Ineligibility of the police risk bonus for State Forest Administration officialsImprocedencia del plus por riesgo policial para funcionarios de la Administración Forestal

**V. Analysis of the specific case:** Regarding the complaints of the plaintiff, and, once this matter has been studied and discussed, it is the criterion of the members of this Tribunal that they are not correct and what was resolved in the first instance cannot be varied. Regarding the salary bonus (Plus Salarial) called Police Risk (Riesgo Policial), numeral 91 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), No. 7410 of May 26, 1994 (added by Article 3 of the Law for the Strengthening of the Civilian Police (Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Civilista), No. 8096 of March 15, 2001; and its numbering run by ordinal 1 of the Law for the Creation of the School and Childhood Police (Ley de Creación de la Policía Escolar y de la Niñez), No. 8449 of June 14, 2005, which moved it from the former 85 to the current 91), stipulates: “Create an incentive called police risk (riesgo policial), which consists of a salary bonus equivalent to eighteen percent of the base salary; it shall correspond to all officials who perform police functions (funciones policiales) that imply risk (riesgo) to their physical integrity, regardless of their location in the administrative structure (thus amended the previous paragraph in accordance with the partial annulment made by resolution of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) number 12017 of August 16, 2006). In the aforementioned vote, it is indicated: “The granting of this salary incentive must be based, in each specific case, on defining the reasons why the corresponding employee's functions fit within the defined assumption of dangerousness”. By means of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 29597 of June 5, 2001, the “Regulation for the Payment of Police Risk (Reglamento para el pago del riesgo policial)” was promulgated, whose numeral 1 states: “The salary bonus called 'Police Risk (Riesgo Policial)', is payable solely and exclusively to 'police officers (servidores policiales)', by virtue of the fulfillment of the 'police functions (funciones policiales)' that correspond to them by reason of the investiture, appointment, position and post they hold, as members of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), and that in the performance of functions some imminent risk (riesgo) to physical integrity is run, by reason of the dangerousness that the police function (función policial) may entail. By means of a reasoned resolution, it shall be reasoned in each specific case, what the circumstances of dangerousness consist of that imply some risk (riesgo) to the physical integrity of the officer, regardless of their location within the administrative structure of the Ministry, it also being necessary to verify compliance with the assumptions detailed in this regulation.” For its part, Article 2 cites: “'Police officer (servidor policial)' is understood to mean: The person appointed to a police position in one of the police forces whose competence is provided for by Law, to serve the State in the exercise of the police function (función policial), for which they are vested with public authority, in accordance with the Political Constitution and the Law. Therefore, for a person to be a police officer (servidor policial), the following conditions must concur: a) Investiture granted by the President of the Republic and the Minister of the branch by Executive Agreement (Acuerdo Ejecutivo). b) Constitutional swearing-in for the performance and exercise of the position of public authority. c) Appointment to a police position, in one of the Police Forces that make up the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), whose competence is constituted by Law.

The appointment must be in accordance with the Law, according to the requirements and procedures of recruitment, selection and appointment established in the legislation that regulates the service relationship and the police function (función policial). d) Performing police functions (funciones policiales) properly speaking.” Then, Article 3 of the same regulatory body establishes that: “'Police functions (funciones policiales)' are understood to mean, without prejudice to what is established in other normative provisions of higher rank, those that are included within the generic statements of: defense of national sovereignty, maintenance of public order, citizen surveillance and security. Therefore, the functions performed by an official invested with authority to guarantee: national security, the security of persons and property, the physical integrity and respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, the maintenance of order and public tranquility, the prevention and repression of crime, the execution of decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies, are implied; for which they have the investiture of public authority with powers to legitimately carry out: raids, seizures and arrests, in accordance with the Political Constitution and the Law.” In the same sense, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice in ruling number 4368-2003 at 3:28 p.m. on May 21, 2003, in relevant part, defined: “Article 12 of the Constitution provides, regarding the general function of the different police forces, that for the surveillance and preservation of public order there shall be the necessary police forces; this alludes to the main task of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), which is to maintain public order in general, and to ensure the safety of the inhabitants. This has also been affirmed by the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice, among many others, in judgments numbers 1588-91, 5882-93 and 884-98. Specifically, and on this point, it was stated: 'We can define the concept of public force (fuerza pública) as the set of security forces—and their agents—that, under the dependence of the Executive Branch, have the purpose of maintaining public order and ensuring the safety of the inhabitants with fundamentally preventive and occasionally repressive functions. By Constitutional provision—and surely for historical reasons since in them rested, as the only armed body, the power that the possession and use of weapons entails—the Constitution not only confers supreme command of it to the Executive Branch, but also, for obvious reasons of them being officials of absolute loyalty, it also establishes—as an attribution of the President and the respective Minister—to appoint and remove the members that make up said public force (fuerza pública) (...). On the other hand, with regard to the governing body of the police forces, constitutional article 140, in its subsections 1), 6) and 16) establishes that it corresponds to the President of the Republic and the respective Minister of Government to freely appoint and remove the members of the public force (fuerza pública), maintain the order and tranquility of the Nation, take the necessary measures for the protection of public liberties and dispose of the public force (fuerza pública) to preserve order, defense and security of the country; and subsection 3) of article 139 of the same instrument indicates that it corresponds exclusively to the person exercising the Presidency of the Republic to exercise the supreme command of the public force (fuerza pública) (resolutions of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), numbers 10134-1999 and 1049-2001). It is also of interest to refer to the concept of police function (función policial), which is extracted from the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), Article 6, which includes, within the Police forces, the following, which have public security in their charge: the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil), the Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural), the police in charge of the control of unauthorized drugs and related activities; the Border Police (Policía de Fronteras), the Immigration and Foreign Affairs Police (Policía de Migración y Extranjería), the Fiscal Control Police (Policía del Control Fiscal), the State Security Directorate (Dirección de Seguridad del Estado), the Traffic Police (Policía de Tránsito), the Penitentiary Police (Policía Penitenciaria) and the other police forces, whose competence is provided for by law. According to Article 2 of the same instrument, the members of the Police forces are public officials, obligated to observe and comply with the Political Constitution, international treaties and current laws; among their functions, according to numeral 4, are: to monitor, preserve public order, prevent manifestations of crime and cooperate to repress them in the manner determined in the legal system. In accordance with the foregoing, and also based on numerals 10, 44, 45, 47, 52, 59, 69 and 70 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), all members of all the police forces of the Executive Branch are constituted as recipients of all the imperatives that the Administrative Police must fulfill in a Republic, as well as of all the rights that correspond to them as public servants in the different administrative distributions...’” In the case under analysis, the judge of the instance concluded that the employee did not demonstrate that his job and the functions he performs warrant the payment for Police Risk (Riesgo Policial), (unproven fact). The appellant alleges that this decision is unjustified because the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575, is the one that in numeral 54, is granting him that right. In Article 54 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575 of February 13, 1996, it is stipulated: “The officials of the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) shall have the character of police authority, as such and in accordance with this law, they must report the infractions committed before the competent authorities. The police authorities shall be obligated to collaborate with the officials of the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado), whenever they require it to fully comply with the functions and duties that this law imposes on them. For the fulfillment of their powers, these officials, identified with their respective ID card, shall have the right to transit and carry out inspections on any rural or forestry industrial property, except in the dwelling houses located on it; as well as to seize the wood and other forestry products illegally harvested or industrialized and to sequester, as a guarantee of an eventual sanction, the equipment and machinery used in the illicit act. Also, they shall seize the means of transport that serves as an instrument or facilitator for the commission of the crime, after drawing up the respective report. All of the above must be placed at the order of the competent judicial authority, within a period not exceeding three days.” For its part, ordinal 9 of the National Parks Service Law (Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales), No. 6084 of August 24, 1977, states: “Whoever contravenes the provisions of article eight shall be immediately expelled from the National Park and placed at the order of the corresponding judicial authorities, by the employees of the National Parks Service (Servicio de Parques Nacionales), who for that purpose shall have the character of police authorities.” Finally, in canon 16 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre), No. 7317 of October 30, 1992, it is provided that: “For the faithful fulfillment of the obligations established in this law, wildlife inspectors, forestry inspectors, park rangers (guardaparques) and officials of SINAC duly accredited for these purposes and in the performance of their functions are empowered to detain, transit, enter and carry out inspections, within any farm and vessel, as well as in the industrial and commercial facilities involved, as well as to seize the organisms, parts, products and derivatives of wildlife, together with the equipment used in the commission of a crime or activity prohibited by this law. In the case of private domiciles, the permission of the competent judicial authority or the owner must be obtained.” Therefore, it is considered that it is not possible to equate the functions of people who serve as park rangers (guardaparques) with those of the people who make up the police forces, since the degree of dangerousness between the exercise of both positions is not the same (in the same sense, one can consult the votes of the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice numbers 1469, at 10:40 a.m. on August 7, and number 948, at 12:00 p.m. on May 29, both from 2020). As explained previously, the police forces must, as part of their duties, guarantee national security, not only of persons but also of property, ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of all citizens, maintaining public order and tranquility, preventing and repressing crime and executing the decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies. On the other hand, as was accredited, the professional tasks of the position held by the petitioner are the following: “Evaluation of processed logging permits, supervision and monitoring of forestry permits, evaluation and registration of forestry projects, supervision and monitoring of properties under the benefits of Articles 23 and 29 of the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), supervision and monitoring of projects subject to payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales), registration and characterization of springs (manantiales), request for pronouncement of the Water Directorate (Dirección de Aguas) on bodies of water, participation in water resource liaison meetings, determination of forest and protection of the AC, special operations, fixed posts, checkpoints, patrols, among others, supervision of forestry industries, analysis of the limits of the Puriscal regional sub-office, training in geographic information system to officials of the OSRP and follow-up reports on the budget plan and SEMEC prepared, among others. On this point, one can see the certificate Certification No. C-SINACSE-DGIRH-489-2019 from the Dept. of Human Management dated November 28, 2019, visible in images 58 to 60 of the electronic file ordered in ascending manner, in PDF, from the oldest to the most recent document, in the same way for the other references of this type. Source of documentary evidence assessed through the rules of sound criticism (sana crítica) and the correct understanding of persons, it corresponds to a public document, with information that links the plaintiff to the defendant institution, it has distinctive elements that allow reasonably appreciating that the information contained therein is truthful as it was issued by the official and department with the capacity to report on the plaintiff's service condition based on their record, it was incorporated into the case file through the legally established adversarial procedures, it was duly substantiated to the parties, it deserves full credibility from the person judging, it was not challenged or its content questioned.” (According to proven fact number 3.2 of the first instance judgment). In accordance with the foregoing, this Court of Appeals considers that the functions performed by the plaintiff do not fit within the legal and jurisprudential parameters necessary to be a creditor of the recognition of the incentive for police risk (riesgo policial). Finally, although there is no doubt that the petitioner is in danger like the police officers, that circumstance is not sufficient to conclude that they hold that investiture.

The appointment must be in accordance with the Law, according to the recruitment, selection, and appointment requirements and procedures established in the legislation governing the service relationship and the police function. d) Perform strictly police functions”. Subsequently, article 3 of the same normative body establishes that: “Police functions are understood to be, without prejudice to what is established in other higher-ranking normative provisions, those included within the generic terms of: defense of national sovereignty, maintenance of public order, surveillance, and citizen security. They therefore imply the functions performed by an official vested with authority to guarantee: national security, the security of persons and property, physical integrity and respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, the maintenance of public order and tranquility, the prevention and repression of crime, the execution of the decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies; for which purpose they are vested with public authority with powers to legitimately carry out: raids, seizures, and arrests, in accordance with the Political Constitution and the Law.” In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in pronouncement number 4368-2003 of 3:28 p.m. on May 21, 2003, defined, as relevant: “Article 12 of the Constitution provides, regarding the general function of the various police forces, that for the surveillance and conservation of public order there shall be the necessary police forces; this alludes to the main task of the Public Force, which is to maintain public order in general, and to ensure the security of the inhabitants. This has also been affirmed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, among many others, in judgments numbers 1588-91, 5882-93 and 884-98. Specifically, and on this point, it was stated: ‘We can define the concept of public force as the set of security bodies—and their agents—which, under the authority of the Executive Branch, have the purpose of maintaining public order and ensuring the security of the inhabitants, with fundamentally preventive and occasionally repressive functions. By Constitutional provision—and surely for historical reasons since, as the sole armed body, the power that the possession and use of weapons entails rested with them—the Constitution not only confers supreme command of it to the Executive Branch, but also, for obvious reasons of their being officials of absolute loyalty, establishes—as an attribution of the President and the respective Minister—the power to appoint and remove the members comprising said public force (…). On the other hand, regarding the governing body of the police forces, article 140 of the Constitution, in its subsections 1), 6) and 16), establishes that it corresponds to the President of the Republic and the respective Minister of Government to freely appoint and remove the members of the public force, maintain the order and tranquility of the Nation, take the necessary measures for the protection of public liberties, and dispose of the public force to preserve the order, defense, and security of the country; and subsection 3) of article 139 ibidem indicates that it corresponds exclusively to whoever exercises the Presidency of the Republic to exercise supreme command of the public force (resolutions of the Constitutional Chamber, numbers 10134-1999 and 1049-2001). It is also pertinent to refer to the concept of police function, which is extracted from the General Police Law, article 6, which includes, within the Police forces, the following, which have public security in their charge: the Civil Guard, the Rural Assistance Guard, the police in charge of controlling unauthorized drugs and related activities; the Border Police, the Immigration and Alien Affairs Police, the Fiscal Control Police, the State Security Directorate, the Traffic Police, the Penitentiary Police, and the other police forces whose competence is provided for by law. According to article 2 ibidem, the members of the Police forces are public officials, obliged to observe and comply with the Political Constitution, international treaties, and current laws; among their functions, according to numeral 4, are: to monitor, conserve public order, prevent manifestations of crime, and cooperate to repress them in the manner determined in the legal system. In accordance with the foregoing, and also based on numerals 10, 44, 45, 47, 52, 59, 69, and 70 of the General Police Law, all members of all police forces of the Executive Branch become recipients of all the imperatives that the Administrative Police must fulfill in a Republic, as well as of all the rights corresponding to them as public servants in the various administrative divisions...” In the case under analysis, the trial court concluded that the employee did not demonstrate that his job position and the functions he performs warrant the payment for Police Risk (duty for hazardous work, riesgo policial), (unproven fact). The appellant claims that this decision is unjustified because the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) No. 7575 is what, in numeral 54, is granting him that right. Article 54 of the Forestry Law, No. 7575 of February 13, 1996, stipulates: “The officials of the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) shall have the character of police authority; as such and in accordance with this law, they must report violations committed to the competent authorities. The police authorities shall be obliged to collaborate with the officials of the State Forest Administration, whenever they require it to fully comply with the functions and duties that this law imposes upon them. For the fulfillment of their powers, these officials, identified with their respective cards, shall have the right to transit and to conduct inspections on any rural or forest industrial estate, except in the dwelling houses located thereon; as well as to seize timber and other illegally exploited or industrialized forest products and to confiscate, as a guarantee of a potential sanction, the equipment and machinery used in the illicit act. They shall also seize the means of transport that serves as an instrument or facilitator for the commission of the crime, upon the prior drafting of the respective report. All of the foregoing must be placed at the disposal of the competent judicial authority, within a period not exceeding three days.” For its part, section 9 of the National Parks Service Law, No. 6084 of August 24, 1977, states: “Anyone who contravenes the provisions of article eight shall be immediately expelled from the National Park and placed at the disposal of the corresponding judicial authorities, by the employees of the National Parks Service, who for that purpose shall have the character of police authorities.” Lastly, canon 16 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, No. 7317 of October 30, 1992, provides that: “For the faithful fulfillment of the obligations established in this law, wildlife inspectors, forest inspectors, park rangers (guardaparques) and duly accredited officials of SINAC for those purposes and in the performance of their duties are empowered to detain, transit, enter and conduct inspections, within any property and vessel, as well as in the industrial and commercial facilities involved, and to seize organisms, parts, products and derivatives of wildlife, together with the equipment used in the commission of a crime or activity prohibited by this law. In the case of private domiciles, the permission of the competent judicial authority or the owner must be obtained.” Therefore, it is considered that it is not possible to equate the functions of persons who serve as park rangers (guardaparques) with those of persons who make up police forces, since the degree of danger between the exercise of both positions is not the same (in the same sense, consult rulings of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice numbers 1469, at 10:40 a.m. on August 7 and number 948, at 12:00 p.m. on May 29, both of 2020). As previously explained, police forces must, as part of their functions, guarantee national security, not only of persons but also of property, ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of all citizens, maintaining public order and tranquility, preventing and suppressing crime and executing the decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies. In contrast, as was accredited, the professional duties of the position held by the petitioner are the following: “Evaluation of processed logging permits, supervision and monitoring of forest permits, evaluation and registration of forest projects, supervision and monitoring of properties under the benefits of articles 23 and 29 of the Ley Forestal, supervision and monitoring of projects subject to payment of environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales), registration and characterization of springs (manantiales), request for pronouncement of water bodies from the Water Directorate, participation in water resource liaison meetings, determination of forest and protection of protected areas (AC), special operations, fixed posts, checkpoints, patrols, among others, supervision of forest industries, analysis of the boundaries of the Puriscal regional sub-office, training in geographic information system for OSRP officials and follow-up reports on the budget plan and elaborated SEMEC, among others. On this point, see Certification No. C-SINACSE- DGIRH-489-2019 of the Human Management Dept. of November 28, 2019, visible in images 58 to 60 of the electronic file ordered ascendingly, in PDF, from the oldest to the most recent document, in the same manner for other references of this type. Source of documentary evidence assessed through the rules of sound criticism and correct human understanding, it corresponds to a public document, with information linking the plaintiff to the defendant institution, it has distinctive elements that allow reasonably appreciating that the information contained therein is truthful, as it was issued by the official and department with the capacity to report on the plaintiff's service condition with view to their record, it was incorporated into the proceedings through the legally established adversarial procedures, they were duly substantiated to the parties, it merits full credibility to the undersigned judge, no proceeding was undertaken to detract from or question its content.” (According to proven fact number 3.2 of the lower court judgment). In accordance with the foregoing, this Appeals Tribunal considers that the functions performed by the plaintiff do not fit within the legal and jurisprudential parameters necessary to be entitled to recognition of the police risk (riesgo policial) incentive. Finally, although there is no doubt that the petitioner faces danger like police officers, that circumstance is not sufficient to conclude that he holds that status." Regarding the salary bonus known as Police Risk, number 91 of the General Police Law, No. 7410 of May 26, 1994 (added by Article 3 of the Civilian Police Strengthening Law, No. 8096 of March 15, 2001; and its numbering shifted by ordinal 1 of the School and Child Police Creation Law, No. 8449 of June 14, 2005, which moved it from the former 85 to the current 91), provides: "Create an incentive called police risk, which consists of a salary bonus equivalent to eighteen percent of the base salary; it shall correspond to all officials who perform police functions that imply risk to their physical integrity, regardless of their location in the administrative structure" (thus amended the preceding paragraph according to the partial annulment made by Constitutional Chamber resolution No. 12017 of August 16, 2006). In the aforementioned vote, it is stated: "The granting of this salary incentive must be based, in each specific case, on defining the reasons why the corresponding employee's functions fit within the defined dangerousness assumption." By means of Executive Decree No. 29597 of June 5, 2001, the "Regulations for the payment of police risk" were enacted, whose number 1 states: "The salary bonus called 'Police Risk' is payable solely and exclusively to 'police servants', by virtue of the fulfillment of the 'police functions' that correspond to them by reason of the investiture, appointment, post, and position they hold, as members of the Public Force, and in the performance of which some imminent risk is run to physical integrity, by reason of the dangerousness that the police function may entail. By means of a reasoned resolution, it shall be explained in each specific case what the circumstances of dangerousness consist of that imply some risk to the server's physical integrity, independently of their location within the administrative structure of the Ministry, and the fulfillment of the assumptions detailed in these regulations must also be verified." For its part, Article 2 cites: "A 'police server' is understood as: The person appointed to a police position in one of the police bodies whose competence is provided for by Law, to serve the State in the exercise of the police function, for which they are vested with public authority, in accordance with the Political Constitution and the Law. Consequently, for a person to be a police server, the following conditions must concur: a) Investiture granted by the President of the Republic and the relevant Minister by Executive Agreement. b) Constitutional swearing-in for the performance and exercise of the public authority position. c) Appointment to a police position in one of the Police Bodies that make up the Public Force, whose competence is constituted by Law. The appointment must be in accordance with the Law, according to the recruitment, selection, and appointment requirements and procedures established in the legislation that regulates the service relationship and the police function. d) Perform police functions proper." Then, Article 3 of the same regulatory body establishes that: " 'Police functions' are understood as, without prejudice to what is established in other higher-ranking regulatory provisions, those that are included within the generic statements of: defense of national sovereignty, maintenance of public order, surveillance and citizen security. Therefore, it involves the functions performed by an official vested with authority to guarantee: national security, the security of persons and property, the physical integrity and respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens, the maintenance of public order and tranquility, the prevention and repression of crime, and the execution of the decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies; for which they have the investiture of public authority with powers to legitimately carry out: raids, seizures, and arrests, in accordance with the Political Constitution and the Law." In the same vein, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling number 4368-2003 of 3:28 p.m. on May 21, 2003, as relevant, defined: "Article 12 of the Constitution provides, regarding the general function of the different police forces, that for the surveillance and conservation of public order there shall be the necessary police forces; this alludes to the main task of the Public Force, which is to maintain public order in general and ensure the security of the inhabitants. This has also been affirmed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, among many others, in judgments numbers 1588-91, 5882-93 and 884-98. Specifically, and on this point, it was said: 'We can define the concept of public force as the set of security bodies—and their agents—that, under the dependence of the Executive Branch, have the purpose of maintaining public order and ensuring the security of the inhabitants with fundamentally preventive and occasionally repressive functions. By Constitutional provision—and surely for historical reasons since in them rested, as the only armed body, the power that the possession and use of weapons entails—the Constitution not only confers supreme command of it to the Executive Branch, but, for obvious reasons of them being officials of absolute loyalty, also establishes—as an attribution of the President and the respective Minister—the power to appoint and remove the members that make up said public force (…). On the other hand, regarding the governing body of the police forces, Article 140 of the Constitution, in its subsections 1), 6) and 16), establishes that it corresponds to the President of the Republic and the respective Minister of Government to freely appoint and remove the members of the public force, maintain the order and tranquility of the Nation, take the necessary measures for the safeguarding of public liberties, and dispose of the public force to preserve the order, defense and security of the country; and subsection 3) of Article 139 idem indicates that it corresponds exclusively to whoever exercises the Presidency of the Republic to exercise supreme command of the public force (resolutions of the Constitutional Chamber, numbers 10134-1999 and 1049-2001).' " It is also pertinent to refer to the concept of the police function (función policial), which is drawn from the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), Article 6, which includes, within the Police forces, the following, which have public security under their charge: the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil), the Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural), the police in charge of controlling unauthorized drugs and related activities; the Border Police (Policía de Fronteras), the Immigration and Foreign Affairs Police (Policía de Migración y Extranjería), the Fiscal Control Police (Policía del Control Fiscal), the State Security Directorate (Dirección de Seguridad del Estado), the Traffic Police (Policía de Tránsito), the Penitentiary Police (Policía Penitenciaria), and the other police forces whose competence is provided for by law. According to Article 2 of the same law, the members of the Police forces are public officials, obliged to observe and comply with the Political Constitution, international treaties, and current laws; among their functions, according to number 4, are: to monitor, preserve public order, prevent manifestations of crime, and cooperate to repress them in the manner determined in the legal system. In accordance with the foregoing, and also based on numbers 10, 44, 45, 47, 52, 59, 69, and 70 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), all members of all police forces of the Executive Branch are the addressees of all the imperatives that the Administrative Police must fulfill in a Republic, as well as all the rights that correspond to them as public servants in the various administrative departments…” In the case under analysis, the trial judge concluded that the employee did not demonstrate that his job position and the functions he performs warrant the payment for Police Risk (Riesgo Policial), (unproven fact). The appellant alleges that this decision is unjustified because Forest Law No. 7575 (Ley Forestal N° 7575) is the one that, in number 54, is granting him that right. Article 54 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575 of February 13, 1996, stipulates: “The officials of the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) shall have the character of police authority (autoridad de policía), as such and in accordance with this law, they must report the infractions committed to the competent authorities. The police authorities shall be obliged to collaborate with the officials of the State Forest Administration (Administración Forestal del Estado) whenever they require it to fully comply with the functions and duties that this law imposes on them. For the fulfillment of their attributions, these officials, identified with their respective identification card, shall have the right to transit and carry out inspections on any rural property or forest industrial site, except in the dwelling houses located on it; as well as to confiscate the timber and other forest products illegally harvested or industrialized and to seize, as a guarantee of an eventual sanction, the equipment and machinery used in the illicit act. They shall also confiscate the means of transport that serves as an instrument or facilitator for the commission of the crime, after preparing the respective record. All of the foregoing must be placed at the order of the competent judicial authority within a period of no more than three days.” For its part, number 9 of the National Parks Service Law (Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales), No. 6084 of August 24, 1977, reads: “Whoever contravenes the provisions of Article eight shall be immediately expelled from the National Park and placed at the order of the corresponding judicial authorities, by the employees of the National Parks Service (Servicio de Parques Nacionales), who for this purpose shall have the character of police authorities (autoridades de policía).” Lastly, in canon 16 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre), No. 7317 of October 30, 1992, it is provided that: “For the faithful fulfillment of the obligations established in this law, wildlife inspectors, forest inspectors, park rangers (guardaparques), and duly accredited SINAC officials for these purposes, in the performance of their functions, are empowered to detain, transit, enter, and carry out inspections within any property and vessel, as well as in the industrial and commercial facilities involved, and to confiscate the organisms, parts, products, and derivatives of wildlife, together with the equipment used in the commission of a crime or activity prohibited by this law. In the case of private domiciles, permission must be obtained from the competent judicial authority or the owner.” Therefore, it is considered that it is not possible to equate the functions of persons who serve as park rangers (guardaparques) with those of the persons who make up the police forces, since the degree of dangerousness between the exercise of both positions is not the same (in the same sense, one may consult the rulings of the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) numbers 1469, of 10:40 hours on August 7, and number 948, of 12:00 hours on May 29, both of 2020). As explained previously, the police forces must, as part of their functions, guarantee national security, not only of persons but also of property, ensure respect for the rights and freedoms of all citizens, maintaining public order and tranquility, preventing and repressing crime, and executing the decisions of jurisdictional and administrative bodies. In contrast, as was established as accredited, the professional duties of the position held by the plaintiff are the following: "Evaluation of processed logging permits, supervision and monitoring of forest permits, evaluation and registration of forestry projects, supervision and monitoring of properties under the benefits of articles 23 and 29 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), supervision and monitoring of projects subject to payment for environmental services (pago de servicios ambientales), registration and characterization of springs, request for a pronouncement on bodies of water from the Water Directorate (Dirección de aguas), participate in water resource liaison meetings, determination of forest cover (bosque) and protection of conservation areas (AC), special operations, fixed posts, checkpoints, patrols, among others, supervision of forest industries, analysis of the limits of the Puriscal regional sub-office, training in geographic information systems for OSRP officials, and follow-up reports to the budget plan and elaborated SEMEC, among others. On this point, one can see the certificate Certification No. C-SINACSE-DGIRH-489-2019 from the Dept. of Human Management of November 28, 2019, visible in images 58 to 60 of the electronic file ordered in ascending order, in PDF, from the oldest document to the most recent, in the same manner for the other references of this type. Source of documentary evidence assessed by the rules of sound criticism and the correct understanding of persons; it corresponds to a public document, with information that links the plaintiff to the defendant institution, it has distinctive elements that allow one to reasonably appreciate that the information contained therein is truthful as it was issued by the official and department with the capacity to report on the service condition of the plaintiff in view of his record, it was incorporated into the proceedings through the legally established adversarial procedures, it was duly substantiated to the parties, it deserves full credibility to whoever judges, and no action was taken to nullify or question its content.” (According to proven fact number 3.2 of the trial judgment). In accordance with the foregoing, this Appeals Tribunal considers that the functions performed by the plaintiff do not fit within the legal and jurisprudential parameters necessary to be entitled to the recognition of the police risk (riesgo policía) incentive. Finally, although there is no doubt that the plaintiff runs danger like police officers, this circumstance is not sufficient to conclude that he holds that investiture.

"V. Análisis del caso concreto: En relación con los reproches de la parte accionante, y, una vez, que ha sido estudiado y discutido este asunto, es criterio de los integrantes de este Tribunal que, no lleva razón y no puede variarse lo que viene resuelto en primera instancia. En relación con el Plus Salarial denominado Riesgo Policial, el numeral 91 de la Ley General de Policía, n.º 7410 del 26 de mayo de 1994 (adicionado por el artículo 3 de la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Civilista, n.° 8096 del 15 de marzo de 2001; y corrida su numeración mediante el ordinal 1 de la Ley de Creación de la Policía Escolar y de la Niñez, n.