Municipal and Health Ministry omission regarding stormwater stagnation and dengue riskOmisión municipal y del Ministerio de Salud ante estancamiento de aguas pluviales con riesgo de dengue

**I.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The appellant seeks protection of the constitutional rights to health and to a healthy and balanced environment, recognized in articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution, due to the failure of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores and the Ministry of Health to provide a definitive solution to the problem of rainwater ponding in a housing development located in Río Nuevo - Segunda Etapa, caused –presumably– because some neighbors have blocked the pipes and obstructed the drains through which the water flowed, with the aggravating factor of the risk of dengue infection that this situation generates and of flooding in some houses. He alleges that in June of this year, he filed, jointly with other neighbors, two complaints, one before the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and another before the Ministry of Health of that Zone, for them to provide a definitive solution to the problem, and five months later nothing has been done about it. He also accuses the breach of the right to a swift and completed procedure, given that the respondent authorities have not informed him of anything regarding his complaints.

…**I.- ON THE RIGHT TO HEALTH AND THE RIGHT TO ENJOY A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.** Public health and the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are constitutionally recognized in articles 21, 50, 73, and 89 of the Constitution, as well as through international regulations. Specifically, article 50 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the right of all inhabitants of the country to enjoy a healthy and perfectly balanced environment. This right is a fundamental guarantee for the protection of life and public health. This constitutional provision is complemented by what is established in numeral 11 of the "Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales". Likewise, in relation to the obligations of public authorities to guarantee the right to health and the right to a healthy environment, this Constitutional Tribunal, through judgment No. 180-98 of 4:24 p.m. on January 13, 1998, ordered:

"...the State not only has the unavoidable responsibility to ensure that the health of each of the persons that make up the national community does not suffer harm from third parties, in relation to these rights, but must also assume the responsibility of achieving the social conditions conducive to each person being able to enjoy their health, this right being understood as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being." In this sense, the Costa Rican State has the obligation to act preventively, avoiding, through direct supervision and intervention, the performance of acts that harm the environment, which is inevitably correlated with the State's obligation to ensure the preservation of its inhabitants' health. The infra-constitutional regulations develop this right and, in this regard, the General Health Law authorizes the Ministry of Health to take the corresponding sanitary measures and impose sanctions in order to protect the environment and the right to health of individuals. It should be noted that this Tribunal, as guarantor of fundamental rights, stands as a controller of compliance with the obligations derived from the provisions of articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution, which compel the State not only to recognize the aforementioned rights but also to use materially and legally legitimate means to guarantee them.

**IV.- ON THE OMISSION ACCUSED IN RELATION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CORREDORES.** From the recitation of facts, it is clear that since June 12, 2007, the municipal authorities were aware of the complaint filed by the appellant and other persons in relation to a serious and urgent public health problem, namely, rainwater ponding causing flooding in some homes and putting the community of Río Nuevo - Segunda Etapa at risk of dengue infection. By virtue of the foregoing, municipal authorities conducted, on the 21st of that same month, an inspection jointly with officials of the Ministry of Health of the Zone, and determined that the reported problem existed. This Tribunal observes that despite the foregoing, it was only on the occasion of the filing of this amparo that the municipal authorities conducted a new on-site inspection and decided to adopt measures to solve the rainwater ponding problem. Hence, five months have unjustifiably elapsed since the complaint was filed, a period during which the municipal authorities did not order any concrete measure to definitively solve the referred public health problem. To the foregoing, it should be added that by virtue of the analysis carried out after the filing of this amparo, the Head of the Cadastre of the Municipality of Corredores also determined that the site design plans do not show that a rainwater drainage system exists or was planned. Under such circumstances, and given that based on the provisions of articles 1 and 87 of the Construction Law and 75 of the Municipal Code, the Municipality is responsible for exercising oversight over works executed in its jurisdiction and, in the case of public health problems, is obligated to report to the health authorities and collaborate with them for compliance with the General Health Law, this Chamber considers that in the case at hand, a breach of the rights to health and a balanced environment occurred on the part of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores, because, to date, they have omitted adopting concrete, timely, and effective measures to resolve the serious problem of rainwater ponding reported by the appellant since June of this year.

