Creation of Colorado canton violates population requirements and lacks positive CNDTA opinionCreación del cantón Colorado contraviene requisitos poblacionales y carece de dictamen positivo de la CNDTA

Res. No. 2024-013908 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at twelve hours and ten minutes on the twenty-first of May, two thousand twenty-four.

Optional legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by legislators ADA ACUÑA CASTRO, ELIÉCER FEINZANG MINTZ, GILBERTO CAMPOS CRUZ, JOHANA OBANDO BONILLA, JORGE ANTONIO ROJAS LÓPEZ, JORGE DENGO ROSABAL, KATTIA CAMBRONERO AGUILUZ, LUIS DIEGO VARGAS RODRÍGUEZ, MANUEL MORALES DÍAZ, PAOLA NÁJERA ABARCA, PILAR CISNEROS GALLO, and WALDO AGÜERO SANABRIA, regarding the bill for the “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” which is being processed under legislative file No. 22.643.

WHEREAS:

1.- At 3:10 p.m. on April 18, 2024, the legislators filed an optional consultation on constitutionality regarding the bill for the “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” which is being processed under legislative file No. 22.643.

Regarding the identification of the bill submitted for consultation The bill was presented on the initiative of—among others—deputies Mileydi Alvarado Arias, Dragos Dolanescu, and Franggi Nicolas. It seeks the creation of the XII canton of the province of Guanacaste, named Colorado, resulting from the segregation of the fourth district, Colorado, from the canton of Abangares.

Regarding the doubts of constitutionality in relation to the substance of the bill Articles challenged and defects indicated:

All 12 articles of the bill are challenged. The petitioners point to the following defects: 1) the alleged infringement of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, by seeking to create a canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, which is the provision in the Ley de División Territorial Administrativa (LDTA); 2) the possible violation of the democratic principle, by violating the procedure of an ongoing plebiscitary process; 3) the eventual violation of the principle of legality, because it transgresses the LDTA; and 4) the alleged violation of Article 168 of the Constitution, which requires compliance with the LDTA.

Relevant legal regulations Regarding this Law No. 4366, of August 19, 1969, they indicate the following:

Its Article 1 creates the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa (CNDTA), whose function is to advise the Public Powers (Legislative Assembly, Executive Branch, and municipalities) on matters of administrative territorial division. Said commission is composed of the Minister of Governance, the director of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), and the director of the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), who may be represented by officials from their respective entities.

Article 9 of Law No. 4366 refers to the number of inhabitants that the territory of the canton to be created must have. In this regard, said article states:

“Hereinafter, no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is not left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the stated population, in very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers, provided that the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial recommends it, after the relevant studies have been conducted.” Article 13 establishes that those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what is indicated in Article 9 and that the rest of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions.

They cite, in this regard, the decision of the Chamber in ruling No. 2002-05801.

Relevant pronouncements from institutions Regarding the position of the Concejo Municipal of Abangares, to which Colorado currently belongs The criterion of that council is that the current canton should be maintained, since its dismemberment would only benefit a small number of the population. Reference is made to the latest published index, as the approximate population of the district of Colorado is 4,000 inhabitants and it transgresses the requirement of 1% (one percent) of the country's population to form a canton, whereby the legislative procedure that has given continuity to the project transgresses the LDTA and, with it, the principle of legality. The foregoing, without considering, additionally, that the Concejo Municipal de Distrito of Colorado does not even have the necessary and urgent infrastructure to be a canton, it has deficient aqueduct and sewer services, and lacks the necessary institutional framework (banks, health, social services, among others).

In another line of thought, they report that on October 7, 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the inhabitants of the Canton of Abangares was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to define—in accordance with the democratic constitutional principle—whether or not the inhabitants agreed with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was in progress, with a second publication of the regulation dated October 24, 2022, so the present project under consultation would also be violating the democratic constitutional principle.