° 8449 del 14 de junio de 2005, que lo trasladó del antiguo 85 al 91 actual), estatuye: “Créase un incentivo denominado riesgo policial, el cual consiste en un plus salarial equivalente a un dieciocho por ciento del salario base; corresponderá a todos los funcionarios que desarrollen funciones policiales que impliquen riesgo a su integridad física, independientemente de la ubicación en la estructura administrativa (así reformado el párrafo anterior de acuerdo con la anulación parcial hecha por resolución de la Sala Constitucional número 12017 del 16 de agosto de 2006). En el voto supracitado, se indica: “El otorgamiento de este incentivo salarial deberá fundamentarse, en cada caso concreto, definiendo las razones por las cuales las funciones del empleado correspondiente encuadran dentro del supuesto de peligrosidad definido”. Por medio del Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 29597 del 5 de junio de 2001 se promulgó el “Reglamento para el pago del riesgo policial” , cuyo numeral 1 reza: “El plus salarial denominado "Riesgo Policial", es pagadero única y exclusivamente a los "servidores policiales", en virtud del cumplimiento de las "funciones policiales" que les corresponde en razón de la investidura, nombramiento, puesto y cargo que ostentan, como miembros de la Fuerza Pública, y que en el desempeño de funciones se corra algún riesgo inminente para la integridad física , en razón de la peligrosidad que la función policial pueda significar. Mediante resolución fundada, se razonará en cada caso concreto, en qué consisten las circunstancias de peligrosidad que impliquen algún riesgo para la integridad física del servidor, independientemente de su ubicación dentro de la estructura administrativa del Ministerio, debiéndose constatar además, el cumplimiento de los supuestos que se detallan en el presente reglamento” . Por su parte, el artículo 2 cita: “Se entiende por "servidor policial": La persona nombrada en un puesto de plaza policial de alguno de los cuerpos policiales cuya competencia esté prevista por Ley, para servir al Estado en el ejercicio de la función policial, para lo cual es investido de autoridad pública, de conformidad con la Constitución Política y la Ley. Por consiguiente, para que una persona sea servidor policial, debe darse el concurso de las siguientes condiciones: a) Investidura otorgada por el Presidente de la República y el Ministro del ramo mediante Acuerdo Ejecutivo. b) Juramentación constitucional para el desempeño y ejercicio del cargo de autoridad pública. c) Nombramiento en puesto de plaza policial, en alguno de los Cuerpos Policiales que conforman la Fuerza Pública, cuya competencia esté constituida por Ley. El nombramiento debe estar conformado a Derecho, según los requisitos y procedimientos de reclutamiento, selección y nombramiento establecidos en la legislación que regula la relación de servicio y la función policial. d) Desempeñar funciones policiales propiamente dichas”. Luego, el artículo 3 del mismo cuerpo normativo establece que: “Se entiende por "funciones policiales", sin perjuicio de lo que se establezca en otras disposiciones normativas de rango superior, aquellas que se comprenden dentro de los enunciados genéricos de: defensa de la soberanía nacional, mantenimiento del orden público, vigilancia y seguridad ciudadana. Se implican entonces, las funciones que realiza un funcionario investido de autoridad para garantizar: la seguridad nacional, la seguridad de las personas y de los bienes, la integridad física y el respeto de los derechos y libertades de los ciudadanos, el mantenimiento del orden y la tranquilidad pública, la prevención y represión de la delincuencia, la ejecución de las decisiones de los órganos jurisdiccionales y administrativos; para lo cual cuenta con investidura de autoridad pública con atribuciones para realizar legítimamente: allanamientos, decomisos y detenciones, con arreglo en la Constitución Política y la Ley”. En igual sentido, la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en el pronunciamiento número 4368-2003 de las 15 horas y 28 minutos del 21 de mayo del 2003, en lo interesa, definió: “El artículo 12 de la Constitución dispone, en cuanto a la función general de las distintas fuerzas de policía, que para la vigilancia y conservación del orden público habrá las fuerzas de policía necesarias; con ello se alude a la principal tarea de la Fuerza Pública, cual es mantener el orden público en general, y velar por la seguridad de los habitantes. Así lo ha afirmado también la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, entre muchas otras, en sentencias números 1588-91, 5882-93 y 884-98. Concretamente, y sobre este punto, se dijo: "Podemos definir el concepto de fuerza pública como el conjunto de cuerpos de seguridad -y sus agentes- que bajo la dependencia del Poder Ejecutivo tienen como finalidad mantener el orden público y velar por la seguridad de los habitantes con funciones fundamentalmente preventivas y ocasionalmente represivas. Por disposición Constitucional -y seguramente por motivos históricos ya que en ellas descansaba como único cuerpo armado, el poder que apareja la tenencia y el uso de las armas- la Constitución no sólo confiere el mando supremo de ella al Poder Ejecutivo, sino que, por razones obvias de ser funcionarios de absoluta lealtad establece también -como atribución del Presidente y del respectivo Ministro- nombrar y remover a los miembros que componen dicha fuerza pública (…).Por otra parte, en lo que se refiere al órgano rector de las fuerzas de policía, el artículo 140 constitucional, en sus incisos 1), 6) y 16) establece que le corresponde al Presidente de la República y al respectivo Ministro de Gobierno nombrar y remover libremente a los miembros de la fuerza pública, mantener el orden y la tranquilidad de la Nación, tomar las providencias necesarias para el resguardo de las libertades públicas y disponer de la fuerza pública para preservar el orden, defensa y seguridad del país; y el inciso 3) del artículo 139 ídem señala que le corresponde, exclusivamente, a quien ejerce la Presidencia de la República, ejercer el mando supremo de la fuerza pública (resoluciones de la Sala Constitucional, números 10134-1999 y 1049-2001). Interesa también hacer referencia al concepto de función policial, el cual se extrae de la Ley General de Policía, artículo 6, que incluye, dentro de las fuerzas de Policía, a las siguientes, que tienen la seguridad pública a su cargo: la Guardia Civil, la Guardia de Asistencia Rural, la policía encargada del control de drogas no autorizadas y de actividades conexas; la Policía de Fronteras, la Policía de Migración y Extranjería, la Policía del Control Fiscal, la Dirección de Seguridad del Estado, la Policía de Tránsito, la Policía Penitenciaria y las demás fuerzas de policía, cuya competencia esté prevista en la ley. De acuerdo con el artículo 2 ídem, los miembros de las fuerzas de Policía son funcionarios públicos, obligados a observar y cumplir la Constitución Política, los tratados internacionales y las leyes vigentes; entre sus funciones, de acuerdo con el numeral 4, se encuentran: vigilar, conservar el orden público, prevenir las manifestaciones de delincuencia y cooperar para reprimirlas en la forma en que se determina en el ordenamiento jurídico. De acuerdo con lo anterior, y también con base en los numerales 10, 44, 45, 47, 52, 59, 69 y 70 de la Ley General de Policía, todos los miembros de todas las fuerzas de policía del Poder Ejecutivo se constituyen en destinatarios de todos los imperativos que debe cumplir la Policía Administrativa en una República, así como de todos los derechos que les corresponde como servidores públicos en los distintos repartos administrativos…” En el caso bajo análisis, la persona juzgadora de instancia concluyó que el servidor no demostró que su puesto de trabajo y las funciones que realiza ameriten el pago por Riesgo Policial, (hecho no probado). El recurrente alega que esa decisión es injustificada porque la Ley Forestal N° 7575, es la que en el numeral 54, le está otorgando ese derecho. En el artículo 54 de la Ley Forestal, N.