**II.- ON THE BREACH ALLEGED IN RELATION TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH.** As noted previously, the infra-constitutional regulations have endowed the Ministry of Health with police power to prevent and guarantee situations such as the one accused by the appellant. In this regard, article 2 of the General Health Law provides that the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, is responsible for defining the national health policy, the regulation, planning, and coordination of all public and private activities related to health, as well as the execution of those activities that fall within its competence according to the law.

In that sense, the General Health Law itself provides in article 314 that within its powers, the Ministry of Health is responsible for ordering and taking the special measures that the law enables to prevent risk or harm to people's health or to prevent them from spreading or worsening, and to inhibit the continuation or recurrence of the infringement by private individuals. Specifically, regarding the matter at hand, the General Health Law, in Book 1, Title 3, Chapter 3, On the obligations and restrictions for the sanitary evacuation of stormwater, provides, as relevant:

“Article 285.- Excreta, sewage, wastewater, and stormwater must be disposed of adequately and sanitarily in order to avoid the contamination of soil and natural sources of water for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and diseases, and air contamination through conditions that threaten its purity or quality.” “Article 286.- Every person, natural or legal, is obligated to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to remedy those that may exist on their property.

If the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may carry them out at the expense of the person in default.

In cases where the public interest, the nature, and scale of the drainage works justify it, every property owner is obligated to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority may construct such works; the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use.

Maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works.” “Article 290.- Every person is prohibited from destroying or damaging public or private drainage systems or obstructing their operation.” For its part, Chapter 6, On the duties and restrictions relating to subdivisions (urbanizaciones) and housing health, provides the following:

“Article 309.- Natural and legal persons engaged in the subdivision (urbanización) of land must submit the corresponding preliminary project to the competent health authority for prior study and may only begin their work once the definitive project has been approved.

Approval shall be granted if the subdivision (urbanización) project is located in an area permitted by current regulations or, failing that, by the Ministry, and it has adequate sanitary systems for the supply of potable water, for the drainage of stormwater, and for the disposal of excreta, sewage, and wastewater.” “Article 313.- Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements:

(…)

8. Basic sanitation means:

(…)

• b)Adequate systems for the disposal of excreta, sewage, wastewater, and stormwater approved by the health authority.” From the same regulations, the obligation of the Ministry of Health authorities to ensure the application and control of compliance with the provisions of that law and its regulations can be inferred, without prejudice to the powers and obligations that special laws grant and impose on other public bodies within their respective fields of action (article 337). Likewise, it is responsible for sanctioning those who violate health regulations. By virtue of the obligations that the regulations impose on the Ministry of Health regarding public health, specifically, concerning the inspection of stormwater disposal systems, with the purpose, among other things, of ensuring that people's health and lives are not put at risk due to flooding or contamination problems that favor the proliferation of vectors, this Court considers that – in this case – it also incurred in a violation of the rights to health and the environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who suffer from the stagnation of stormwater in the community of Río Nuevo-Segunda Etapa. In this regard, it is clear from the account of facts that since June 19, 2007, the authorities of the Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores were informed by the petitioner and the other persons who filed the corresponding complaint, of the aforementioned public health problem. Despite the foregoing, and the fact that through an inspection carried out on June 21, 2007, they verified the existence of the denounced problem, they did not adopt timely, concrete measures to solve it. In fact, it is not recorded in the file, at this time, that the Ministry of Health authorities issued any sanitary order or ordered any other measure to resolve the problem raised by the petitioner; they simply limited themselves, in the report sent to this Chamber, to indicating that they had assumed it was the Municipality that was competent to resolve the case, and therefore, to date, they had not ordered any corrective measure. Given the evident and unjustified delay in the timely attention of a public health problem as serious and urgent as the one denounced, because, contrary to what the Ministry of Health authorities of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to a problem of obstructed stormwater drains, but rather was a risk situation due to the spread of dengue to the population of the area, the Chamber considers that the respondent Ministry violated the right to health and to a healthy environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who must tolerate flooding in their homes and the proliferation of vectors that can severely harm their health.

