Noboa leads a protest march against the Constitutional Court on Tuesday but his goal is unclear

President Daniel Noboa will lead a march on the Constitutional Court Tuesday but it is uncertain what he hopes to accomplish. The march, a protest against the court’s decision to suspend key provisions of three recently passes anti-crime laws, will begin at 11 a.m. at the Guambra bridge in Quito, and finish at the Constitutional Court.

President Daniel Noboa’s protest march to the Constitutional Court Tuesday could be met with a counter protest.

The president’s press office said it did not know whether Noboa will address other protesters at the court. “At this point this is simply a peaceful march to show the government’s disagreement with the court’s decision,” Carolina Jaramillo, spokeswoman for the president, said Monday.

“We cannot allow nine enthroned people who do not even want to appear in a photo, to come and tear down the laws that provide security to the country,” Noboa said August 6 following the court’s decision. “We will march to the court to make the true power of the people known.”

Although nothing has been announced by supporters of the court, Quito police say they are prepared to handle possible confrontations. “If there is a counter demonstration against the march, we will be there to keep the peace,” said Police Commander Rafael Gomez. “Under our laws, everyone has a right to express their opinion as long as the expression is peaceful.”

According to surveys by news media, both print and digital, the majority of constitutional experts believe the court is within its rights to object to the Public Integrity, National Solidarity and Intelligence laws.

“In fact, it is the responsibility of the Constitutional Court to look very closely at these measures since they appear to be in conflict with constitutional guarantees,” says Annabell Guerrero, former vice president of the Pichincha Bar Association. “The sponsors of these laws, including the president, have said publicly that some rights of citizens must be limited for the purpose of fighting criminal groups.”

She adds: “By admitting legal challenges to the laws, the court is simply doing its job.”

Guerrero worries that Noboa’s march and comments could lead to an institutional crisis with the government questioning the legitimacy of the court. “He appears to be promoting the idea that the court is the enemy, that the conflict must be resolved based on his solutions to criminal activity embodied in those laws.”

“To say that the court is the enemy of the people is a very dangerous claim to make,” Guerrero continues. “It could lead to a cascade of events that would be difficult to control. It is the hope of those of us in the legal profession that the government rhetoric cools down and the process is allowed to continue based on the procedures defined in the constitution.”

Part of Noboa’s anger at the court, says constitutionalist Emilio Suárez, is that there is no end-date in sight. “We have 12 lawsuits that have been accepted by the court – and properly, I believe – and these must be adjudicated,” he says. “It is true that the suspension of the articles in the three laws is temporary and conditional, but we may be facing months of arguments before a final judgement is rendered.

In the end, says Suárez, the laws may be allowed to go into effect without changes. “On the other hand, they may be found to be unconstitutional in their entirety. Everything hangs in the balance.”