before the Court, is not legal. In addition, the judges stressed that the Legislature cannot request the prior constitutionality control of a bill.
Regarding President Lasso's objections, the judges explained in their opinion that the partial veto has not been classified by the Executive as an objection for unconstitutionality. The judges pointed out that even if the text of the partial veto cites or relies on the Constitution to argue the content of the observations, it is not the competence of the National Assembly to interpret or qualify the veto. For that reason, the presidential objection cannot be subject to prior constitutional control.
The president of the National Assembly, Guadalupe Llori, called the legislators to a plenary session on Thursday to learn about Lasso's partial veto of the bill on abortion in cases of rape. At that meeting, the assembly members must decide on the veto.
Guillermo Lasso's partial veto
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 rights recognized by 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 case of rape, the victim's access to this procedure would be violated.
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: