Ministry of Finance's failure to transfer 20% of VAT to FODESAFOmisión del Ministerio de Hacienda de girar el 20% del IVA a FODESAF

REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITH A SPECIFIC DESTINATION TO THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES FUND (FODESAF). Of importance for the resolution of this amparo, it is necessary to indicate that this Constitutional Court has already ruled regarding the omission of the Ministry of Finance to transfer 20% of the collection of the general sales tax to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) for the 2005 fiscal year. Said omission has been reflected, likewise, in the reduction of the resources allocated to various social programs managed by said Fund. Accordingly, this Chamber resolved:

"(...) V.- The Social State of Law as the constitutional framework for public action. The Political Constitution, read jointly and systematically, establishes the validity of a Social State of Law. The foregoing implies that all public actions, besides being necessarily in conformity with the legal system in force, must be directed efficiently and justly towards satisfying the needs of the inhabitants of the Republic, through an adequate distribution of wealth and equitable access to the well-being generated by economic and technical development. It also imposes that within society, burdens be distributed among individuals according to each one's capacities. The economic system designed by the constituent of nineteen forty-nine has as its goal not only the growth of production and employment. Within the framework of the Political Constitution, the economy must be a decisive factor for achieving the objectives of the Social State of Law. It is clear, therefore, that the current Charter is not merely a political statute, but is also an economic and a social one. Thus, it also follows that the system of fundamental rights established constitutionally is not based on utilitarian individualism, but rather on a conception of man within the framework of the society in which he operates. The Political Constitution starts from the notion that the human being cannot develop integrally on his own, but rather requires the participation of all other members of society to do so. In fact, to achieve a more homogeneous social stratification, individuals must contribute according to their means, for the benefit of those who have less. The foregoing is a fundamental right of the persons occupying the lower strata, and a duty of all, principally those most benefited by the economic system. Wealth in a society is not produced solely by those who own the means of production, but also by those who contribute to it with their labor, with their work. Consequently, the benefits produced by the market must be redirected so that they do not redound solely in favor of certain social sectors. Relating this principle to that of social justice, enshrined in Article 74 of the Constitution, according to which persons must collaborate reciprocally in order to preserve the human dignity of all members of the community, we have that the constituent sought to foster a society where solidarity was the general rule of coexistence; where the realization of small sacrifices in favor of great social goals took precedence over individual interests; this is what is normally known as the Social State of Law. It could thus be affirmed that solidarity among the members of the community is a principle of constitutional rank, which obligates the State to demand more from those who possess greater capacities, so that by means of providing social services of education, health, access to housing, etc., it fosters personal and social growth and avoids the existence of first-class citizens and others of second or third class. Finally, it can be said that the Political Constitution recognizes in favor of individuals and social groups an extensive and very varied range of rights, some expressly, others inferable from an understanding of the system formed by its norms and principles. Some of these prerogatives (regardless of whether they are individual or collective) have an eminently social character, constituting rights to the receipt of certain benefits from the State. These may be goods or services, but in any case the Administration must provide them due to the mandate (specific or generic) contained in the Fundamental Law. If it involves a general reference (e.g., protection of the mother and minors, cf. Article 51 of the Constitution), it is the representatives of popular sovereignty who, through formal Law, will develop these precepts imposing the ways in which the Administration must act with the aim of making them effectively enforceable, as well as providing the necessary public resources for it. The fact that they require actions by other agents to be effectively realized in no way detracts from their normativity, but does make their implementation more complex (compared to public freedoms, for example), and the work of the constitutional controller more exhaustive, who will have to consider the degree of commitment shown by the State in enforcing the norms that recognize social rights. If the legislator does not institute the suitable mechanisms – legal and financial – to realize them, its omission could signify a violation of the Political Constitution. If it issues the legal norms and provides the necessary resources to make that right effective and it is the Administration that evades its compliance, then this latter action would be indirectly violating the fundamental right, through non-compliance with a legal duty. (See in this same sense judgments of this Chamber numbers 01441-92, 05125-93, 03338-99, 2001-03825, among others)

VI.- The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) in the context of the Social State of Law. The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) was created through the Law of Social Development and Family Allowances, number 5662 of December twenty-third, nineteen seventy-four. The Fund is intended to provide resources to a series of essential benefit services under the responsibility of the State and other public entities, in favor of Costa Ricans with scarce resources (Article 2). Its administration is under the charge of the General Directorate of Social Development and Family Allowances, an organ of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security. For this purpose, the Fund receives resources transferred from the Budget of the Republic, which are then disbursed to the various beneficiary institutions, for their use in diverse social programs, all aimed at improving the living conditions of Costa Ricans. Various special laws determine the manner in which the Fund's resources will be distributed among the various public dependencies tasked with providing social services consistent with its purpose. Thus, Law 5662, Article 3, mentions the nutrition programs of the Ministry of Health and the IMAS, without specifying an amount or percentage; that same Law (Article 4), creates the Non-Contributory Pension Scheme (Régimen No Contributivo de Pensiones), administered by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social), financed with 20% of the Fund's resources; Law 6525, Article 1, assigns a sum of twelve million colones to INCIENSA; Law 6735, numeral 26, establishes a minimum of fifty-six million colones for the establishment and development of IDA settlements; Law 6975, Article 34, assigns fifty million annually to the National Emergency Fund, up to an accumulated total of two hundred fifty million; Law 7097 (Article 47) orders the transfer of 0.5% of the Fund's income, to the education boards (juntas de educación); Law 7028, Article 6, creates the Housing Subsidy Fund (Fondo de Subsidios para Vivienda), intended for families of scarce resources to access decent housing, assigning it 33% of all ordinary and extraordinary income of the Fund; Law 7233, Article 4, provides a monthly allocation of one million colones for preventive programs developed by the IAFA; Law 7374, Art 6, creates the Health Services Improvement Program, and provides that the cost of care for the indigent population shall be covered with allocations from the Fund; Law 7648, Article 34 subsection b), orders FODESAF to disburse a minimum percentage of 4% to the National Children's Trust (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia) for the promotion, defense and protection of children and adolescents; Law 7658 in its Article 9 subsection c), creates the National Scholarship Fund (Fondo Nacional de Becas), which shall be financed with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7667, Transitory II, establishes that from FODESAF's cash budget, 1% shall be transferred during the first ten years to the Support Fund for Higher and Technical Education of Puntarenas (Fondo de Apoyo a la Educación Superior y Técnica del Puntarenense); Law 7742, Article 4 bis subsection a), creates the Productive Reconversion Program, which shall be financed with 5% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7756, Article 10, grants a benefit for terminally ill patients, which shall be financed with 0.5% of the Fund's resources; Law 7763 allocates a percentage ranging between 10% and 15% for the development and execution of the National School Cafeterias Program (Programa Nacional de Comedores Escolares); Law 7800, Article 87 subsection c), creates ICODER and provides its financing with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Fund; Law 7801, finally, Article 27, creates the National Institute of Women (Instituto Nacional de la Mujer), financed with 2% of the Fund's Budget. All of the aforementioned public competences constitute essential pillars of the Social State of Law, as they make possible the enjoyment of various social rights (or rights with social projection) recognized in the Political Constitution and in various international human rights instruments. From the Fundamental Charter, they relate – at least – to the following rights: to life and health (Article 21), to equality (33), to property (45), to development (50), to the special protection of the family (51), the mother and the minor (55), to work (56), to social security (73) and to Social Justice (74). The norm contained in Article 82 of the Constitution deserves separate mention, which forcefully orders the State to provide "food and clothing to indigent school children." There is no doubt that the attributions of FODESAF are directly aimed at fulfilling the referred constitutional mandate, an indispensable element of the Social State of Law, insofar as it allows access to education for children and young people with limited resources, fostering personal progress and social mobility. Likewise, the referred public competences are closely related to various prerogatives recognized by International Human Rights Law: equality (Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, II of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights); property (17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man); social security (22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, XVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 9 of the Protocol of San Salvador); social and economic development (25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights); education (26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador); access to culture (27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, XIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 14 of the Protocol of San Salvador); family (23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador); the special protection of minors and other vulnerable groups (24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, VII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, 16, 17 and 18 of the Protocol of San Salvador); health (12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador); etc. In other words, the activities financed with the resources of the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund are so not only by legal imperative, but also constitute the mechanisms provided to effectively comply with a broad and varied range of fundamental rights. Preventing the Fund from fulfilling its function implies, therefore, neglecting benefit duties that affect the rights of individuals.

VII.- Obligation of the budget legislator to distribute public expenditures based on general norms that determine specific destinations for certain revenues. Article 9 of Law number 6,914 of November twenty-eighth, nineteen eighty-three, determines that:

"Article 9.- From the proceeds of the general sales tax, established in Law No. 6826 of November 10, 1982, the Central Bank of Costa Rica shall transfer, directly and quarterly, to the General Directorate of Social Development and Family Allowances, twenty percent, for the fund created and administered as indicated by Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974. The provisions of this article are effective as of January 1, 1984." As can be seen, this norm provides a specific destination (destino específico) for the proceeds of the general sales tax collection. 20% of the total collected under this concept must be directed to increase the resources of the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund. In the first place, it is important to highlight that the Constitutional Chamber has recognized the validity of specific destinations given by formal Law to certain tax revenues. In this manner, it has been recognized that the ordinary legislator is constitutionally enabled to provide that the proceeds of certain taxes be directed to the financing of specific services, in consideration of the general interest that is satisfied through them or the social need they are called upon to cover. (Cf. in that same sense judgments numbers 0919-99 of nine hours fifteen minutes of February twelfth, nineteen ninety-nine, 4528-99 of fourteen hours fifty-four minutes of July fifteenth, nineteen ninety-nine, among others) In addition to the foregoing, this same Chamber has repeatedly held that in the face of specific destinations provided in an ordinary Law, the Executive Branch and the budget legislator find their discretion limited, such that the Budget of the Republic must contain the necessary allocations to meet the obligations imposed by the ordinary Law. (Cf. judgments numbers 2000-10136, of nine hours of November seventeenth, two thousand, 2003-09397 of ten hours twelve minutes of September fifth, two thousand three, etc.) In consonance with the foregoing, the Chamber has heard various proceedings, in which the refusal of the Ministry of Finance to transfer the budgeted funds as expenditure allocations intended to cover disbursements provided in ordinary tax laws was challenged, or the omission to stipulate in the Budget Law resources to cover this type of mandate, understanding that when the resources in question were intended to cover services necessary to satisfy fundamental rights, any of the described omissions would be openly unconstitutional. (Cf. judgments numbers 2001-02075, of eight hours fifty-two minutes of March sixteenth, two thousand one, 2001-03825, of ten hours twenty-two minutes of May eleventh, two thousand one, etc.)

VIII.- Unconstitutionality in the challenged allocation. In accordance with its jurisprudence, this Chamber understands that, in the presence of a norm such as Article 9 of Law 6,914, the authorities competent for the creation of the Budget draft and the approval of the Budget Law, respectively the Executive Branch and the Legislative Assembly, do not possess discretionary power to dispose of such resources in a manner different from that determined by the ordinary legislator. Regarding the specific constitutionality of the allocation that is the object of this action, this Chamber had already had the opportunity to rule, when hearing the optional legislative consultation corresponding to draft number 15,692.

(...)

That is to say, what is unconstitutional is not the allocation itself, but the amount left out of that allocation. The amount that should have been budgeted for FODESAF was one hundred three billion four hundred million colones (20% of five hundred seventeen billion colones). Since twenty-five billion colones were budgeted for it, a balance of seventy-eight billion four hundred million colones remained uncovered. The omission of including this sum in the transfer to FODESAF is what is unconstitutional, whereby the chamber must admonish the authorities involved in the budget procedure not to incur this defect again.

IX.- Conclusion. Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Chamber concludes that allocation 664 01 132 23 210, title 115 (Ministry of Labor and Social Security), program 735 (transfers and various contributions) Executing Unit Office of the Minister of Labor, for the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund, contained in the Ordinary Budget Law of the Republic for the 2,005 Fiscal Year, for twenty-five billion colones, contains a defect of unconstitutionality, because said allocation was provided with an amount seventy-eight billion colones less than due, as ordered by Article 9 of Law 6914 of November twenty-eighth, nineteen eighty-three. Therefore, the present action of unconstitutionality must be declared with merit (con lugar), such that for the two thousand six fiscal year onwards, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Assembly, in their respective spheres of competence, must include in favor of FODESAF a transfer equivalent to 20% of the projected collection for the general sales tax, as long as Article 9 of Law 6914 remains in force. For those same fiscal years, the Executive Branch must refrain from imposing spending limits on FODESAF and the institutions that receive resources from it, which impede the effective use of the funds contemplated in Article 9 of Law 6,914 for the social purposes fulfilled by the referred institutions." (Judgment No. 2005-17612 of 14:40 hrs. of December 21, 2005). The highlighting does not correspond to the original.

As was verified, the Ministry of Finance has not transferred the totality of the funds corresponding to 20% of the amount collected for the General Sales Tax, as provided in articles 15 and 16 of Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974, to the National Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (report on page 35). In this sense, it is evident that the provision of resources to the extent provided by the laws on the matter would allow that institution to develop a series of programs and activities that provide effective solutions for the most dispossessed classes, and to that extent the claims of the petitioner must be accepted by the Court. Under this understanding, it is appropriate to declare the amparo with merit (con lugar) with the consequences that will be stated.- As a corollary of the foregoing, it is appropriate to declare the amparo with merit (con lugar), solely with respect to the Minister of Finance, and to order him to transfer to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund 20% of the proceeds of the General Sales Tax. In all other respects, the amparo is declared without merit (sin lugar).- Consequently, the benefits produced by the market must be redirected so that they do not solely profit certain social sectors. Relating this principle to that of social justice, enshrined in Article 74 of the Constitution, according to which individuals must collaborate reciprocally in order to preserve the human dignity of all members of the community, we find that the constituent sought to foster a society where solidarity was the general rule of coexistence; where the realization of small sacrifices in favor of great social goals took precedence over individual interests; this is what is normally known as the Social State of Law (Estado Social de Derecho). It could thus be affirmed that solidarity among the members of the community is a principle of constitutional rank, which obliges the State to demand more from those who possess greater capabilities, so that through the provision of social services in education, health, access to housing, etc., it fosters personal and social growth and avoids the existence of first-, second-, or third-class citizens. Finally, it can be said that the Political Constitution recognizes in favor of individuals and social groups an extensive and highly varied range of rights, some expressly, others inferable from an understanding of the system formed by its norms and principles. Some of these prerogatives (regardless of whether they are individual or collective) have an eminently social character, constituting rights to the receipt of certain services from the State. They may involve goods or services, but in any case, the Administration must provide them due to the mandate (specific or generic) contained in the Fundamental Law. If it is a general reference (e.g., protection of mothers and minors, cf. Article 51 of the Constitution), it is the representatives of popular sovereignty who, through formal Law, will develop these precepts, imposing the ways in which the Administration must act to effectively enforce them, as well as allocating the necessary public resources for this purpose. The fact that they require actions by other agents to be effectively realized in no way diminishes their normativity, but it does make their implementation more complex (compared to public freedoms, for example), and makes the work of the constitutionality controller more exhaustive, who will have to deliberate regarding the degree of commitment shown by the State in enforcing the norms that recognize social rights. If the legislator does not institute the suitable mechanisms—legal and financial—to realize them, their omission could signify a violation of the Political Constitution. If they issue the legal norms and provide the necessary resources to make that right effective, and it is the Administration that evades compliance, then this latter action would be reflexively injuring the fundamental right, through the breach of a legal duty. (See, in this same vein, the judgments of this Chamber numbers 01441-92, 05125-93, 03338-99, 2001-03825, among others) **VI.- The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, FODESAF) in the context of the Social State of Law.** The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) was created by the Ley de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familares (sic), number 5662 of December twenty-three, nineteen seventy-four. **The Fund is destined to provide resources to a series of essential service-delivery functions (servicios prestacionales) under the charge of the State and other public entities, in favor of Costa Ricans of scarce resources (Article 2**). Its administration is under the charge of the Dirección General de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, an organ of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security. To this end, **the Fund receives resources transferred from the Budget of the Republic, which are then disbursed to the various beneficiary institutions, for use in diverse social programs, all aimed at improving the living conditions of Costa Ricans**. Various special laws determine the manner in which the Fund's resources will be distributed among the various public agencies charged with providing social services consistent with its purpose. Thus, Law 5662, Article 3, mentions the nutrition programs of the Ministry of Health and the IMAS, without specifying an amount or percentage; that same Law (Article 4), creates the Non-Contributory Pension Regime, administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, financed with 20% of the Fund's resources; Law 6525, Article 1, assigns a sum of twelve million colones to INCIENSA; Law 6735, numeral 26, establishes a minimum of fifty-six million colones for the establishment and development of IDA settlements; Law 6975, Article 34, assigns fifty million annually to the Fondo Nacional de Emergencias, up to an accumulated total of two hundred fifty million; Law 7097 (Article 47) orders the transfer of 0.5% of the Fund's income to the education boards; Law 7028, Article 6, **creates the Housing Subsidy Fund, destined to allow families of scarce resources to access decent housing, assigning it 33% of all the Fund's ordinary and extraordinary income**; Law 7233, Article 4, provides a monthly allocation of one million colones for preventive programs developed by the IAFA; Law 7374, Article 6, creates the Program for the Improvement of Health Services, and provides that the cost of care for the indigent population will be covered with items from the Fund; Law 7648, Article 34 subsection b), orders FODESAF to disburse a minimum percentage of 4% to the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia for the promotion, defense, and protection of children and adolescents; Law 7658, in its Article 9 subsection c), creates the Fondo Nacional de Becas, which will be financed with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7667, Transitory Provision II, establishes that from the cash budget of FODESAF, 1% will be disbursed during the first ten years to the Fondo de Apoyo a la Educación Superior y Técnica del Puntarenense; Law 7742, Article 4 bis subsection a), creates the Programa de Reconversión Productiva, which will be financed with 5% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7756, Article 10, grants a benefit for terminally ill patients, which will be financed with 0.5% of the Fund's resources; Law 7763 allocates a percentage ranging between 10% and 15% for the development and execution of the Programa Nacional de Comedores Escolares; Law 7800, Article 87 subsection c), creates ICODER and provides for its financing with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Fund; Law 7801, finally, Article 27, creates the Instituto Nacional de la Mujer, financed with 2% of the Fund's Budget. All the public competencies cited above constitute essential pillars of the Social State of Law, as they enable the enjoyment of diverse social rights (or rights of social projection) recognized in the Political Constitution and in various international human rights instruments. From the Fundamental Charter, they relate—at least—to the following rights: to life and health (Article 21), to equality (33), to property (45), to development (50), to the special protection of the family (51), the mother and the minor (55), to work (56), to social security (73), and to Social Justice (74). Separate mention deserves the norm contained in Article 82 of the Constitution, which emphatically orders the State to provide "food and clothing to indigent schoolchildren." There is no doubt that the attributions of FODESAF are directly aimed at fulfilling the referred constitutional mandate, an indispensable element of the Social State of Law, insofar as it allows access to education for boys, girls, and young people of scarce resources, fostering personal progress and social mobility. Likewise, the referred public competencies are closely related to various prerogatives recognized by International Human Rights Law: equality (Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article II of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights); property (Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man); to social security (Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 9 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to social and economic development (Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights); to education (Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador); of access to culture (Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 14 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to the family (Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to the special protection of minors and other vulnerable groups (Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article VII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador); etc. **In other words, the activities financed with the resources of the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund are not only so by legal imperative, but also constitute the mechanisms provided to effectively comply with a broad and varied range of fundamental rights. Preventing the Fund from fulfilling its function implies, therefore, neglecting service-delivery duties (deberes prestacionales) that affect the rights of individuals.** **VII.- Obligation of the budgetary legislator to distribute public expenditures based on general norms that determine specific destinations for certain revenues.** Article 9 of Law number 6,914 of November twenty-eight, nineteen eighty-three, determines that:

"Article 9.- From the proceeds of the general sales tax, established in Law No. 6826 of November 10, 1982, the Central Bank of Costa Rica shall transfer, directly and quarterly, to the Dirección General de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, twenty percent, for the fund created and administered as indicated in Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974. That established in this article shall govern as of January 1, 1984." As can be seen, this norm provides a specific destination for the proceeds of the general sales tax collection. 20% of the total collected under this heading must be directed to swelling the resources of the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund. In the first place, it is important to highlight that the Sala Constitucional has recognized the validity of specific destinations given by formal Law to certain tax revenues. In this manner, it has been recognized that the ordinary legislator is constitutionally empowered to provide that the proceeds of certain taxes be directed to the financing of specific services, in consideration of the general interest satisfied through them or the social need they are called upon to cover. (Cf. in that same vein, judgments numbers 0919-99 of nine hours and fifteen minutes of February twelve, nineteen ninety-nine, 4528-99 of fourteen hours and fifty-four minutes of July fifteen, nineteen ninety-nine, among others.) In addition to the foregoing, this same Chamber has repeatedly held that in the face of specific destinations provided for in an ordinary Law, the Executive Branch and the budgetary legislator are limited in their discretion, such that the Budget of the Republic must contain the necessary items to meet the obligations imposed by ordinary Law. (Cf. judgments numbers 2000-10136, of nine hours of November seventeen, two thousand, 2003-09397 of ten hours and twelve minutes of September five, two thousand three, etc.) In accordance with the foregoing, the Chamber has heard various proceedings in which the refusal of the Ministry of Finance to disburse funds budgeted as expenditure items destined to cover disbursements provided for in ordinary tax laws was challenged, or the omission to stipulate in the Budget Law resources to cover this type of mandates, understanding that when the resources in question were destined to cover services necessary to satisfy fundamental rights, any of the omissions described was openly unconstitutional. (Cf. judgments numbers 2001-02075, of eight hours and fifty-two minutes of March sixteen, two thousand one, 2001-03825, of ten hours and twenty-two minutes of May eleven, two thousand one, etc.)

**VIII.- Unconstitutionality in the challenged item.** In accordance with its jurisprudence, this Chamber understands that, in the presence of a norm such as Article 9 of Law 6,914, the competent authorities for the creation of the Budget bill and the approval of the Budget Law, respectively the Executive Branch and the Asamblea Legislativa, do not hold a discretionary power to dispose of such resources in a manner different from that determined by the ordinary legislator. Regarding the specific constitutionality of the item subject to this action, this Chamber had already had the opportunity to rule, upon hearing the facultative legislative consultation corresponding to bill number 15,692.

(…)

That is to say, what is unconstitutional is not the item itself, but the amount omitted from inclusion in that item. The amount that should have been budgeted for FODESAF was one hundred three thousand four hundred million colones (20% of five hundred seventeen thousand million colones). Since twenty-five thousand million colones were budgeted for it, a balance of seventy-eight thousand four hundred million colones remained uncovered. The omission in contemplating this sum in the transfer to FODESAF is what is unconstitutional, for which reason the Chamber must admonish the authorities involved in the budgetary procedure not to incur this defect again.

**IX.- Conclusion.** Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Chamber concludes that item 664 01 132 23 210, title 115 (Ministry of Labor and Social Security), program 735 (various transfers and contributions), Executing Unit Despacho del Ministro de Trabajo, for the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund, contained in the Law of the Ordinary Budget of the Republic for the 2005 Fiscal Year, for twenty-five thousand million colones, contains a defect of unconstitutionality, because said item was provided with an amount seventy-eight thousand million colones less than due, as ordered by Article 9 of Law 6914 of November twenty-eight, nineteen eighty-three. **Therefore, the present unconstitutionality action must be declared with merit, so that for the 2006 fiscal year onward, the Executive Branch and the Asamblea Legislativa, in their respective spheres of competence, must contemplate, in favor of FODESAF, a transfer equivalent to 20% of the projected revenue from the general sales tax, as long as Article 9 of Law 6914 remains in force**. For those same fiscal years, the Executive Branch must refrain from imposing spending limits on FODESAF and on the institutions that receive resources from it, which prevent the effective use of the funds contemplated in Article 9 of Law 6,914 for the social purposes fulfilled by the referred institutions." (Judgment No. 2005-17612 of 14:40 hrs. of December 21, 2005). The highlighting does not correspond to the original.

As verified, the Ministry of Finance has not disbursed the totality of the funds corresponding to 20% of the amount collected from the General Sales Tax, as provided for by Articles 15 and 16 of Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974, to the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (report on folio 35). In this sense, it is evident that the allocation of resources to the extent provided for by the laws on the matter would allow that institution to develop a series of programs and activities that provide effective solutions for the most dispossessed classes, and to that extent, the petitioner's claims must be accepted by the Tribunal. Under this reasoning, it is necessary to declare the appeal with merit, with the consequences that will be stated.- As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal with merit, solely, with respect to the Minister of Finance, and order him to disburse to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund 20% of the proceeds of the General Sales Tax.

**REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS WITH SPECIFIC DESTINATION TO THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES FUND (FODESAF).** For the resolution of this amparo, it is necessary to indicate that this Constitutional Court has already ruled regarding the omission of the Ministry of Finance to transfer 20% of the general sales tax collection to the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) for the 2005 fiscal year. This omission has also been reflected in the reduction of resources allocated to various social programs served by said Fund. In pertinent part, this Chamber resolved:

" (...) **V.- The Social State of Law as the constitutional framework for public action.** The Political Constitution, read jointly and systematically, determines the validity of a Social State of Law. This implies that all public actions, in addition to necessarily conforming to the legal system in force, must be efficiently and justly directed at satisfying the needs of the inhabitants of the Republic, through an adequate distribution of wealth and equitable access to the well-being generated by economic and technical development. It also imposes that within society, burdens be distributed among individuals according to each person's abilities. The economic system designed by the constituent of nineteen forty-nine aims not only for the growth of production and employment. Within the framework of the Political Constitution, the economy must be a decisive factor for achieving the objectives of the Social State of Law. It is clear, therefore, that the current Charter is not merely a political statute, but also an economic and social one. Thus, it also follows that the system of fundamental rights constitutionally established is not based on utilitarian individualism, but rather on a conception of man within the framework of the society in which he develops. The Political Constitution starts from the notion that the human being cannot develop fully on his own, but rather requires the participation of all other members of society. In fact, to achieve a more homogeneous social stratification, individuals must contribute according to their means, for the benefit of those who have less. The foregoing is a fundamental right of the persons occupying the lower strata, and a duty of all, mainly those most benefited by the economic system. Wealth in a society is not produced only by those who own the means of production, but also by those who contribute to it with their labor, with their work. Consequently, the benefits produced by the market must be redirected so that they do not redound only in favor of certain social sectors. Relating this principle to that of social justice, positivized in Article 74 of the Constitution, according to which persons must collaborate reciprocally in order to preserve the human dignity of all members of the community, we have that the constituent sought to foster a society where solidarity was the general rule of coexistence; where the realization of small sacrifices in favor of great social goals stood above individual interests; this is what is normally known as the Social State of Law. One could thus affirm that solidarity among members of the community is a principle of constitutional rank, which obliges the State to demand more from those who possess greater capacities, so that through the provision of social services such as education, health, access to housing, etc., it fosters personal and social growth and avoids the existence of first-class citizens and others of second or third class. Finally, it can be said that the Political Constitution recognizes in favor of individuals and social groups an extensive and very varied range of rights, some expressly, others deducible from an understanding of the system formed by its norms and principles. Some of these prerogatives (regardless of whether they are individual or collective) have an eminently social character, as they constitute rights to the receipt of certain benefits from the State. These may be goods or services, but in any case, the Administration must provide them due to the mandate (specific or generic) contained in the Fundamental Law. If it is a general reference (e.g., protection of the mother and minors, cf. Article 51 of the Constitution), it is the representatives of popular sovereignty who, through formal Law, will develop these precepts by imposing the ways in which the Administration must act with the purpose of making them effective, as well as allocating the public resources necessary for this. The fact that they require actions from other agents to be effectively realized in no way diminishes their normativity, but it does make their implementation more complex (compared to public liberties, for example), and the work of the constitutional controller more exhaustive, who will have to discuss the degree of commitment shown by the State in enforcing the norms that recognize social rights. If the legislator does not institute the suitable mechanisms – legal and financial – to realize them, their omission could signify a violation of the Political Constitution. If it issues the legal norms and provides the necessary resources to make that right effective, and it is the Administration that evades compliance, then this latter action would be reflexively injuring the fundamental right, through the non-fulfillment of a legal duty. (See in this same sense the judgments of this Chamber numbers 01441-92, 05125-93, 03338-99, 2001-03825, among others)

