Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
This study is based on the premise that the increasing complexity of public administration has led to a fragmented and even contradictory application of procedural principles, generating interpretive tensions regarding legal certainty. Therefore, the research aims to analyze the principles common to administrative procedures from a cross-cutting perspective. Methodologically, a qualitative approach is adopted, employing bibliometric analysis techniques and working with 26 selected articles. This analysis revealed that procedural principles operate as a structural category, that is, as an organizing and integrating function. The existence of parameters for the validity of the act and the procedural process was also demonstrated. Furthermore, the study confirmed the centrality of the Ecuadorian framework of the 2008 Constitution and the Code of Administrative Procedure (COA), as well as the dense jurisprudence on motivation, due process, and proportionality. Finally, it concludes that identifying the common core strengthens interpretive coherence, the protection of rights, and the legitimacy of administrative action.
References
Alfaro, A. (2026). Procedimiento administrativo sancionador y motivación de las resoluciones sancionadoras. Revista general de derecho administrativo, 4(4), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1590/SciELOPreprints.9212
Babin, B. J. (2019). Multivariate data analysis. Cengage Learning.
Beigel, F., Gallardo, O., & Bekerman, F. (2023). Academic publishing circuits and inequalities in Latin America. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 54(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp-2022-0014
Brown, T. A. (2020). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
Cananea, G. (2022). Administrative Procedure in Europe: National and Supranational Legislation. Penn Program on Regulation Research Paper Series, 3(22), 1–15.
Danvila-del-Valle, I., Estévez-Mendoza, C., & Lara, F. J. (2019). Human resources training: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 101, 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.026
Decker, M., Wegner, L., & Leicht, C. (2025). Procedural fairness in algorithmic decision-making: The role of public engagement. Ethics and Information Technology, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09811-4
Della, G., & Parona, L. (2024). Administrative Procedure Acts in Europe: An Emerging “Common Core”? American Journal of Comparative Law, 72(2), 340–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avae016
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Endara, K., & Sánchez, A. (2024). El derecho a la buena administración pública frente a la petición de subdivisión predial. MQRInvestigar, 8(4), 4325–4340. https://doi.org/10.56048/mqr20225.8.4.2024.4325-4340
Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.09.002
Lui, E. (2023). Reason-giving for Procedural Decisions: The Case Against the Procedural Qualifier. Judicial Review, 28(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2023.2188812
McNicholas, P. D., Murphy, T. B., & Scrucca, L. (2022). Model-based clustering. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 9, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-040720-022241
Ospino, Y., Andrade, J., García, Y., & Acosta, I. (2024). Motivación en los actos administrativos: Un enfoque más allá de la formalidad. Administración&Desarrollo, 54(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.22431/25005227.1040
Palmerlee, H. (2018). Taking procedural fairness seriously: Structured proportionality and legislative scrutiny. En J. Rubenfeld, (ed.). Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics, Revised Edition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600514
Pulitowski, M., & Matysek, M. (2021). Google Scholar as a source for bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 126(3), 2395–2412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03837-4
Radoji?i?, Z., & Vu?eti?, D. (2024). The European principles of public administration services delivery from the perspective of digitalization and simplification: Normative framework and practise in the Republic of Serbia. ECLIC, 35(7), 219–242.
Reyna, M. (2023). Aplicación del principio de juridicidad dentro de los procedimientos administrativos. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 4(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v4i4.1281
Sánchez-Tarragó, N., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., & Peset, F. (2016). Bibliometric indicators for legal research assessment. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1924-7
Sevilla, P., & López, D. (2024). El principio de proporcionalidad y la garantía de motivación en los procedimientos administrativos disciplinarios (Original). UDG, 4(4), 1–25.
Silva, D., & Vaca, P. (2023). Las causales de nulidad y el derecho al debido proceso en los actos administrativos en la legislación ecuatoriana. Revista Debate Jurídico Ecuador. Revista Digital de Ciencias Jurídicas. UNIANDES, 2(6), 1–15.
Sornoza, J. (2024). Motivación suficiente en los actos administrativos emitidos por el órgano sancionador de los Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales. LATAM Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 5(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.56712/latam.v5i4.2535
Valarezo, J., Serna, M., & Reyes, S. P. (2022). Análisis jurídico del código orgánico administrativo ecuatoriano y el código de procedimiento administrativo y de lo contencioso administrativo colombiano, a la luz de los principios constitucionales y el rol de la administración pública. Revista de Derecho de Las Minorías, 5(5), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.22529/rdm.2022(1)6
Wolswinkel, J. (2022). Comparative study on administrative law and the use of artificial intelligence and other algorithmic systems in administrative decision-making in the member states of the Council of Europe. Council, 4(3), 1–43.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Daniela Alejandra Landa Bimbosa, Daniela Sofia Estevez Chavez