The authority and limits of judges in ex officio evidence or evidence ordered for better adjudication under the organic general code of procedures

Authors

Keywords:

Contradiction, due process, exceptional faculty, judicial reasoning, legal uncertainty, material truth, party disposition, subsidiarity

Abstract

The research analyses ex officio evidence as an exceptional authority of the judge within the Ecuadorian civil procedural system, evaluating its compatibility with the principles of impartiality, dispositive, contradiction, and due process. The objective is to analyse the figure of ex officio evidence from a doctrinal, normative, and jurisprudential perspective, evaluating its scope and limits within the framework of due process. Through a qualitative approach, its constitutional basis, its regulation in the General Organic Code of Processes, and its treatment in doctrine and jurisprudence were examined. The results show that in Ecuador there are persistent regulatory gaps and disparate practices that could eventually generate legal uncertainty and risks of judicial activism. It is concluded that the ex officio evidence must be maintained as a tool aimed at obtaining material truth, but it requires clearer regulation that strengthens transparency, judicial motivation, and procedural balance between the parties.

References

Aguirrezabal Grünstein, M. (2022). Admisibilidad y ponderación de la prueba en segunda instancia y deber de fundamentación. Revista Chilena de Derecho Privado, (38), 313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-80722022000100313

Cappelletti, M. (2023). El proceso civil en el derecho comparado. Ediciones Olejnik.

Congreso de la República de Colombia. (2012). Ley 1564. Código General del Proceso. https://www.funcionpublica.gov.co/eva/gestornormativo/norma.php?i=48425

Congreso Nacional de Chile. (1902). Código de Procedimiento Civil. https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=22740

Contreras Rojas, C. (2021). Debido proceso e infancia: derecho a la prueba y sentencia motivada. Estudios Constitucionales, 19(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-52002021000200137

Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2016). Sentencia C-086/16. https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/ficha-sentencia/8643/0/texto/0

Corte Constitucional del Ecuador. (2024). Sentencia No. 760-20-EP/24. https://esacc.corteconstitucional.gob.ec/storage/api/v1/10_DWL_FL/e2NhcnBldGE6J3RyYW1pdGUnLCB1dWlkOidhNDA3YzkxMi1iM2I0LTQzZDQtOTA3ZS00Y2MyODMyNzNiMjMucGRmJ30=

Devis Echandía, H. (2014). Teoría general de la prueba judicial (6.ª ed., Vol. 1). Temis.

Durán Chávez, C. E., & Henríquez Jiménez, C. D. (2021). El principio de imparcialidad como fundamento de la actuación del juez y su relación con el debido proceso. Revista Científica UISRAEL, 8(3), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.35290/rcui.v8n3.2021.478

Ecuador. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Registro Oficial No. 449. https://www.defensa.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2021/02/Constitucion-de-la-Republica-del-Ecuador_act_ene-2021.pdf

Ecuador. Asamblea Nacional. (2015). Código Orgánico General de Procesos. Registro Oficial Suplemento No. 506. https://www.ces.gob.ec/lotaip/2021/Abril/a2/C%C3%B3digo%20Org%C3%A1nico%20General%20de%20Procesos,%20COGEP.pdf

Espinoza-Guamán, E. E. (2026). Derechos del niño en el siglo XXI: Un análisis jurídico de los avances y desafíos. Sophia Research Review, 3(1), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.64092/5tfe2h93

Herrera Díaz, J. C., & Pérez Restrepo, J. (2021). La prueba de oficio en la construcción de la verdad procesal. Revista Derecho, (55), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.14482/dere.55.345

Hunter Ampuero, I. (2011). La iniciativa probatoria del juez y la igualdad de armas en el proyecto de código procesal civil. Ius et Praxis, 17(2), 53–76. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122011000200004

Lorca Navarrete, A. M. (2012). Pruebas de oficio en el proceso civil (artículo 194 del Código Procesal Civil peruano): Una aportación de la jurisprudencia procesal civil española. Derecho & Sociedad, (38), 154–162. https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechoysociedad/article/view/13114/13725

Pulido Ortiz, F. E. (2024). Activismo judicial. EUNOMÍA. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad, (27), 217–235. https://doi.org/10.20318/eunomia.2024.9008

Rivas Robledo, P. (2022). ¿Qué es el activismo judicial? Parte I. Desiderata para una definición de activismo judicial. Díkaion, 31(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.5294/dika.2022.31.1.4

Romero Correa, F. I., Andrade Salazar, O. L., Quevedo Arnaiz, N. V., & Valverde Torres, Y. L. (2022). Prueba para resolver mejor: visión desde el principio de imparcialidad. Universidad y Sociedad, 14(6), 586-595. http://scielo.sld.cu/pdf/rus/v14n6/2218-3620-rus-14-06-586.pdf

Taruffo, M. (2008). La prueba. Marcial Pons.

Downloads

Published

2026-05-01

How to Cite

Martínez-Andaluz, I. G., & Barragan-García, J. G. (2026). The authority and limits of judges in ex officio evidence or evidence ordered for better adjudication under the organic general code of procedures. Revista Científica Episteme & Praxis, 4(2), 91–100. Retrieved from https://epistemeypraxis.org/index.php/revista/article/view/192

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): Interdisciplinariedad y desarrollo: educación, derecho y sostenibilidad (mayo-agosto)

Section

Artículos

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Ivanova Gissela Martínez-Andaluz, José Gabriel Barragan-García

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish in Episteme & Praxis agree to the following terms:

1. Copyright

Authors retain unrestricted copyright to their work. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication. To this end, they assign the journal non-exclusive exploitation rights (reproduction, distribution, public communication, and transformation). Authors may enter into additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal, provided that acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal is given.

© The authors.

2. License

The articles are published in the journal under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). The terms can be found at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

This license allows:

  • Sharing: Copying and redistributing the material in any medium or format.
  • Adapting: Remixing, transforming, and building upon the material.

Under the following terms:

  • Attribution: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes were made. You may do this in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses or sponsors your use.
  • NonCommercial: You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
  • ShareAlike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your creation under the same license as the original work.

There are no additional restrictions. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.