VI.- ON THE RIGHT TO A SWIFT AND FULFILLED PROCEDURE. The petitioner accuses the violation of this fundamental right because both the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and the authorities of the Ministry of Health of that Zone have not resolved the complaints he filed, jointly with other neighbors, in June 2007. From the account of proven facts, it is inferred that the respondent authorities have not only failed to resolve said complaints, but have also not informed the interested parties of the results of the inspections they have carried out at the site and, in general, of the status of those proceedings. Under such circumstances, this Court considers that – in this case – the alleged violation of the right to a swift and fulfilled procedure occurred as well, since the silence that has prevailed among the respondent authorities regarding the processing and result of the complaints filed by the petitioner motivated the filing of this amparo. On this matter, it is noted that in his report, the Municipal Mayor of Corredores states that the petitioner has not been informed about the procedures followed, since, having filed an informal complaint, he did not indicate a place to receive notifications (folio 31). It is clear from the case file that the indicated official is incorrect, because in the brief presented on June 12, 2007, at the Municipality of Corredores (folio 5), the petitioner indicated a fax number to receive notifications.

VII.- CONCLUSION. As a corollary to the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the appeal to have merit, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.” From the statement of facts, it is clear that since June 12, 2007, the municipal authorities had knowledge of the complaint filed by the petitioner and other individuals regarding a grave and urgent public health problem, namely, the stagnation of rainwater causing flooding in some homes and putting the community of Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa at risk of dengue infection. By virtue of the foregoing, municipal authorities carried out an on-site inspection on the 21st of that same month, jointly with officials of the Ministry of Health of the Zone, and determined that the reported problem existed. This Court observes that despite the above, it was not until the occasion of the filing of this amparo that the municipal authorities carried out a new on-site inspection and decided to adopt measures to solve the problem of rainwater stagnation. Hence, five months have passed unjustifiably since the complaint was filed, a period during which the municipal authorities did not order any concrete measure to definitively solve the aforementioned public health problem. To the foregoing, it should be added that by virtue of the analysis carried out after the filing of this amparo, the Head of the Cadastre of the Municipality of Corredores also determined that the site's design plans do not show that a storm sewer exists or was planned. Under such circumstances and given that, based on the provisions of articles 1 and 87 of the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and 75 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), the Municipality is responsible for exercising oversight over the works executed in its jurisdiction and that, in cases of public health problems, it is obliged to report to the health authorities and collaborate with them for the enforcement of the General Health Law (Ley General de Salud), this Chamber considers that in the instant case, a violation of the rights to health and a balanced environment occurred on the part of the authorities of the Municipality of Corredores, because, to date, they have omitted to adopt concrete, timely, and effective measures to resolve the grave problem of rainwater stagnation reported by the petitioner since June of this year.

**II.- REGARDING THE VIOLATION ALLEGED IN RELATION TO THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH**. As noted previously, the infra-constitutional regulations have endowed the Ministry of Health with police power to prevent and guarantee against situations such as the one alleged by the petitioner. In this regard, article 2 of the General Health Law provides that the Executive Branch, through the Ministry of Health, is responsible for defining the national health policy, the regulation, planning, and coordination of all public and private activities related to health, as well as the execution of those activities that fall within its competence according to the law. In that sense, the General Health Law itself provides in article 314 that within its powers, the Ministry of Health is responsible for ordering and taking the special measures enabled by law to avoid risk or damage to the health of individuals or to prevent them from spreading or worsening, and to inhibit the continuation or recurrence of the infraction by private parties. Specifically, regarding the matter at hand, the General Health Law, in Book 1, Title 3, Chapter 3, On the obligations and restrictions for the sanitary evacuation of rainwater, provides, as relevant:

"**Article 285.-** Excreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater shall be eliminated adequately and sanitarily to avoid the contamination of the soil and natural water sources for human use and consumption, the formation of breeding grounds for vectors and disease, and air contamination through conditions that threaten its purity or quality." "**Article 286.-** Every person, natural or legal, is obliged to carry out the drainage works that the health authority orders in order to prevent the formation of unsanitary foci and infection, or to clean up those that exist on their property.

If the owner is reluctant to comply with such orders, the health authority may carry them out at the expense of the non-compliant party.

In cases where the public interest, the nature, and magnitude of the drainage works justify it, every property owner is obliged to constitute an easement (servidumbre) in favor of the State so that the health authority can construct such works, and the expropriation of the land may be decreed when the easement (servidumbre) is incompatible with its use.

The maintenance and operation, if applicable, shall be the responsibility of the beneficiaries of such works." "**Article 290.-** Every person is prohibited from destroying or damaging public or private drainage systems or obstructing their functioning." For its part, Chapter 6, On the duties and restrictions relating to developments and the healthiness of housing, provides the following:

"**Article 309.-** Natural and legal persons engaged in the development of land must submit the corresponding preliminary project to the competent health authority for prior study and may only begin their work once the definitive project has been approved.

Approval shall be granted if the development project is located in an area permitted by current regulations or, failing that, by the Ministry, and has adequate sanitary systems for the supply of potable water, for the drainage of rainwater, and for the disposal of excreta, black water, and gray water." "**Article 313.-** Every individual, family, or multi-family dwelling must comply with the following sanitary requirements:

(…)

8. Basic sanitation means:

(…)

• b)Adequate systems for the elimination of excreta, black water, gray water, and rainwater approved by the health authority." From the same regulations, the obligation of the authorities of the Ministry of Health to ensure the application and control of compliance with the provisions of that law and its regulations is inferred, without prejudice to the faculties and obligations that special laws grant and impose on other public bodies within their respective fields of action (article 337). Likewise, it is responsible for sanctioning those who infringe the sanitary regulations. By virtue of the obligations that the regulations impose on the Ministry of Health in matters of public health, specifically, regarding the oversight of rainwater elimination systems, with the purpose, among other things, of ensuring that the health and life of people are not put at risk by flooding problems or contamination that favor the proliferation of vectors, this Court considers that – in the instant case – it also incurred in the violation of the rights to health and the environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those suffering from the stagnation of rainwater in the community of Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa. In this regard, from the statement of facts, it is clear that since June 19, 2007, the authorities of the Corredores Health Governing Area (Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores) were informed, by the petitioner and the other persons who filed the corresponding complaint, of the aforementioned public health problem. Despite the above, and the fact that through an on-site inspection carried out on June 21, 2007, they verified the existence of the reported problem, they did not adopt timely concrete measures to solve it. In fact, there is no evidence in the case file, at this time, that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have issued any sanitary order or have ordered any other measure in order to resolve the problem raised by the plaintiff; simply, they limited themselves in the report they sent to this Chamber to indicating that they had assumed that the Municipality was the competent entity to resolve the case, and therefore, to date, they had not ordered any corrective measure. Given the evident and unjustified delay in the timely attention to a public health problem as grave and urgent as the one reported, because, contrary to what the authorities of the Ministry of Health of Corredores presumably understood, it was not limited to a problem of obstructed rainwater drains, but rather was a risk situation due to dengue infection for the population of the area, the Chamber considers that the respondent Ministry violated the right to health and a healthy environment, to the detriment of the petitioner and those who must tolerate the flooding in their homes and the proliferation of vectors that can severely damage their health.

**VI.- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO A PROMPT AND FULFILLED PROCEDURE.** The petitioner alleges the violation of this fundamental right because both the Municipal Mayor of Corredores and the authorities of the Ministry of Health of that Zone have not resolved the complaints he filed, jointly with other neighbors, in June 2007. From the statement of proven facts, it is inferred that the respondent authorities have not only not resolved said complaints but also have not informed the interested parties of the result of the on-site inspections they have carried out and, in general, of the status of those procedures. Under such circumstances, this Court considers that – in the instant case –, additionally, the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled procedure occurred, since the silence that has prevailed among the respondent authorities regarding the processing and result of the complaints filed by the petitioner motivated the filing of this amparo. On this matter, it is noted that in his report, the Municipal Mayor of Corredores states that the petitioner has not been informed about the procedures followed, since having filed an informal complaint, he did not indicate a place to receive notifications (folio 31). From the case file, it is clear that the indicated official is not correct, because in the brief that was filed on June 12, 2007, with the Municipality of Corredores (folio 5), the petitioner indicated a fax number to receive notifications.

**VII.- CONCLUSION**. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is necessary to declare the amparo with merit, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.”

“I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El recurrente acude en tutela de los derechos constitucionales a la salud y a un medio ambiente sano y equilibrado, reconocidos en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, debido a la omisión de las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Corredores y del Ministerio de Salud de dar una solución definitiva al problema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales en una urbanización ubicada en Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa, producido –presuntamente- porque algunos vecinos han tapado los tubos y obstruido los desagües por donde discurrían, con el agravante del riesgo por contagio de dengue que esa situación genera y de las inundaciones en algunas casas. Alega que en junio del presente año, planteó, en conjunto con otros vecinos, dos quejas, una, ante el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores y, otra, ante el Ministerio de Salud de esa Zona para que dieran una solución definitiva al problema y cinco meses después no se ha hecho nada al respecto. Acusa también el quebranto al derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, toda vez, las autoridades recurridas no le han informado nada con respecto a sus denuncias.” “…I.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A LA SALUD Y EL DERECHO A GOZAR DE UN AMBIENTE SANO. La salud pública y el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado se encuentran reconocidos constitucionalmente en los artículos 21, 50, 73 y 89 de la Constitución Política, así como a través de la normativa internacional. Específicamente, el artículo 50 constitucional reconoce de forma expresa el derecho de todos los habitantes del país a disfrutar de un medio ambiente saludable y en perfecto equilibrio. Ese derecho es garantía fundamental para la protección de la vida y la salud pública. Esta disposición constitucional se complementa por lo establecido en el numeral 11 del "Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales". Asimismo, en relación con las obligaciones que tienen las autoridades públicas de garantizar el derecho a la salud y el derecho a un ambiente sano, este Tribunal Constitucional mediante la sentencia No.180-98 de 16:24 hrs. del 13 de enero de 1998 dispuso:

"...el Estado no solo tiene la responsabilidad ineludible de velar para que la salud de cada una de las personas que componen la comunidad nacional, no sufra daños por parte de terceros, en relación a estos derechos, sino que, además, debe asumir la responsabilidad de lograr las condiciones sociales propicias a fin de que cada persona pueda disfrutar de su salud, entendido tal derecho, como una situación de bienestar físico, psíquico( o mental) y social." En ese sentido, el Estado costarricense se encuentra en la obligación de actuar preventivamente evitando, mediante una fiscalización e intervención directa, la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, la cual está, inevitablemente, correlacionada con la obligación del Estado de velar por la preservación de la salud de sus habitantes. La normativa infraconstitucional desarrolla este derecho y, en este sentido, la Ley General de Salud autoriza al Ministerio de Salud para tomar las medidas sanitarias correspondientes e imponer las sanciones con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente y el derecho a la salud de las personas. Cabe señalar que este Tribunal como garante de los derechos fundamentales, se erige como un contralor del cumplimiento de las obligaciones que derivan de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21 y 50 constitucionales, que constriñen al Estado no sólo a reconocer los derechos señalados, sino además a utilizar los medios material y jurídicamente legítimos para garantizarlos.

IV.- SOBRE LA OMISIÓN QUE SE ACUSA EN RELACIÓN CON LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE CORREDORES. De la relación de hechos se desprende que desde el 12 de junio del 2007, las autoridades municipales tuvieron conocimiento de la denuncia planteada por el recurrente y otras personas más en relación con un grave y urgente problema de salud pública, a saber, el estancamiento de aguas pluviales que provoca inundaciones en algunas viviendas y que pone en riesgo de contagio por dengue a la comunidad de Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa. En virtud de lo anterior, autoridades municipales realizaron, el 21 de ese mismo mes, un reconocimiento conjuntamente con funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud de la Zona y determinaron que existía el problema denunciado. Observa este Tribunal que pese a lo anterior, no fue sino con ocasión de la interposición del presente amparo que las autoridades municipales realizaron un nuevo reconocimiento en el lugar y decidieron adoptar medidas para solucionar el problema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales. De ahí que hayan transcurrido injustificadamente cinco meses desde que se planteó la denuncia, plazo durante el cual las autoridades municipales no dispusieron ninguna medida concreta para solucionar definitivamente el referido problema de salud pública. A lo anterior cabe añadir que en virtud del análisis efectuado con posterioridad a la interposición del presente amparo, el Encargado de Catastro de la Municipalidad de Corredores también determinó que en los planos de diseño del sitio no consta que exista un alcantarillado pluvial o que se haya planificado. Bajo tales circunstancias y dado que con fundamento en lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 y 87 de la Ley de Construcciones y 75 del Código Municipal, la Municipalidad es la encargada de ejercer vigilancia sobre las obras que se ejecuten en su jurisdicción y que, en caso de problemas de salud pública, está obligada a denunciar ante las autoridades de salud y colaborar con ellas para el cumplimiento de la Ley General de Salud, considera esta Sala que en la especie se produjo el quebranto a los derechos a la salud y a un ambiente equilibrado por parte de las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Corredores, porque, a la fecha, han omitido adoptar medidas concretas, oportunas y eficaces para resolver el grave problema de estancamiento de aguas pluviales denunciado por el recurrente desde junio del presente año.