**VI.- The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) in the context of the Social State of Law.** The Social Development and Family Allowances Fund (FODESAF) was created through the Social Development and Family Allowances Law (sic), number 5662 of December twenty-third, nineteen seventy-four. **The Fund is intended to provide resources for a series of essential benefit services under the responsibility of the State and other public entities, in favor of Costa Ricans of scarce resources (Article 2).** Its administration is under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Social Development and Family Allowances, an organ of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security. For this purpose, **the Fund receives resources transferred from the Budget of the Republic, which are then disbursed to the various beneficiary institutions, for their use in diverse social programs, all aimed at improving the living conditions of Costa Ricans.** Various special laws determine how the resources of the Fund (sic) will be distributed among the various public dependencies responsible for providing social services consistent with its purpose. Thus, Law 5662, Article 3, mentions the nutrition programs of the Ministry of Health and the IMAS, without specifying an amount or percentage; that same Law (Article 4), creates the Non-Contributory Pension Scheme, administered by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, financed with 20% of the Fund's resources; Law 6525, Article 1, assigns a sum of twelve million colones to INCIENSA; Law 6735, numeral 26, establishes a minimum of fifty-six million colones for the establishment and development of IDA settlements; Law 6975, Article 34, assigns fifty million annually to the National Emergency Fund, up to an accumulated total of two hundred fifty million; Law 7097 (Article 47) orders the transfer of 0.5% of the Fund's income to the education boards; Law 7028, Article 6, **creates the Housing Subsidy Fund, intended to allow families of scarce resources access to decent housing, assigning it 33% of all ordinary and extraordinary income of the Fund**; Law 7233, Article 4, provides a monthly allocation of one million colones for preventive programs developed by the IAFA; Law 7374, Article 6, creates the Health Services Improvement Program, and provides that the cost of care for the indigent population will be covered by allocations from the Fund; Law 7648, Article 34 subsection b), orders FODESAF to transfer a minimum percentage of 4% to the National Child Welfare Agency for the promotion, defense, and protection of children and adolescents; Law 7658 in its Article 9 subsection c), creates the National Scholarship Fund, which will be financed with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7667, Transitory II, establishes that 1% of FODESAF's cash budget will be transferred during the first ten years to the Support Fund for Higher and Technical Education for the People of Puntarenas; Law 7742, Article 4bis subsection a), creates the Productive Reconversion Program, which will be financed with 5% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of FODESAF; Law 7756, Article 10, grants a benefit for terminally ill patients, which will be financed with 0.5% of the Fund's resources; Law 7763 allocates a percentage ranging between 10% and 15% for the development and execution of the National School Canteens Program; Law 7800, Article 87 subsection c), creates ICODER and provides for its financing with 1% of the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Fund; Law 7801, finally, Article 27, creates the National Institute of Women, financed with 2% of the Fund's Budget. All the aforementioned public competencies constitute essential pillars of the Social State of Law, as they make possible the enjoyment of various social rights (or rights with social projection) recognized in the Political Constitution and in various international human rights instruments. From the Fundamental Charter, they are related – at least – to the following rights: to life and health (Article 21), to equality (33), to property (45), to development (50), to the special protection of the family (51), the mother and the minor (55), to work (56), to social security (73), and to Social Justice (74). A separate mention deserves the norm contained in constitutional Article 82, which emphatically orders the State to provide "food and clothing to indigent schoolchildren." There is no doubt that the attributions of FODESAF are directly aimed at fulfilling the referred constitutional mandate, an indispensable element of the Social State of Law, insofar as it allows access to education for boys, girls, and young people of scarce resources, fostering personal progress and social mobility. Likewise, the referred public competencies are closely related to various prerogatives recognized by International Human Rights Law: equality (Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article II of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights); property (Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man); to social security (Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 9 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to social and economic development (Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights); to education (Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador); of access to culture (Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article XIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 14 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to the family (Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to the special protection of minors and other vulnerable groups (Article 24 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article VII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 16, 17, and 18 of the Protocol of San Salvador); to health (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 10 of the Protocol of San Salvador); etc. **In other words, the activities financed with the resources of the Social Development and Family Allowances Fund are not only so by legal imperative, but also constitute the mechanisms foreseen to give effective compliance to a wide and varied range of fundamental rights. Preventing the Fund from fulfilling its function implies, therefore, neglecting benefit duties that affect the rights of persons.** VII.- Obligation of the budget legislator to distribute public expenditures based on general norms that determine specific destinations for certain revenues.

Article 9 of Law No. 6.914 of November twenty-eighth, nineteen eighty-three, determines that:

"Article 9.— From the proceeds of the general sales tax, established in Law No. 6826 of November 10, 1982, the Banco Central de Costa Rica shall transfer, directly and quarterly, to the Dirección General de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, twenty percent, for the fund created and administered as indicated by Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974. That established in this article is effective as of January 1, 1984." As can be seen, this provision prescribes a specific earmark (destino específico) for the proceeds of the general sales tax collection. Twenty percent of the total collected under that heading must be directed to augment the resources of the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares. In the first place, it is important to emphasize that the Sala Constitucional has recognized the validity of specific earmarks given by formal law to certain tax revenues. In that way, it has been recognized that the ordinary legislator is constitutionally empowered to provide that the proceeds of certain taxes be directed to the financing of specific services, in consideration of the general interest satisfied through them or the social need they are called to cover. (Cf., in that same sense, judgments No. 0919-99 of nine hours fifteen minutes of February twelve, nineteen ninety-nine, 4528-99 of fourteen hours fifty-four minutes of July fifteen, nineteen ninety-nine, among others) In addition to the foregoing, this same Chamber has held on repeated occasions that in the face of specific earmarks provided for in an ordinary law, the Executive Branch and the budget legislator are limited in their discretion, such that the National Budget must contain the necessary appropriations to meet the obligations imposed by ordinary law. (Cf., judgments No. 2000-10136, of nine hours of November seventeen, two thousand, 2003-09397 of ten hours twelve minutes of September five, two thousand three, etc.) In accordance with the foregoing, the Chamber has heard various proceedings in which the refusal of the Ministry of Finance to transfer funds budgeted as expenditure appropriations destined to cover erogations provided for in ordinary tax laws was challenged, as well as the omission to stipulate in the Budget Law resources to cover this type of mandates, understanding that when the resources in question were destined to cover services necessary to satisfy fundamental rights, any of the described omissions was openly unconstitutional. (Cf., judgments No. 2001-02075, of eight hours fifty-two minutes of March sixteen, two thousand one, 2001-03825, of ten hours twenty-two minutes of May eleven, two thousand one, etc.)

