Municipality must prevent landslides despite lack of budgetMunicipalidad debe prevenir deslizamientos pese a falta de presupuesto

“…II.- SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL: The appellant alleges injury to a healthy and balanced environment, to the physical integrity and health of the people of the community of Valverde Vega, Sarchí Norte, due to the omission of the respondent authorities in executing the necessary actions to prevent the multiple landslides suffered in the area, which affect their homes and the only access road.

III.- ON THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND BALANCED ENVIRONMENT. Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes that all persons have the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Likewise, in Articles 21 and 89 of the Magna Carta, the right to public health and the duty of the State to maintain and protect natural resources are contained. In that same vein, this Tribunal, through judgment number 3705-93 of 15:00 hours on July 30, 1993, indicated the following:

"...Environmental quality is a parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is to understand that although man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of 'injury' (lesión), already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On the one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself...".

Thus, in addition to the right to a healthy environment and the duty of each person to make rational use of natural resources, there is the duty of the State to ensure the protection and conservation of the same, as well as the correlative power to impose the corresponding sanctions for the breach of those duties. It is thus in Article 50 of the Fundamental Charter that the following is established:

" ...Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused.

The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. The law shall determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions." From the foregoing, it is clearly inferred that the State, through the bodies designated for that purpose, is responsible for guaranteeing all persons a healthy and balanced environment, this through the mechanisms that the law makes available to it, in order to avoid irreversible damage to the environment and public health. In addition to promoting the necessary measures, so that each person enjoys his or her right to health, understood in all its aspects, be they physical, mental, or social.

IV.- ON THE COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS. Article 14 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgo establishes the ordinary competencies of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, in cases where a state of emergency has not been declared, and for the case at hand, subsection h) indicates the following:

“Article 14.- Ordinary prevention competencies of the commission.

The Commission shall be the governing body regarding risk prevention and preparations for attending emergency situations. It shall fulfill the following competencies:

• h)Advise municipalities regarding the management of information on the risk conditions that affect them, such as guidance for an effective policy on land use and territorial planning. The advice shall contribute to the preparation of regulatory plans, the adoption of control measures, and the promotion of organization, aimed at reducing the vulnerability of persons, considering that, at the municipal level, the responsibility for addressing this problem falls in the first instance.” Now, in this particular case, the respondent Municipality alleges in its defense that they have not started the works due to a lack of budgetary content, and so they have turned to the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias so that it may provide budgetary content to begin the work. However, the reports issued by the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias establish that we are faced with an ordinary prevention project, and therefore the amounts initially assigned were used for emergency projects. In this sense, it is clear that in this particular case, the Commission's competence lies in carrying out the corresponding inspections and recommendations for the respondent Municipality, which are binding in nature. Under this understanding, from the list of proven facts it is inferred that, in relation to the situation presented, it is determined that the Emergency Commission, since nineteen ninety-eight, alerted the Municipality of Valverde Vega about the risk of landslides in Barrio el Colegio of Valverde Vega. In two thousand three, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, it requested the Municipality of Valverde Vega to declare the zone high risk. Through report GE-06-137 of May twenty-five, two thousand six, the Head of the Geology Department of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT) issued report GE-ES-06-016 ”Geotextile-Reinforced Retaining Wall for Stabilization of Landslide on Calle Bajo Los Colegios, Evaluation and Re-Design.” Under such circumstances, this Chamber finds no violation of the fundamental rights of the appellants, and therefore the appeal filed against the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias must be dismissed.

V.- ON THE MUNICIPALITY OF VALVERDE VEGA: From the relation of proven facts and the evidence provided in the case file, it is inferred that the appellant is correct in considering her fundamental rights to a healthy and balanced environment to be injured, given that, since nineteen ninety-eight, the Municipality was alerted about the risk of landslides in Barrio el Colegio of Valverde Vega; furthermore, in two thousand three, the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, requested the Municipality of Valverde Vega to declare the zone high risk, a situation that to date has not received a definitive response from the respondent Municipality, which alleges a lack of economic resources. Note that there is a high degree of erosion in the area, so the street is undermined, putting the lives of the people who transit the place at high risk, a community of around three hundred people, with the aggravating factor that the retaining wall that provides protection to the road, as well as to several homes, presents a failure plane along its entire extension, a reason that is of great concern since it shows signs that said wall could fail at any moment, with imminent risk to the health of the neighbors in the area and the people who transit that street. Hence, the execution of the recommendations to prevent further landslides corresponds to the respondent Municipality. This Chamber has repeatedly and expressly indicated that the lack of budget is not an admissible reason to justify the violation of fundamental rights; on the contrary, it is an excuse commonly used by the Public Administration to evade its responsibilities and competencies. Under this reasoning, this Tribunal observes that in the specific case, it is evident that the Municipality of Santo Domingo is the body responsible for carrying out the construction of the damaged structures, in accordance with Article 169 of the Political Constitution, which must furthermore be done within a reasonably short period in order to avoid further landslides that cause irreversible damage to the environment, to the lives of the people of that community, and to the people who transit the only access road; therefore, its refusal to comply with its duties is injurious to the fundamental rights of the residents of the community of Barrio el Colegio of Valverde Vega. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be upheld against the Municipality, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.” Article 14 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law establishes the ordinary powers of the National Emergency Commission, in cases where a state of emergency has not been declared, and for the matter at hand, subsection h) states the following:

**"Article 14.- Ordinary prevention powers of the commission.** *The Commission shall be the governing entity regarding risk prevention and emergency preparedness. It must fulfill the following powers:* *h) Advise municipalities on the management of information regarding the risk conditions that affect them, such as guidance for an effective land-use and territorial planning policy. The advice must contribute to the preparation of regulatory plans, the adoption of control measures, and the promotion of organization, aimed at reducing the vulnerability of persons, considering that, at the municipal level, the responsibility to address this problem falls in the first instance."* Now then, in this particular case, the respondent Municipality of Valverde Vega alleges in its defense that the works have not begun due to a lack of budget, and therefore they have appealed to the National Emergency Commission so that it may provide budgetary resources to begin the work. However, the reports issued by the National Emergency Commission establish that we are in the presence of an ordinary prevention project, for which the amounts initially assigned were used for emergency projects. In that sense, it is clear that in this particular case, the Commission's authority lies in carrying out the corresponding inspections and recommendations to the respondent Municipality, which are of a binding nature. Under that understanding, from the list of proven facts it is clear that, in relation to the situation presented, it is determined that the Emergency Commission, since the year nineteen ninety-eight, alerted the Municipality of Valverde Vega about the risk of a landslide in the El Colegio neighborhood of Valverde Vega. In the year two thousand three, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, it requested that the Municipality of Valverde Vega declare the zone as high-risk. By report GE-06-137 of May twenty-fifth, two thousand six, the Head of the Geology Department of the Ministry of Public Works and Transport issued report GE-ES-06-016 "Geotextile Reinforced Retaining Wall for Stabilization of the Landslide on Bajo Los Colegios Street, Evaluation and Re-Design." Under such circumstances, this Chamber does not find any violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners; therefore, the appeal filed against the National Emergency Commission must be dismissed.

**V.- REGARDING THE MUNICIPALITY OF VALVERDE VEGA:** From the list of proven facts and the evidence provided to the case file, it is clear that the petitioner is correct in considering their fundamental rights to a healthy and balanced environment have been violated, given that since the year nineteen ninety-eight it was alerted about the risk of a landslide in the El Colegio neighborhood of Valverde Vega. Furthermore, in the year two thousand three, the National Emergency Commission, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, requested that the Municipality of Valverde Vega declare the zone as high-risk, a situation to which, to date, there has been no definitive response from the respondent municipality, which alleges a lack of economic resources. It should be noted that a high degree of erosion exists in the zone, for which reason the street is undermined, placing at high risk the lives of the people who travel there, a community of around three hundred people, with the aggravating factor that the retaining wall that provides protection to the road, as well as to several dwellings, presents a failure plane along its entire extension. This is a reason for great concern, as it shows signs that said wall could fail at any moment, with the imminent risk to the health of the residents of the zone and the people who travel along said street. Hence, the execution of the recommendations to prevent further landslides corresponds to the respondent Municipality. This Chamber has repeatedly and expressly indicated that a lack of budget is not an admissible reason to justify the transgression of fundamental rights; on the contrary, it is an excuse commonly used by the Public Administration to evade its responsibilities and powers. Under that reasoning, this Court observes that, in the specific case, it is evident that the Municipality of Santo Domingo is the body in charge of carrying out the construction of the damaged structures, in accordance with Article 169 of the Political Constitution, which must also be done within a reasonably short timeframe in order to prevent further landslides that would cause irreversible damage to the environment, to the lives of the people of said community, and to the people who travel along the only access street. Therefore, its refusal to fulfill its duties is injurious to the fundamental rights of the residents of the community of the El Colegio neighborhood of Valverde Vega.