II.- SOBRE EL QUEBRANTO QUE SE ALEGA EN RELACIÓN CON EL MINISTERIO DE SALUD. Como se señaló anteriormente, la normativa infra constitucional ha dotado al Ministerio de Salud de un poder de policía para prevenir y garantizar situaciones como la acusada por el recurrente. Al respecto, el artículo 2 de la Ley General de Salud dispone que al Poder Ejecutivo, a través del Ministerio de Salud, le corresponde la definición de la política nacional de salud, la normación, planificación y coordinación de todas las actividades públicas y privadas relativas a salud, así como la ejecución de aquellas actividades que le competen conforme a la ley. En ese sentido, la propia Ley General de Salud dispone en el artículo 314 que dentro de sus atribuciones, le corresponde al Ministerio de Salud ordenar y tomar las medidas especiales que habilita la ley para evitar el riesgo o daño a la salud de las personas o que éstos se difundan o se agraven y para inhibir la continuación o reincidencia en la infracción de los particulares. Específicamente, relativo al tema que nos ocupa, la Ley General de Salud, en el Libro 1, título 3, Capítulo 3 De las obligaciones y restricciones para la evacuación sanitaria de aguas pluviales, dispone, en lo conducente:

“Artículo 285.- Las excretas, las aguas negras, las servidas y las pluviales, deberán ser eliminadas adecuada y sanitariamente a fin de evitar la contaminación del suelo y de las fuentes naturales de agua para el uso y consumo humano, la formación de criaderos de vectores y enfermedades y la contaminación del aire mediante condiciones que atenten contra su pureza o calidad.” “Artículo 286.- Toda persona, natural o jurídica, está obligada a realizar las obras de drenaje que la autoridad de salud ordene a fin de precaver la formación de focos insalubres y de infección, o de sanear los que hubiere en predios de su propiedad.

Si el propietario fuere renuente en el cumplimiento de tales órdenes, la autoridad de salud podrá hacerlos a costa del omiso.

En los casos en que el interés público, la naturaleza y envergadura de las obras de drenaje lo justificare, todo propietario de inmueble está obligado a constituir servidumbre en favor del Estado para que la autoridad de salud construya, tales obras pudiendo decretarse la expropiación del terreno cuando la servidumbre fuere incompatible con su utilización.

El mantenimiento y operación, si procedieren, estará a cargo de los beneficiarios de tales obras.” “Artículo 290.- Se prohíbe a toda persona destruir o dañar los sistemas de desagües públicos o privados u obstruir su funcionamiento.” Por su parte, en el Capítulo 6, De los deberes y restricciones relativos a las urbanizaciones y salubridad de la vivienda, dispone lo siguiente:

“Artículo 309.- Las personas, naturales y jurídicas, que se ocupen de la urbanización de terrenos deberán presentar a la autoridad de salud competente para su estudio previo el anteproyecto correspondiente y sólo podrán iniciar sus trabajos una vez aprobado el proyecto definitivo.

La aprobación será concedida si el proyecto de urbanización está ubicado en área permitida por la reglamentación vigente o en su defecto por el Ministerio y dispone de sistemas sanitarios adecuados de suministro de agua potable, de desagüe de aguas pluviales, de disposición de excretas, aguas negras y aguas servidas.” “Artículo 313.- Toda vivienda individual, familiar o multifamiliar, deberá cumplir con los siguientes requisitos sanitarios:

(…)

8. Medios de saneamiento básico:

(…)

• b)Sistemas adecuados de eliminación de excretas, de aguas negras, servidas y pluviales aprobados por la autoridad de salud.” De la misma normativa se colige la obligación de las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de velar por la aplicación y el control del cumplimiento de las disposiciones de esa ley y de su reglamentación, sin perjuicio de las facultades y obligaciones que leyes especiales otorguen e impongan a otros organismos públicos dentro de sus respectivos campos de acción (artículo 337). Asimismo, le corresponde sancionar a los que infrinjan la normativa sanitaria. En virtud de las obligaciones que la normativa le impone al Ministerio de Salud en materia de salud pública, concretamente, en cuanto a fiscalización de los sistemas de eliminación de aguas pluviales, con el objeto, entre otras cosas, que no se ponga en riesgo la salud y vida de las personas por problemas de inundaciones o contaminación que favorezcan la proliferación de vectores, considera este Tribunal que –en la especie- también incurrió en el quebranto a los derechos a la salud y al ambiente, en perjuicio del recurrente y de quienes sufren del estancamiento de aguas pluviales en la comunidad de Río Nuevo- Segunda Etapa. Al respecto, de la relación de hechos se desprende que desde el 19 de junio del 2007, las autoridades del Área Rectora de Salud de Corredores fueron informadas, por el recurrente y las demás personas que plantearon la correspondiente denuncia, del referido problema de salud pública. Pese a lo anterior, y al hecho que mediante un reconocimiento efectuado el 21 de junio del 2007, comprobaron la existencia del problema denunciado no adoptaron medidas concretas oportunas para solucionarlo. De hecho no consta en el girado orden sanitaria alguna o hayan dispuesto alguna otra medida con el fin de solventar el problema planteado por el accionante, simplemente, se limitaron en el informe que remitieron a esta Sala ha indicar que habían asumido que era la Municipalidad la competente para resolver el caso, por lo que a la fecha no habían dispuesto medida correctiva alguna. Dado el evidente e injustificado retardo en la oportuna atención de un problema de salud pública tan grave y urgente como el denunciado, porque, contrario a lo que presumiblemente entendieron las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de Corredores, no se limitaba a un problema de obstrucción de desagües de aguas pluviales, sino que se trataba de una situación de riesgo por contagio de dengue a la población de la zona, considera la Sala que el Ministerio recurrido quebrantó el derecho a la salud y a un ambienta sano, en perjuicio del recurrente y de quienes deben tolerar las inundaciones en sus viviendas y la proliferación de vectores que pueden dañar severamente su salud.

VI.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A UN PROCEDIMIENTO PRONTO Y CUMPLIDO. El recurrente acusa el quebranto a este derecho fundamental porque, tanto el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores, como las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud de esa Zona, no han resuelto las denuncias que planteó, conjuntamente con otros vecinos, en junio del 2007. De la relación de hechos probados se infiere que las autoridades recurridas no solo no han resuelto dichas denuncias, sino que tampoco han informado a los interesados del resultado de los reconocimientos que han efectuado en el sitio y, en general, del estado de esas gestiones. Bajo tales circunstancias, considera este Tribunal que –en la especie- se produjo, además, el acusado quebranto al derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido, ya que el silencio que ha imperado entre las autoridades recurridas en cuanto al trámite y resultado de las denuncias planteadas por el recurrente, motivó la interposición del presente amparo. Sobre el particular, obsérvese que en su informe el Alcalde Municipal de Corredores manifiesta que no se ha informado al recurrente sobre los procedimientos seguidos, pues al haber presentado una denuncia informal, no señaló lugar para recibir notificaciones (folio 31). De los autos se desprende que no lleva razón el indicado funcionario, pues en el memorial que se presentó el 12 de junio del 2007, en la Municipalidad de Corredores (folio 5), el recurrente indicó un número de fax para recibir notificaciones.

VII.- CONCLUSIÓN. Como corolario de lo expuesto, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que se detallarán en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.”