VIII.— Unconstitutionality in the challenged appropriation. In accordance with its case law, this Chamber understands that, in the presence of a provision such as Article 9 of Law 6.914, the authorities competent for the creation of the Budget bill and the approval of the Budget Law, respectively the Executive Branch and the Asamblea Legislativa, do not possess discretionary power to dispose of such resources in a manner different from that determined by the ordinary legislator. Regarding the specific constitutionality of the appropriation subject to this action, this Chamber had already had the opportunity to rule, upon hearing the optional legislative consultation corresponding to bill No. 15.692.

(…)

That is to say, what is unconstitutional is not the appropriation itself, but rather the amount left unallocated in that appropriation. The amount that should have been budgeted for FODESAF was one hundred three thousand four hundred million colones (20% of five hundred seventeen thousand million colones). Since twenty-five thousand million colones were budgeted for it, a remaining balance of seventy-eight thousand four hundred million colones was left uncovered. The omission in contemplating this sum in the transfer to FODESAF is what is unconstitutional, for which reason the chamber must compel the authorities involved in the budget procedure to not incur this defect again.

IX.— Conclusion. Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Chamber concludes that appropriation 664 01 132 23 210, title 115 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social), program 735 (various transfers and contributions) Executing Unit Despacho del Ministro de Trabajo, for the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, contained in the Ordinary Budget Law of the Republic for the 2005 Fiscal Year, for twenty-five thousand million colones, contains a defect of unconstitutionality, due to the fact that said appropriation was provided for with an amount seventy-eight thousand million colones less than what is owed, as ordered by Article 9 of Law 6914 of November twenty-eighth, nineteen eighty-three. For the foregoing, the present acción de inconstitucionalidad must be declared with merit, so that for the 2006 fiscal year onward, the Executive Branch and the Asamblea Legislativa, in their respective spheres of competence, must allocate in favor of FODESAF, a transfer equivalent to 20% of the projected collection under the general sales tax, as long as Article 9 of Law 6914 remains in force. For those same fiscal years, the Executive Branch must refrain from imposing spending limits on FODESAF and on the institutions that receive resources from it, which impede the effective use of the funds contemplated in Article 9 of Law 6.914 for the social purposes fulfilled by the referred institutions." (Judgment No. 2005-17612 of 14:40 hrs. of December 21, 2005). The highlighted text does not correspond to the original.

As was verified, the Ministry of Finance has not transferred the totality of the funds corresponding to 20% of that collected under the General Sales Tax, as provided in Articles 15 and 16 of Law No. 5662 of December 23, 1974, to the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (report at folio 35). In this sense, it is evident that the allocation of resources as provided for in the laws on the subject would allow that institution to develop a series of programs and activities that provide effective solutions for the most dispossessed classes, and to that extent the appellant's claims must be upheld by the Court. Under this reasoning, it is necessary to declare the recurso with merit with the consequences that will be stated.— As a corollary to the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the recurso with merit, solely, with respect to the Minister of Finance and to order him to transfer to the Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares 20% of the proceeds of the General Sales Tax. In all other respects, the recurso is declared without merit.—

SOBRE EL TRASLADO DE FONDOS CON DESTINO ESPECÍFICO AL FONDO DE DESARROLLO SOCIAL Y DE ASIGNACIONES FAMILIARES (FODESAF). De importancia para la resolución de este amparo, es menester indicar que este Tribunal Constitucional ya se pronunció respecto a la omisión del Ministerio de Hacienda de girar el 20% sobre la recaudación del impuesto general sobre las ventas, al Fondo de Desarrollo Social y de Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF) para el ejercicio económico del año 2005. Dicha omisión se ha visto reflejada, asimismo, en la reducción de los recursos que se destinan a diversos programas sociales que atiende dicho Fondo. En lo conducente, esta Sala resolvió:

“(…) V.- El Estado Social de Derecho como marco constitucional de actuación pública. La Constitución Política, leída en forma conjunta y sistemática, determina la vigencia de un Estado Social de Derecho. Lo anterior implica que todas las actuaciones públicas, además de ser necesariamente conformes con el ordenamiento vigente, deben estar dirigidas de manera eficiente y justa a satisfacer las necesidades de los habitantes de la República, mediante una adecuada distribución de la riqueza y un equitativo acceso al bienestar generado por el desarrollo económico y técnico. Impone asimismo que en el seno de la sociedad, las cargas sean distribuidas entre los individuos de acuerdo con las capacidades de cada uno. El sistema económico diseñado por el constituyente de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve tiene como meta no solamente el crecimiento de la producción y el empleo. En el marco de la Constitución Política, la economía tiene que ser un factor decisivo para el logro de los objetivos del Estado Social de Derecho. Es claro, por ende, que la Carta vigente no es apenas un estatuto político, sino que también es uno económico y uno social. Así, se desprende también que el sistema de derechos fundamentales establecido constitucionalmente no se encuentra basado en el individualismo utilitarista, sino más bien en una concepción del hombre en el marco de la sociedad en la que se desenvuelve. La Constitución Política parte de la noción de que el ser humano no puede desarrollarse integralmente por sí solo, sino que para ello requiere de la participación de todos los otros miembros de la sociedad. De hecho, para lograr una más homogénea estratificación social, los individuos deben contribuir de acuerdo con sus posibilidades, en beneficio de quienes menos poseen. Lo anterior es un derecho fundamental de las personas que ocupan los estratos inferiores, y un deber de todos, principalmente los más beneficiados por el sistema económico. La riqueza en una sociedad no es producida apenas por quienes poseen los medios de producción, sino también por quienes contribuyen a ella con su mano de obra, con su trabajo. En consecuencia, los beneficios producidos por el mercado deben ser redireccionados a fin de que no redituen únicamente en favor de ciertos sectores sociales. Relacionado este principio con el de justicia social, positivizado en el ordinal 74 de la Constitución, según el cual las personas deben colaborar recíprocamente en aras de preservar la dignidad humana de todos los miembros de la comunidad, tenemos que el constituyente buscó fomentar una sociedad donde la solidaridad fuera la regla general de convivencia; donde la realización de pequeños sacrificios en favor de grandes metas sociales estuviera por encima de los intereses individuales; es lo que normalmente se conoce como Estado Social de Derecho. Podría así afirmarse que la solidaridad entre los miembros de la colectividad es un principio de rango constitucional, que obliga al Estado a exigir más a quienes poseean mayores capacidades, de modo que por medio de la prestación de servicios sociales de educación, salud, acceso a la vivienda, etc., propicie el crecimiento personal y social y evite la existencia de ciudadanos de primera categoría y de otros de segunda o tercera categoría. Finalmente, se puede decir que la Constitución Política reconoce a favor de los individuos y grupos sociales una gama extensa y muy variada de derechos, algunos de forma expresa, otros colegibles a partir de la comprensión del sistema que forman sus normas y principios. Algunas de estas prerrogativas (sin importar si son individuales o colectivas) tienen un carácter eminentemente social, al constituir derechos a la recepción de determinadas prestaciones por parte del Estado. Puede tratarse de bienes o de servicios, pero que en todo caso debe la Administración brindar debido al mandato (específico o genérico) contenido en la Ley Fundamental. Si se trata de una referencia general (vgr. protección a la madre y a los menores, cfr. artículo 51 constitucional), son los representantes de la soberanía popular, quienes a través de la Ley formal, desarrollarán estos preceptos imponiendo las formas en que la Administración deberá actuar con la finalidad de hacerlos valer efectivamente, así como disponiendo de los recursos públicos necesarios para ello. El hecho de que requieran de actuaciones de otros agentes para poder ser efectivamente realizados en nada les resta normatividad, pero sí hace más compleja (en comparación con las libertades públicas, por ejemplo) su puesta en operación, y más exhaustiva la labor del contralor de constitucionalidad, al cual le cabrá discurrir respecto del grado de compromiso mostrado por el Estado al hacer valer las normas que reconozcan derechos sociales. Si el legislador no instituye los mecanismos -jurídicos y financieros- idóneos para realizarlas, su omisión podría significar una violación a la Constitución Política. Si emite las normas legales y provee los recursos necesarios para hacer efectivo ese derecho y es la Administración la que evade su acatamiento, entonces esta última actuación estaría lesionando en forma refleja el derecho fundamental, mediante el incumplimiento de un deber legal. (Ver en este mismo sentido las sentencias de esta Sala números 01441-92, 05125-93, 03338-99, 2001-03825, entre otras) VI.- El Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF) en el contexto del Estado Social de Derecho. El Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (FODESAF) fue creado mediante la Ley de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familares (sic), número 5662 de veintitrés de diciembre de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro. El Fondo está destinado a dotar de recursos a una serie de servicios prestacionales esenciales a cargo del Estado y de otros entes públicos, en favor de los y las costarricenses de escasos recursos (artículo 2º). Su administración se encuentra a cargo de la Dirección General de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, órgano del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social. Para ello, el Fondo recibe recursos transferidos del Presupuesto de la República, los cuales luego son girados a las diversas instituciones beneficiarias, para su uso en diversos programas sociales, tendientes todos a mejorar las condiciones de vida de los y las costarricenses. Diversas leyes especiales determinan la forma como los recursos del Fonde (sic) serán distribuidos entre las diversas dependencias públicas encargadas de prestar servicios sociales conformes con la finalidad de aquel. Así, la Ley 5662, artículo 3º, menciona los programas de nutrición del Ministerio de Salud y al IMAS, sin especificar un monto o porcentaje; esa misma Ley (artículo 4), crea el Régimen No Contrributivo de Pensiones , administrado por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, financiado con el 20% de los recursos del Fondo; la Ley 6525, artículo 1º, asigna una suma de doce millones de colones a INCIENSA; la Ley 6735, numeral 26, establece un mínimo de cincuenta y seis millones de colones para el establecimiento y desarrollo de asentamientos del IDA; la Ley 6975, artículo 34, asigna cincuenta millones anuales al Fondo Nacional de Emergencias, hasta un acumulado de doscientos cincuenta millones; la Ley 7097 (artículo 47) ordena el traslado de 0,5% de los ingresos del Fondo, para las juntas de educación; la Ley 7028, artículo 6º, crea el Fondo de Subsidios para Vivienda, destinado a que familiaas de escasos recursos accedan a una vivienda digna, asignándole el 33% de todos los ingresos ordinarios y extraordinarios del Fondo; la Ley 7233, artículo 4º, dispone una asignación mensual de un millón de colones para programas preventivos desarrollados por el IAFA; la Ley 7374, art 6º, crea el Programa de Mejoramiento de los Servicios de Salud, y dispone que el costo de la atención de la población indigente se cubrirá con partidas provenientes del Fondo; la Ley 7648, artículo 34 inciso b), ordena al FODESAF girar un porcentaje mínimo del 4% al Patronato Nacional de la Infancia para la promoción, defensa y protección de la niñez y la adolescencia; la Ley 7658 en su artículo 9º inciso c), crea el Fondo Nacional de Becas, el cual se financiará con un 1% de los presupuestos ordinarios y extraordinarios de FODESAF; la Ley 7667, trasitorio II, establece que del presupuesto de caja de FODESAF, se girará un 1% durante los primeros diez años al Fondo de Apoyo a la Educación Superior y Técnica del Puntarenense; la Ley 7742, artículo 4bis inciso a), crea el Programa de Reconversión Productiva, el cual se financiará con un 5% de los presupuestos ordinarios y extraordinarios del FODESAF; la Ley 7756, artículo10, otorga un beneficio para los pacientes en estado terminal, el cual será financiado con un 0,5% de los recursos del Fondo; la Ley 7763 destina un porcentaje que oscila entre el 10% y el 15% para el desarrollo y ejecución del Programa Nacional de Comedores Escolares; la Ley 7800, artículo 87 inciso c), crea el ICODER y dispone su financiación con un 1% de los presupuestos ordinarios y extraordinarios del Fondo; la Ley 7801, finalmente, el artículo 27, crea el Instituto Nacional de la Mujer, financiado con un 2% del Presupuesto del Fondo. Todas las competencias públicas antes citadas constituyen pilares esenciales del Estado Social de Derecho, pues viabilizan el disfrute de diversos derechos sociales (o de proyección social) reconocidos en la Constitución Política y en diversos instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos. De la Carta Fundamental, se relacionan -al menos- con los siguientes derechos: a la vida y la salud (artículo 21), a la igualdad (33), a la propiedad (45), al desarrollo (50), a la protección especial de la familia (51), la madre y el menor (55), al trabajo (56), a la seguridad social (73) y a la Justicia Social (74). Mención aparte merece la norma contenida en el artículo 82 constitucional, el cual en forma contundente ordena al Estado proveer de "alimento y vestido a los escolares indigentes". No cabe duda que las atribuciones del FODESAF se encuentran directamente encaminadas al cumplimiento del referido mandato constitucional, elemento imprescindible del Estado Social de Derecho, en tanto permite el acceso a la educación a los niños, niñas y jóvenes de escasos recursos, fomentando el progreso personal y la movilidad social. Asimismo, las referidas competencias públicas se relacionan estrechamente con diversas prorrogativas reconocidas por el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos: igualdad (7º de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 3º y 26 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 3º del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, II de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 24 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); propiedad (17 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, XXIII de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre); a la seguridad social (22 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 9º del Pacto Interrnacional de derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, XVI de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 9º del Protocolo de San Salvador); al desarrollo social y económico (25 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 11 del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, 26 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos); a la educación (26 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 13 del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, XII de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 13 del Protocolo de San Salvador); de acceso a la cultura (27 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos, 15 del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, XIII de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 14 del Protocolo de San Salvador); a la familia (23 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 10 del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, 15 del Protocolo de San Salvador); a la protección especial de las personas menores de edad y de otros grupos vulnerables (24 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos, 3º y 4º de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, VII de la Declaración Americana de Derechos y Deberes del Hombre, 19 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, 16, 17 y 18 del Protocolo de San Salvador); a la salud (12 del Pacto Interrnacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales, 10 del Protocolo de San Salvador); etc. En otras palabras, las actividades financiadas con los recursos del Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares no solamente lo son por imperativo legal, sino que además importan los mecanismos previstos para dar efectivo cumplimiento a una amplia y variada gama de derechos fundamentales. Impedir que el Fondo cumpla su función implica, por ende, desatender deberes prestacionales que afectan los derechos de las personas.