“…**II.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL (AMPARO):** The appellant alleges injury to a healthy and balanced environment, to the physical integrity and to the health of the people of the community of Valverde Vega, Sarchí Norte, due to the omission of the respondent authorities in carrying out the necessary acts to prevent the multiple landslides that they suffer in the area, which affect their homes and the only access road.

**III.- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND BALANCED ENVIRONMENT.** Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes that all persons have the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Likewise, Articles 21 and 89 of the Magna Carta contain the right to public health and the duty of the State to maintain and protect natural riches. In that same sense, this Court, through judgment number 3705-93 of 15:00 hours of July 30, 1993, indicated the following:

*"...Environmental quality is a parameter of that quality of life; other no less important parameters are health, food, work, housing, education, etc., but more important than that is to understand that although man has the right to make use of the environment for his own development, he also has the duty to protect and preserve it for the use of present and future generations, which is not so novel, because it is nothing more than the translation to this matter of the principle of 'injury', already consolidated in common law, by virtue of which the legitimate exercise of a right has two essential limits: On one hand, the equal rights of others and, on the other, the rational exercise and useful enjoyment of the right itself...".* Thus, added to the right to a healthy environment and the duty of each person to make rational use of natural resources, is the duty of the State to ensure their protection and conservation, as well as the correlative power to impose the corresponding sanctions for the breach of those duties. It is thus established in Article 50 of the Fundamental Charter, which states the following:

*" ...Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to report acts that infringe that right and to demand the repair of the damage caused.* *The State will guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. The law will determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions."* From the foregoing, it clearly follows that the State, through the bodies designated for that purpose, is responsible for guaranteeing a healthy and balanced environment for all persons, this through the mechanisms that the law makes available, in order to avoid irreversible damage to the environment and public health. In addition to promoting the necessary measures, so that each person enjoys their right to health, this being understood in all its facets, be it physical, mental or social.

IV.- ON THE COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS. Article 14 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgo, establishes the ordinary powers of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, in cases where a declaration of a state of emergency (estado de emergencia) has not been made, and for the case at hand, subsection h) indicates the following:

“Artículo 14.- Competencias ordinarias de prevención de la comisión.

The Comisión shall be the governing body with regard to risk prevention and preparedness to address emergency situations. It must fulfill the following powers:

• h)Advise municipalities regarding the management of information on risk conditions that affect them, such as guidance for an effective land-use policy and land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial). The advice must contribute to the drafting of regulatory plans (planes reguladores), the adoption of control measures, and the promotion of organization, aimed at reducing the vulnerability of people, considering that, at the municipal level, the responsibility for addressing this issue falls in the first instance.” However, in the particular case, the respondent Municipality alleges in its defense, that it has not started the works due to lack of budgetary content, so it has resorted to the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias so that the latter may provide budgetary content to start the work. Nevertheless, the reports issued by the Comisión Nacional de Emergencia, establish that we are in the presence of an ordinary prevention project, which is why the amounts initially assigned were used for emergency projects. In that sense, it is clear that in the particular case, the competence of the Comisión lies in carrying out the corresponding inspections and recommendations to the respondent Municipality, which are binding in nature. Under that understanding, from the list of proven facts it is inferred, that in relation to the situation presented it is determined that the Comisión de Emergencia, since the year nineteen ninety-eight alerted the Municipality of Valverde Vega about the risk of a landslide (deslizamiento) in Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega. In the year two thousand three, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, it requests the Municipality of Valverde Vega to declare the zone high risk. By report GE-06-137 of May twenty-fifth, two thousand six, the Head of the Geology Department of the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, report GE-ES-06-016 "Muro de Contención Reforzado con Geotextil para Estabilización de Desalizamiento Calle Bajo Los Colegios, Evaluación y Re-Diseño." Under such circumstances, this Chamber does not recognize any violation of the fundamental rights of the appellants, for which reason the recourse filed against the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias must be dismissed.

