The government presented its arguments to the Constitutional Court in defense of the Ports Law, following a constitutional challenge that could transform the country's port management model.<\/p>\n
Ecuador's port model is at the center of a legal debate after the court accepted a constitutional challenge filed by Contecon, the concessionaire of the state-owned port of Guayaquil Libertador Sim\u00f3n Bol\u00edvar, against the 1976 Ports Law and its 2000 regulations.<\/p>\n
In October 2025, the Constitutional Court requested a ruling from the Executive Branch, the National Assembly, and the Attorney General's Office. Both the Presidency and the Assembly defended a port model that, they said, combines state-owned ports operated by delegation and private terminals authorized through permits.<\/p>\n
Contecon's appeal\u2014filed in April 2025 and admitted in October\u2014challenges the model that allows private port terminals to operate through administrative authorizations, without formal delegation processes. According to the company, this generates unfair competition, disorder, and insecurity.<\/p>\n
\"Contecon seeks to recover a market position through the courts,\" say private terminals.
\nWhat does the Presidency of the Republic say?
\nStalin Andino Gonz\u00e1lez, Legal Secretary General of the Presidency of the Republic of Ecuador, defended the constitutionality of the current port regime. The government maintains that the Constitution expressly recognizes the \"flexibility of state management\" of ports, which allows for the participation of private actors in the provision of public services under state regulation and control.<\/p>\n
\"The State's exclusive jurisdiction over ports does not impose a management model, but rather empowers the State to define the mechanisms for private participation under its guidance.\"<\/p>\n
Stalin Andino<\/p>\n
The Executive Branch argues that Contecon is confusing the ownership of a power with a management model. It points out that not all private participation in port activities requires an exceptional delegation, which applies only when the State transfers the operation of public infrastructure.<\/p>\n
According to the Government, the figure of Authorized Private Terminals (TPH)\u2014which operate in private infrastructure built with their own investment\u2014does not fall under the delegation regime, but rather under the system of authorizations and permits, provided for in Article 261 of the Constitution, and further developed in the General Ports Law and its regulations.<\/p>\n
These terminals, explains the Carondelet official, operate through two enabling administrative acts: a beach and bay concession\u2014a permit for the use of public domain\u2014and an operating permit from the Port Authority.<\/p>\n