° 7575 del 13 de febrero de 1996, se estipula: “Los funcionarios de la Administración Forestal del Estado tendrán carácter de autoridad de policía, como tales y de acuerdo con la presente ley, deberán denunciar ante las autoridades competentes las infracciones cometidas. Las autoridades de policía estarán obligadas a colaborar con los funcionarios de la Administración Forestal del Estado, cada vez que ellos lo requieran para cumplir, cabalmente, con las funciones y los deberes que esta ley les impone Para el cumplimiento de sus atribuciones, estos funcionarios, identificados con su respectivo carné, tendrán derecho a transitar y a practicar inspecciones en cualquier fundo rústico o industrial forestal, excepto en las casas de habitación ubicadas en él; así como decomisar la madera y los demás productos forestales aprovechados o industrializados ilícitamente y secuestrar, en garantía de una eventual sanción, el equipo y la maquinaria usados en el acto ilícito. También, decomisarán el medio de transporte que sirva como instrumento o facilitador para la comisión del delito, previo levantamiento del acta respectiva. Todo lo anterior deberá ponerse a la orden de la autoridad judicial competente, en un plazo no mayor de tres días” . Por su parte, el ordinal 9 de la Ley del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, N.° 6084 del 24 de agosto de 1977, reza: “Quien contraviniera lo dispuesto en el artículo ocho, será expulsado inmediatamente del Parque Nacional y puesto a la orden de las autoridades judiciales correspondientes, por los empleados del Servicio de Parques Nacionales, quienes para ese efecto tendrán el carácter de autoridades de policía” . Por último, en el canon 16 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre, N.° 7317 del 30 de octubre de 1992, se dispone que: “Para el fiel cumplimiento de las obligaciones establecidas en esta ley, los inspectores de vida silvestre, los inspectores forestales, los guardaparques y funcionarios del SINAC debidamente acreditados para esos fines y en el desempeño de sus funciones están facultados para detener, transitar, entrar y practicar inspecciones, dentro de cualquier finca y embarcación, lo mismo que en las instalaciones industriales y comerciales involucradas, así como para decomisar los organismos, las partes, los productos y los derivados de vida silvestre, junto con el equipo utilizado en la comisión de un delito o actividad prohibida por esta ley. En el caso de los domicilios privados se deberá contar con el permiso de la autoridad judicial competente o del propietario” . Por ello, se estima que no es posible equiparar las funciones de las personas que fungen como guardaparques con las de las personas que integran los cuerpos policiales, pues el grado de peligrosidad entre el ejercicio de ambos cargos no es el mismo (en igual sentido puede consultarse los votos de la Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia números 1469, de las 10:40 horas del 7 de agosto y el número 948, de las 12:00 horas del 29 de mayo, ambos del 2020). Como se explicó con anterioridad, los cuerpos policiales deben, como parte de sus funciones, garantizar la seguridad nacional, no solo de las personas sino también de los bienes, velar por el respeto de los derechos y libertades de todos los ciudadanos y de todas las ciudadanas, manteniendo el orden y la tranquilidad pública, previniendo y reprimiendo la delincuencia y ejecutando las decisiones de los órganos jurisdiccionales y administrativos. En cambio, según se tuvo por acreditado, las labores profesiones del puesto que desempeña el promovente son las siguientes: “ Evaluación de permisos de corta tramitados, supervisión y monitoreo de permisos forestales, evaluación e inscripción de proyectos forestales, supervisión y monitoreo de inmuebles bajo los beneficios de los artículos 23 y 29 de la Ley Forestal, supervisión y monitoreo a proyectos sometidos al pago de servicios ambientales, registro y caracterización de manantiales, solicitud de pronunciamiento de de cuerpos de aguas de la Dirección de aguas, participar en reuniones de enlace del recurso hídrico, determinación de bosque y protección de las AC, operativos especiales, puestos fijos, retenes, patrullajes, entre otros, supervisión a industrias forestales, análisis de los límites de la sub oficina regional de Puriscal, capacitación en sistema de información geográfica a funcionarios de la OSRP e informes de seguimiento al plan de presupuesto y SEMEC elaborados, entre otros. Sobre este punto, se puede ver la constancia Certificación No. C-SINACSE- DGIRH-489-2019 del Depto. de Gestión Humana del 28 de noviembre del 2019, visible en imágenes 58 a 60 del expediente electrónico ordenado de manera ascendente, en PDF, del escrito más antiguo al más reciente, de la misma forma para las demás referencias de este tipo. Fuente de prueba documental apreciada mediante las reglas de la sana crítica y el correcto entendimiento de las personas, corresponde documento público, con información que vincula al actor con la institución demandada, cuenta con elementos distintivos que permiten apreciar razonablemente, que la información en él contenida es veraz al ser extendida por la persona funcionaria y dependencia, con capacidad de informar sobre la condición de servicio del actor con vista en su prontuario, fue incorporado a los autos mediante los procedimientos de contradictorio legalmente establecidos, fueron debidamente sustanciados a las partes, merece plena credibilidad a quien juzga, no se gestionó desvirtuando o cuestionando su contenido". (Según el hecho probado número 3.2 de la sentencia de instancia). De acuerdo con lo anterior, este Tibunal de Apelaciones considera que las funciones desempeñadas por el accionante, no encajan dentro de los parámetros legales y jurisprudenciales necesarios para ser acreedor del reconocimiento del incentivo por riesgo policía. Finalmente, aunque no hay duda de que el promovente corre peligro como los y las policías, esa circunstancia no es suficiente para concluir que ostenta esa investidura."