Motivation as a principle, linked to control and proportionality in the Ecuadorian sanctioning power

Abstract

This study analyzes the principle of reasoning in the exercise of the Ecuadorian state’s sanctioning authority and its connection with the principles of oversight and proportionality. A qualitative, documentary approach was employed to examine administrative sanctioning decisions issued from 2019 to 2024, along with applicable regulations, national and international case law, and relevant doctrine from Ecuador and Spain. The methodological framework was structured in three phases: first, systematic searches in official repositories to assemble the analytical corpus; second, classification of documentary materials; and third, application of hermeneutic techniques alongside critical analysis for legal interpretation. The findings show that reasoning is a fundamental pillar for the validity of administrative acts and decisions. Its absence leads to procedural nullity by directly affecting the principles of legality and legitimacy, and it also undermines public trust in the Administration. The analysis further demonstrates the advisability of strengthening public sector personnel capacities and incorporating comparative references from the Spanish model to enrich Ecuador’s current system. The study concludes that proper justification, together with effective oversight mechanisms and proportionality criteria, is essential to ensure outcomes that are coherent and respectful of procedural rights, thereby enhancing institutional transparency and reinforcing the legitimacy of sanctioning authority within Ecuador’s constitutional state.