V.- ON THE MUNICIPALITY OF VALVERDE VEGA: From the list of proven facts and the evidence provided in the case file, it is inferred, that the appellants are right in considering their fundamental rights to a healthy and balanced environment (ambiente sano y equilibrado) violated, given that, since the year nineteen ninety-eight it was alerted about the risk of a landslide in Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega, also in the year two thousand three the Comisión Nacional de Emergencia, through report DPM-INF-219-2003, requests the Municipality of Valverde Vega to declare the zone high risk, a situation which to date has not had a definitive response from the respondent municipality, alleging a lack of economic resources. Note that in the zone there is a high degree of erosion, so the street is undermined, putting at high risk the lives of the people who transit the place, a community of around three hundred people, with the aggravating factor that the retaining wall (muro de retención) that provides protection to the road, as well as to several dwellings, presents a failure plane (plano de falla) along its entire extension, a reason which is of great concern since it presents signs that said wall could fail at any moment, with the imminent risk to the health of the neighbors of the zone and the people who transit said street. Hence, the execution of the recommendations to prevent more landslides corresponds to the respondent Municipality. This Chamber on repeated occasions has been express in indicating that the lack of budget is not an admissible reason to justify the transgression of fundamental rights, on the contrary, it is an excuse commonly used by the Public Administration to evade its responsibilities and powers. Under that interpretation, this Court observes, that in the specific case, it is evident that the Municipality of Santo Domingo is the body in charge of carrying out the construction of the damaged structures, in accordance with Article 169 of the Constitución Política, which must also be done within a reasonably short period in order to avoid greater landslides that cause irreversible damages to the environment, to the lives of the people of said community, and to the people who transit the sole access street, for which reason its refusal to comply with its duties results harmful to the fundamental rights of the residents of the community of Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega. Based on the foregoing, the recourse against the Municipality must be declared well-founded, with the consequences that will be detailed in the operative part of this judgment.”

“…II.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO: La recurrente acusa lesión a un medio ambiente sano y equilibrado, a la integridad física y a la salud de la personas de la comunidad de Valverde Vega, Sarchí Norte, por la omisión de las autoridades de recurridas en ejecutar los actos necesarios para evitar los múltiples deslizamientos que sufren en la zona, que afectan sus viviendas y la única calle de acceso.

III.- SOBRE EL DERECHO A UN AMBIENTE SANO Y EQUILIBRADO. El artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, establece que todas las personas tienen derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Asimismo, en los artículos 21 y 89 de la Carta Magna, se encuentran contenidos el derecho a la salud pública y el deber del Estado de mantener y proteger las riquezas naturales. En ese mismo sentido, este Tribunal mediante sentencia número 3705-93 de las 15:00 horas del 30 de julio de 1993, indicó lo siguiente:

"...La calidad ambiental es un parámetro de esa calidad de vida; otros parámetros no menos importantes son salud, alimentación, trabajo, vivienda, educación, etc., pero más importante que ello es entender que si bien el hombre tiene el derecho de hacer uso del ambiente para su propio desarrollo, también tiene en deber de protegerlo y preservarlo para el uso de las generaciones presentes y futuras, lo cuál no es tan novedoso, porque no es más que la traducción a esta materia del principio de la "lesión", ya consolidado en el derecho común, en virtud del cuál el legítimo ejercicio de un derecho tiene dos límites esenciales: Por un lado, los iguales derechos de los demás y, por el otro, el ejercicio racional y el disfrute útil del derecho mismo...".

Así las cosas, aunado al derecho a un ambiente sano y al deber de cada persona de hacer un uso racional de los recursos naturales, se encuentra el deber del Estado de velar por la protección y conservación de los mismos, así como la correlativa facultad de imponer las sanciones correspondientes por el incumplimiento de esos deberes. Es así como en el artículo 50 de la Carta Fundamental, que se establece lo siguiente:

" ...Toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Por ello está legitimada para denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado.

El Estado garantizará, defenderá y preservará ese derecho. La ley determinará las responsabilidades y las sanciones correspondientes." De lo anteriormente citado, se desprende claramente, que el Estado, a través de los órganos designados al efecto, es el encargado garantizar a todas las personas, un ambiente sano y equilibrado, esto a través de los mecanismos que la ley pone a su disposición, con el fin de evitar daños irreversibles al medio ambiente y a la salud pública. Además de promover las medidas necesarias, para que cada persona, disfrute de su derecho a la salud, entendida éste, en todas sus vertientes, sea, física, mental o social.

IV.- SOBRE LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS. El artículo 14 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgo, establece las competencias ordinarias de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, en los casos en los que no ha mediado una declaratoria de estado de emergencia, y para el caso que nos ocupa el inciso h) indica lo siguiente:

“Artículo 14.- Competencias ordinarias de prevención de la comisión.