VII.- Obligación del legislador presupuestario de distribuir los gastos públicos a partir de normas generales que determinan destinos específicos a ciertos ingresos. El artículo 9º de la Ley número 6.914 de veintiocho de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta y tres, determina que:

"Artículo 9º.- Del producto del impuesto general sobre las ventas, establecido en la ley Nº 6826 del 10 de noviembre de 11982, el Banco Central de Costa Rica girará, en forma directa y trimestral, a la Dirección General de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, el veinte por ciento, para el fondo creado y administrado según lo indica la ley Nº 5662 del 23 de diciembre de 1974. Lo establecido en este artículo rige a partir del 1º. de enero de 1984." Como se aprecia, esta norma dispone un destino específico para el producto de la recaudación del impuesto general sobre las ventas. Un 20% del total de lo recaudado por dicho concepto, debe ser dirigido a engrosar los recursos del Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares. En primer término, es importante destacar que la Sala Constitucional ha reconocido la validez de los destinos específicos dados por Ley formal a ciertos ingresos de carácter tributario. De se modo, se ha reconocido que el legislador ordinario está constitucionalmente habilitado para disponer que el producto de determinados tributos sea dirigido a la financiación de servicios específicos, en atención del interés general que se satisface a través de éstos o la necesidad social que están llamados a cubrir. (Cfr. en ese mismo sentido las sentencias números 0919-99 de las nueve horas con quince minutos del doce de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, 4528-99 de las catorce horas cincuenta y cuatro minutos del quince de julio de mil novecientos noventa y nueve, entre otras) Además de lo anterior, esta misma Sala ha sostenido en reiteradas ocasiones que ante destinos específicos previstos en una Ley ordinaria, el Poder Ejecutivo y el legislador presupuestario se encuentran limitados en su discrecionalidad, de modo que el Presupuesto de la República debe contener las partidas necesarias para hacer frente a las obligaciones impuestas por la Ley ordinaria. (Cfr. sentencias números 2000-10136, de las nueve horas del diecisiete de noviembre de dos mil, 2003-09397 de las diez horas con doce minutos del cinco de setiembre de dos mil tres, etc.) En consonancia con lo anterior, la Sala ha conocido de diversos procesos, en los cuales se impugnó la negativa del Ministerio de Hacienda de girar los fondos presupuestados como partidas de gastos destinados a cubrir erogaciones previstas en leyes ordinarias tributarias o bien la omisión de estupular en la Ley de Presupuesto, recursos para cubrir este tipo de mandatos, entendiendo que cuando los recursos en cuestión estuvieran destinados a cubrir servicios necesarios para satisfacer derechos fundamentales, cualquiera de las omisiones descritas resultaba abiertamente inconstitucional. (Cfr. sentencias números 2001-02075, de las ocho horas con cincuenta y dos minutos del dieciséis de marzo de dos mil uno, 2001-03825, de las diez horas con veintidós minutos del once de mayo de dos mil uno, etc.)

VIII.- Inconstitucionalidad en la partida impugnada. Acorde con su jurisprudencia, esta Sala entiende que, ante la existencia de una norma como el artículo 9º de la Ley 6.914, las autoridades competentes para la creación del proyecto de Presupuesto y la aprobación de la Ley de Presupuesto, respectivamente el Poder Ejecutivo y la Asamblea Legislativa, no ostentan una potestad discrecional para disponer de tales recursos en forma distinta a la determinada por el legislador ordinario. Acerca de la concreta constitucionalidad de la partida objeto de esta acción, ya esta Sala había tenido oportunidad de pronunciarse, al conocer de la consulta legislativa facultativa correspondiente al proyecto número 15.692.

(…)

Es decir, que lo inconstitucional no es la partida en sí, sino el monto dejado de incluir en esa partida. El monto que correspondía presupuestar a FODESAF era de ciento tres mil cuatrocientos millones de colones (20% de quinientos diecisiete mil millones de colones). Como le fueron presupuestados veinticinco mil millones de colones, quedó sin cubrir un saldo de setenta y ocho mil cuatrocientos millones de colones. La omisión en contemplar esta suma en la transferencia a FODESAF es lo que resulta inconstitucional, por lo que la sala deberá conminar a las autoridades involucradas en el procedimiento presupuestario para que no incurran de nuevo en este vicio.

IX.- Conclusión. A partir de los argumentos contenidos en los párrafos que anteceden esta Sala concluye que la partida 664 01 132 23 210, título 115 (Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social), programa 735 (transferencias y aportes varios) Unidad Ejecutora Despacho del Ministro de Trabajo, para el Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares, contenido en la Ley de Presupuesto Ordinario de la República para el Ejercicio Económico de 2.005, por veinticinco mil millones de colones, contiene un vicio de inconstitucionalidad, debido a que dicha partida fue prevista con un monto de setenta y ocho mil millones de colones menos de lo debido, según ordena el artículo 9º de la Ley 6914 del veintiocho de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta y tres. Por lo anterior, la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad deberá ser declarada con lugar, de manera que para el ejercicio económico de dos mil seis en adelante, el Poder Ejecutivo y la Asamblea Legislativa, en sus respectivos ámbitos de competencia, deberán contemplar a favor del FODESAF, una transferencia equivalente al 20% de la recaudación prevista por concepto del impuesto general sobre las ventas, en tanto el artículo 9º de la Ley 6914 siga vigente. Para esos mismos ejercicios económicos, el Poder Ejecutivo se deberá abstener de imponer límites de gasto al FODESAF y a las instituciones que reciben recursos de éste, que impidan el efectivo empleo de los fondos contemplados en el artículo 9º de la Ley 6.914 para los fines sociales que cumplen las referidas instituciones.” (Sentencia Nº 2005-17612 de las 14:40 hrs. del 21 de diciembre de 2005). Lo resaltado no corresponde al original.

Conforme se verificó, el Ministerio de Hacienda no ha girado la totalidad de los fondos correspondientes al 20% de lo recaudado por concepto del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, tal y como lo dispone los artículos 15 y 16 de la Ley Nº 5662 del 23 de diciembre de 1974, al Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares (informe a folio 35). En este sentido, es evidente que la dotación de recursos en la medida que lo prevén las leyes sobre la materia permitiría a esa institución desarrollar una serie de programas y actividades que brinden soluciones efectivas para las clases más desposeídas, y en esa medida las pretensiones del recurrente deben ser acogidas por parte del Tribunal. Bajo esta inteligencia, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso con las consecuencias que se dirán.- Como corolario de lo expuesto, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso, únicamente, en lo que respecta al Ministro de Hacienda y ordenarle que gire al Fondo de Desarrollo Social y Asignaciones Familiares el 20% del producto del Impuesto General sobre las ventas. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso.-