overned by Article 437 of the Constitution of Ecuador says: Art. 437.- Citizens individually or collectively may file an extraordinary action for protection against judgments, final orders and decisions having the force of judgment. For the admission of this appeal the Court were to find compliance with the following requirements: 1. That the case of judgments, orders and final judgments or execution against. 2. The appellant demonstrates that the trial has been violated, either by action or omission, due process and other rights under the Constitution. The extraordinary action of protection, to the extent that links institutions such as res judicata, fundamental rights, constitutional supremacy and the role of constitutional justice, is at the center of the debate over the legitimacy and effectiveness of the same. As in other countries with similar institutions (amparo against judgments, etc.) This action moves between two equally dangerous extremes. On the one hand, its wholly exceptional consideration what is impossible progressive assumption of constitutional values ​​and specifically fundamental rights by the ordinary courts, thereby breaking the legal and jurisdictional an ordinary universe the governing law and its interpretation by the ordinary courts under legicentricos paleopositivistas and interpretive paradigms; and a small pocket of constitutionality for exceptional cases in which the constitutional principles and values ​​above the law is applied, from a purely expansive paradigm and constitutional rights. On the other, its conversion into a third instance in ending all or most cases, saturating the Court and dividing in two instances argumentative universe governed by law, and a third ruled by the constitution. Legitimacy and effectiveness appear as well as communicating vessels among which we must find a balance that allows the imposition of constitutional values ​​and constitutional rights by the Court to the ordinary courts, without being overburdened by work or in a inadmisiones automatic routine that only benefit trial lawyers. To try to determine how it is working and how it could be improved such operation in Ecuador's constitutional system, a distributed research proposed in four chapters. In the first classical framework of constitutional justice it is analyzed from three basic views for characterizing a theoretical and practical proposal to improve the interpretation and the extraordinary action of protection. In particular, it seeks to analyze, on the one hand, what are the material basis on which the debate takes place, ie, what are the constraints of historical, political, economic and cultural underlying the positions of authors like Kelsen are are Schmitt or Bryce. Legicentrismo, paelopositivismo, political consideration of the constitution, etc.: on the other, are the theoretical paradigms used by these authors in their argument are Second, they analyze what the terms of the debate are focusing on four key issues. The problem of the origin or emergence of constitutional justice, from the point of view of their legitimacy of origin. The problem of so-called countermajoritarian claim, namely, the problem of the legitimacy of exercise in the contrast between a more or less direct democratic legitimacy of the legislative and technical legitimacy of the judiciary, at different historical moments. The configuration of the constitutional rigidity abstract theoretical assumption of constitutionality and positive legal translation. And finally, the progressive integration into the discussion of the issue of fundamental rights, first in its subjective dimension and then in its objective (or irradiation) dimension. Finally, in this first chapter, we will proceed to a critical review of these materials and theoretical assumptions and, from it, a critical reformulation of the terms of the aforementioned debate. Ie origin, countermajoritarian character, stiffness and role of rights. The second chapter deals with applying the conclusions of the first case of democratic Latin American constitutionalism. Six key issues discussed in this chapter. It begins with a terminological and conceptual delimitation of the new democratic constitutionalism, distinguishing it from other terminologies and related concepts such as new constitutionalism, neoconstitutionalism, etc. If this first section operates by definition a kind of understanding, the second stop on its definition by extension. That is, in the delimitation of concrete covered by the concept cases addressing some complex cases (like the Colombian Constitution) and detailing the historical context behind this movement material, that is, the features of the so-called constituent needs. In the third section, a review is made some of the interpretive models proposed for this constitutional paradigm. In particular, it distinguishes between conceptualizations of liberalism we call third-generation, second generation social status and transitional constitution. From this analysis, it is appropriate, in preparation for the final section, to study the issue of the rights enshrined in the constitution and the structure of power in the Latin American democratic constitutionalism. Well, as already said, the constitutional justice in the present is the keystone where the question of the powers with the rights issue intersects. In the last section of this second chapter, finally, it is categorized constitutional justice in Latin American democratic constitutionalism, serving both its constitutional characterization, and its material reality. In this sense, the question of its establishment, often marked by resistance from different political and constitutional actors and the difficulties of integration issues; as regards their effective functioning and its role within the new constitutional systems. In the third chapter the conclusions of theoretical order of the first chapter and the second order dogmatic analysis of constitutional justice in the Ecuadorian case apply. Constitutional provisions and their legislative and regulatory development are analyzed, seeking to detect the possible presence of gaps and contradictions. The study of the three existing phases in the country appears from the former Constitutional Court of Ecuador, through the Court of Transition up to the current Constitutional Court of Ecuador. In this sense, the study of jurisprudence own Praetorian taking decisions constitutional powers is particularly relevant. Finally, the role of the Constitutional Court in the development of Ecuador's constitutional system from the point of view of the effectiveness of their contribution is analyzed. The fourth chapter is the core the study of the doctoral thesis. In his theoretical conclusions of chapter one are applied, compared the dogmatic conclusions of chapter two and constitutional analysis of the Constitutional Court of the third chapter to the characterization of the extraordinary action of protection under Article 347 of the Constitution. Its constitutional, legal and regulatory regulation is studied to determine both their legal nature, as the potential presence of gaps and contradictions. Specifically the issue of res judicata and problems of legitimacy to the normative order is its relativization can generate both excess -Conversion in third resort-like default -Conversion a sort of certiorari- grounds experiences here compared to other countries like the US and Spain; and as regards the effective restoration of violations Jurisprudential track the evolution of the institution through careful analysis of the first judgments of the Constitutional Court, both as regards their argumentative procedures as in what refers to its sociological dimensions (plaintiffs, defendants, alleged rights is performed and acknowledged, etc.) and concludes with some proposals for reform to enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness