The post-truth of the State Attorney General's Pronouncements

Abstract

This academic article questions the scope of the State Attorney General's jurisdiction to respond to binding legal queries to public institutions, as provided for in article 237, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. Essentially, it assumes that such acquittals of consultations, although binding in nature, are not general.

However, upholding this position entails confronting the hegemonic truth promulgated by a sector of the doctrine and even rulings of the Constitutional Court, which has granted them both characteristics: binding and generality.

Thus, it shows how the ideas of hegemonic truth go beyond being a mere matter of the Administrative Law related to the competence of a public official, to breaking the Ecuadorian constitutional order. Therefore, it is questioned that the Constitutional Court (even in its current form) not only that it has not warned it, but promulgates this post-truth in its rulings, by admitting public actions of unconstitutionality or actions for non-compliance against these pronouncements.