In defense of young people's access to university

On July 10, the public hearing was held before the Constitutional Court for the lawsuit proposed by the Universities of Azuay, Pontificia Católica del Ecuador, Católica de Santiago de Guayaquil, Politécnica Salesiana, Laica Vicente Rocafuerte, Católica de Cuenca, UTE and Técnica Particular of Loja against the Ministry of Economy and Finance for the breach of articles 22 and 33 of the Organic Law of Higher Education regarding the delivery of income and assignments.

The audience began with the intervention of the Rector of the University of Azuay, Francisco Salgado, who mentioned that the measure adopted by the co-financed universities seeks to contribute to access to university for young people with limited economic resources.

“In our eight universities, 152.000 students are educated, of whom 50.000 receive these scholarships to study with us. This is such a large number that public universities could not satisfy either. For this reason, this demand is presented, so that they are not affected. these students in their opportunity to access higher education. ”

Fernando Ponce León, Rector of the Pontificia Católica del Ecuador, added that “50% of the students we serve have scholarships with state money, when the resource allocations for these scholarships are delayed, cut or missing, we continue to scholarship to the students, and allowing their education with resources from the universities ”.

Then, one of the sponsoring attorneys for the plaintiff, José Chalco Salgado, gave way, who mentioned that a jurisdictional guarantee is being activated, which in constitutional terms is understood as reactive or concrete, since it reacts to the violation of a constitutional right.

“This violation, it is worth mentioning, does not occur from the pandemic, there was a previous claim that was presented on February 28, 2020 before the Ministry of Economy and Finance, since late assignments had not been delivered to universities since October 2019, that is, there was already a violation, which persists until today ”.

Then, the other sponsoring lawyer, Sebastián López, added that the measure seeks to avoid the discretion of the public actor and that an organic rule be disregarded.

“Article 22 of the LOES establishes that the Executive Branch may not deprive of income or assignments at the same time it establishes that transfers cannot be delayed, article 33 of the LOES provides for the automatic accreditation of income in favor of the institutions that make up the Higher Education regime; in this particular case, the Ministry of Economy and Finance has an express and enforceable clear legal obligation to act or to do, to comply ”.

Substantive Judge Teresa Nuques asked the sponsoring lawyers regarding the time in which this obligation must be fulfilled in order for it to become enforceable, to which José Chalco Salgado replied:

“Art. 33 talks about an automatic type accreditation, that automaticity is given in a monthly transfer, not for a period corresponding to one semester. In other words, you have the right to demand non-delay of income on a monthly basis ”

Then it gave way to the defendant entity, represented by lawyer Jonathan Salazar, who made reference to the sustainability of the fiscal box and the economic crisis existing before the Covid-19 health crisis and subsequently aggravated by it. In his speech he stated:

"As we all know, the economic reality of the country has been hit due to various aspects that are not controllable by the Ecuadorian State or by all states in general, with the Covid-19 health crisis as the main aspect."

The lawyer indicated that the Ministry recognized with total "transparency and total honesty" that there is a debt in favor of the co-financed higher education institutions but added that an immediate disbursement of the money owed would put the economic system itself in serious crisis.

Lastly, the Rector of the UDA recalled that the Ministry's debt is not the same for all universities since some institutions are owed a single month while others 8 or 9 months, "and that really is somewhat discriminatory."

"I emphasize that it is not a matter of defending a particular institution, but of young people and their right to access higher education, without lack of resources being a criterion of impediment," concluded Francisco Salgado.