La Comisión será la entidad rectora en lo que se refiera a la prevención de riesgos y a los preparativos para atender situaciones de emergencia. Deberá cumplir las siguientes competencias:

• h)Asesorar a las municipalidades en cuanto al manejo de la información sobre las condiciones de riesgo que los afecta, como es el caso de la orientación para una política efectiva de uso de la tierra y del ordenamiento territorial. La asesoría deberá contribuir a la elaboración de los planes reguladores, la adopción de medidas de control y el fomento de la organización, tendientes a reducir la vulnerabilidad de las personas, considerando que, en el ámbito municipal, recae en primera instancia la responsabilidad de enfrentar esta problemática.” Ahora bien, en el caso particular, la Municipalidad recurrida alega en su descargo, que no han iniciado las obras por falta de contenido presupuestario, de manera que han acudido a la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias a fin que ésta aporte contenido presupuestario para iniciar los trabajos. No obstante, los informes emitidos por la Comisión Nacional de Emergencia, establecen que estamos en presencia de un proyecto ordinario de prevención, por lo que los montos inicialmente asignados fueron utilizados para proyectos de emergencia. En ese sentido, resulta claro que en el caso particular, la competencia de la Comisión radica en efectuar a la Municipalidad recurrida las inspecciones y recomendaciones correspondientes, las cuales son de carácter vinculante. Bajo esa inteligencia, del elenco de hechos probados se desprende, que en relación con la situación presentada se determina que la Comisión de Emergencia, desde el año mil novecientos noventa y ocho alertó a la Municipalidad de Valverde Vega acerca del riesgo de deslizamiento en el Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega. En el año dos mil tres, mediante informe DPM-INF-219-2003 solicita a la Municipalidad de Valverde Vega declarar la zona de alto riesgo. Por informe GE-06-137 del veinticinco de mayo del dos mil seis el Jefe del Departamento de Geología del Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes el informe GE-ES-06- 016 ”Muro de Contención Reforzado con Geotextil para Estabilización de Desalizamiento Calle Bajo Los Colegios, Evaluación y Re-Diseño. Bajo tales circunstancias, esta Sala no acredita violación alguna a los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes, por lo que se impone desestimar el recurso planteado en contra de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias.

V.- SOBRE LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE VALVERDE VEGA: De la relación de hechos probados y de las pruebas aportadas a los autos, se desprende, que llevan razón la recurrente al estimar lesionados sus derechos fundamentales a un ambiente sano y equilibrado, dado que, desde el año mil novecientos noventa y ocho fue alertada acerca del riesgo de deslizamiento en el Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega, además en el año dos mil tres la Comisión Nacional de Emergencia mediante informe DPM-INF-219-2003 solicita a la Municipalidad de Valverde Vega declarar la zona de alto riesgo, situación que la fecha no ha tenido una respuesta definitiva por parte de las municipalidad recurrida alegando falta de recursos económicos. Nótese que en la zona existe un alto grado de erosión, por lo que la calle se encuentra socavada, poniendo en alto riesgo la vida de las personas que transitan el lugar, una comunidad de alrededor de trescientas personas, con el agravante de que el muro de retención que brinda protección a la carretera, así como a varias viviendas, presentan un plano de falla en toda la extensión del mismo, motivo que es de mucha preocupación ya que presenta indicios de que dicho muro podría fallar en cualquier momento, con el riesgo inminente en la salud de los vecinos de la zona y las personas que transitan dicha calle. De ahí que, corresponde a la Municipalidad recurrida la ejecución de las recomendaciones para evitar más deslizamientos. Esta Sala en reiteradas ocasiones ha sido expresa en indicar que la falta de presupuesto no es una razón admisible para justificar la trasgresión a los derechos fundamentales, por el contrario, se trata de una excusa comúnmente utilizada por la Administración Pública para eludir sus responsabilidades y competencias. Bajo esa tesitura, observa este Tribunal, que en el caso concreto, resulta evidente que la Municipalidad de Santo Domingo es el órgano encargado de llevar a cabo la construcción de las estructuras dañadas, de conformidad con el artículo 169 de la Constitución Política, que además debe hacerse un plazo razonablemente corto a fin de evitar mayores deslizamientos que provoquen daños irreversibles al medio ambiente, en la vida de las personas de dicha comunidad, y en las personas que transitan la calle de único acceso, por lo que su negativa en cumplir con sus deberes, resulta lesivo a los derechos fundamentales de los vecinos de la comunidad del Barrio el Colegio de Valverde Vega. Por lo expuesto, se impone declarar con lugar el recurso en contra de la Municipalidad, con las consecuencias que se detallarán en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.”