Regarding the criterion of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (TSE) In accordance with what is indicated in Article 97 of the Political Constitution and considering that the establishment of a new administrative unit directly affects the composition of the canton, the number of inhabitants of each district, and, consequently, the eventual integration of the municipal council and the district councils, it was considered that the TSE should be mandatorily consulted, as it has interpreted that electoral matters are the acts related to suffrage, which not only include those inherent to the casting of the vote, but all those described in the Constitution itself or in the electoral laws and that are directly or indirectly related to electoral processes, elections, or consultations whose origin, direction, and oversight have been entrusted to this Tribunal. In this regard, the TSE, in its report No. TSE-2629-2021 of November 4, 2021, determined that it did not agree with said project because it did not meet the population requirement, nor was it sufficiently remote from its administrative center, all in accordance with the provisions of the administrative territorial division legislation.

Regarding the criterion of the CNDTA The response of the technical body is that it recommends not creating a new canton, for not meeting the minimum population requirement. The population required to be a canton is 52,133 inhabitants, whereas the population of Costa Rica—according to the 2022 indicators—was 5,213,362 inhabitants, with the population of Colorado not even reaching 5,000 inhabitants.

Conclusion

They note a clear transgression of the rule and procedure established by the LDTA in Articles 9 and 13 and, therefore, of the principle of legality established in Article 11 and Article 168 of the Constitution, for failing to meet the population requirement at the time the bill was processed.

2.- By ruling issued at 3:04 p.m. on April 19, 2024, by the Presidency of the Chamber, the consultation on constitutionality was deemed received and the corresponding legislative file, or a certified copy thereof, was requested from the Directorio of the Legislative Assembly, through its President.

3.- By ruling of the Presidency of the Chamber at 2:32 p.m. on April 25, 2024, the certified copy of the requested legislative file was deemed received and was assigned to the office of Magistrate Garro Vargas, to whom it corresponds by rotation. Consequently, the deadline to resolve the consultation expires on May 25, 2024.

4.- In the substantiation of the process, the prescriptions of law have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate Garro Vargas; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- ON OPTIONAL CONSULTATIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALITY The prior advisory opinion on legislative bills can be requested on a mandatory basis—Article 96, subsection a) of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional (LJC)—or on an optional basis—subsections b), c), and ch) of the same rule. In this latter case, there are three scenarios: in the first, it is the parliamentary body itself that makes the request—when formally processed with the signature of at least ten legislators; in the second, it concerns the consultation of bills referring to the constitutional competence of the Supreme Court of Justice, the TSE, or the Contraloría General de la República, a consultation that must be presented by these same bodies; and, in the third, the consultation may be exercised by the Defensor de los Habitantes when it considers that fundamental rights or freedoms are being infringed.

Article 98 of the LJC prescribes that in the case of bills other than constitutional reforms, the legislative consultation must be filed after the bill has been approved in the first debate and before receiving final approval in the second debate. Finally, it should be noted that Article 99 of that law orders that optional consultations must be formulated in a reasoned brief, expressing the challenged aspects of the bill, as well as the reasons for which there are doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality.

II.- ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT OPTIONAL CONSULTATION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY The case under study is an optional legislative consultation on constitutionality. In accordance with Article 96 of the LJC, this type of consultation must be raised by at least ten legislators, once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, twelve deputies signed the consultation. Likewise, the bill being processed under legislative file No. 22.643 was approved in the first debate procedure by the Legislative Plenary in ordinary session No. 126 of February 19, 2024. Thus, the admissibility requirements indicated having been met, the Chamber proceeds to hear the consultation filed.

Regarding the procedure, it is important to note that in the case of optional legislative consultations on constitutionality—such as the one now being heard—and in accordance with the application and integration of the provisions in Articles 99 and 101 of the LJC, this Chamber has indicated that its review is limited solely to the concrete arguments raised by the consulting deputies in their filing brief, and not to others that could be derived but were not raised as such. In Advisory Opinion No. 2022-9345, this Chamber warned the following:

“Indeed, through ruling number 2001-11643—reiterated, among others, in rulings numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, and 2021-21204—the Chamber stated:

‘It must also be remembered that the same law provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber shall resolve the consultation by issuing an opinion "on the aspects and reasons consulted or on any others it considers relevant from the constitutional point of view," but the court interprets that "the aspects and reasons consulted" are those which, according to Article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or base the doubt that the legislators may have about it. Since, therefore, the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not admissible; if the court, nevertheless, were to admit and resolve it, it would place itself in a situation that is beyond the scope of its powers.’ This criterion was reiterated and consolidated by the Chamber's jurisprudence, by determining, in the aforementioned ruling number 2012-9253, that:

‘[T]his is so because "in the case of optional legislative consultations, 'the competence of the Constitutional Chamber originates from the doubts or objections of constitutionality formulated by the legislators'—ruling 2001-12459—, so that if such arguments do not exist as such, or when the consulting deputies themselves state they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the rules or projects consulted, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any criterion, as it would be dealing with scenarios that transcend the Chamber's competencies in matters of legislative consultations on constitutionality—ruling 2002-3460—.’” In this sense, it is necessary to indicate that this Chamber will address only the allegations raised in a timely manner by the petitioners and not other general issues of constitutionality of the bill in question, in accordance with the provisions of Article 99 of the law governing this jurisdiction, so any pronouncement on procedural and substantive defects not alleged in time by the consulting deputies is omitted” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In identical sense to the foregoing, this Chamber will rule exclusively on the doubts of constitutionality duly substantiated by the legislators promoting this consultative process.

III.- PRIOR DELIMITATION ON THE OBJECT OF THIS CONSULTATION In line with the above, and in relation to the specific case, it is necessary to emphasize that it is not for this Tribunal to make any consideration regarding the initial section of the optional consultation on constitutionality in which the legislators recount the timeliness and political convenience of what they term the “ultra-fragmentation” of the administrative territorial division of Costa Rica, present their vision of the State, and advocate for regionalization, which in their opinion would be more efficient in pursuit of a “decentralizing political process.” Indeed, it is not the concern of this Chamber to conduct a political assessment of such statements, even more so when they are not directed at attacking any specific aspect of the bill submitted for consultation. This Tribunal has insisted in its jurisprudence that it is not its role to calibrate aspects of timeliness and convenience of bills and, specifically, in Advisory Opinion No. 2021-000026 stated the following:

“The first point that must be clarified is that the Constitutional Chamber, in matters of optional consultations, in accordance with its reiterated jurisprudence, only rules on the issues consulted, not on the entirety of the bill, such that it cannot be interpreted that beyond that scope, there is a kind of endorsement of the bill consulted in that on which there is no pronouncement. Indeed, the Chamber does not rule on aspects of timeliness and convenience of bills, a matter reserved for the legislator, nor does it rule on extremums not consulted. Consequently, there may well be frictions with the Constitution in a given bill, on which no consultation was made and there is no pronouncement from this Tribunal through the prior consultation on constitutionality. Naturally, for those aspects, should they exist, the avenue of subsequent judicial review remains open, which is the action of unconstitutionality, to guarantee the supremacy of the Political Constitution. (in this sense, see rulings 2001-11643, 2001-12459, 2012-9253, 2019-9220, among others).” (The highlighting corresponds to the original).

It must also be remembered that the competence to create new cantons was granted by the constituent power to the Legislative Assembly—subject to certain rules derived from the Political Constitution itself and others self-imposed in ordinary legislation. For this very reason, this Chamber is not called upon to make any reflection on what the State model should be that, respectful of the constitutional design, proves most suitable or efficient. It is true that in repeated rulings, the Chamber has highlighted “the importance that the original constituent power has given to territorial integrity,” which is reflected in the very text of Article 168 of the Political Constitution (see rulings No. 1995-2009, No. 1998-7294, and No. 2002-5801). However, for the purposes of ruling on the exercise of this competence by the Legislative Assembly, the task of this Tribunal is limited to verifying compliance with the constitutional and legal requirements—the latter understood as a mandatory parameter self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly for such exercise—but not to conduct an assessment of the timeliness and convenience of the political decision it entails. Therefore, in ruling No. 2023-06227, it was warned that it is for the Legislative Assembly, by constitutional mandate, to decide on the best administrative territorial division of the country. Thus, it was stated that the Constitutional Chamber “has no competence whatsoever to rule on the convenience or timeliness of having created the district of Birrisito.” So, echoing its own precedents and, as relevant, the following considerations were made:

“Based on that rule, this Chamber has considered that the procedure for creating provinces and cantons is a matter of legal reserve; that is, the exclusive competence of the Legislative Assembly: a) regarding the creation of provinces, it is indicated that it must be processed through the same procedure for the partial reform of the Political Constitution, in addition to convening a provincial plebiscite (see in this regard Ruling No. 1994-4091 at 3:12 p.m. on August 9, 1994); and b) regarding the creation of cantons, the Political Constitution requires that the bill establishing a new canton must be approved by a qualified majority; namely, a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly (see Ruling No. 1995-2009 at 10:30 a.m. on April 21, 1995). (…)

• A)Territorial division in Costa Rica. This Tribunal has indicated, in Ruling No. 2002-005801 at 5:30 p.m. on June 12, 2002, that the Costa Rican State, despite being unitary, and although its territories do not enjoy true political autonomy with respect to the central power, is divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees, such as provinces, cantons, districts, towns, among others; a distribution that has been termed by law as the Administrative Territorial Division through a law of that name, No. 4366 of August 19, 1969. This Chamber, through Ruling No. 1994-4091 at 3:12 p.m. on August 9, 1994, established that:

"(…) From the political point of view, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division is proper to the Political Powers of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, since it is not the function of the Chamber to resolve on the convenience or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral or administrative planning purposes, etc....

(…) ...especially since in our case, the division of our geography into provinces, cantons, districts, neighborhoods, and hamlets, as long as Costa Rica remains the absolutely unitary State that it is, cannot have a political character but only an administrative one, without prejudice to the fact that, when it comes to determining territorial competence, as entities called to fulfill a generality of purposes and encompass a generality of people—the munícipes—they must be recognized certain original self-regulatory powers, although never in the sense of true political self-determination. There is, therefore, no problem of political self-determination at stake here, nor, consequently, of original competencies other than the administrative ones derived from the national legal order." From Ruling No. 1994-4091 cited, two important elements to take into account emerge: a) that for this Tribunal, it is the Legislative Assembly that, by constitutional mandate, must decide on the best administrative territorial division of the country; and b) that the division of the territory is administrative and, therefore, does not correspond to an original right of the communities to political self-determination (see in this sense Ruling No. 1995-2009 at 10:30 a.m. on April 21, 1995).

From the foregoing, it is clear that, in the present matter, the Chamber will not rule on the convenience or not of creating the district of Birrisito, given that, as has been stated in the past, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of the country is proper to the Political Powers of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, in the exercise of the powers derived from Articles 105 and 121, subsection 1), of the Political Constitution. (…)

VI.- Continuation. From the preceding items, several conclusions can be reached to demonstrate that the plaintiff is not correct regarding this extremum:

• a)First, as this Tribunal has already indicated, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of Costa Rica is proper to the Political Powers of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly. Article 168 of the Constitution is very clear in indicating that this Power may create provinces and cantons. And, according to the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible that the Legislative Assembly may create districts, since the delegation made in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said rule.
• b)It is not the function of the Chamber to resolve on the convenience or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral or administrative planning purposes, therefore, this Tribunal has no competence whatsoever to rule on the convenience or timeliness of having created the district of Birrisito. (…)” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In an identical sense, it is necessary to anticipate that this Chamber will not rule—in general terms—on the convenience or not of the creation of the canton of Colorado in the province of Guanacaste. And, as has been stated, no pronouncement will be made either on the initial reflections of the consulting legislators.

IV.- OBJECT OF THE CONSULTATION Having clarified the foregoing, it should be noted that the doubts of constitutionality regarding the bill for the “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” being processed under legislative file No. 22.643, can be grouped into two grievances that will be developed in independent sections.

First, the petitioners consider that the bill harms the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and legality, as well as Article 168 of the Political Constitution, since the legislative procedure for creating a new canton was initiated contrary to what is provided in the LDTA No. 4366, in the sense that “no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country” and, neither does it meet the exceptional condition of being “in very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers,” as also highlighted by the TSE. The legislators also cite the reports added to the legislative file rendered by the Concejo Municipal of Abangares and the CNDTA to conclude that in the specific case, there has been a failure to comply with the legal provisions that must be observed prior to the approval of the new canton. They state that it is unreasonable and disproportionate to establish a new canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, even more so by disregarding the disagreement of the affected municipality.

On a subsidiary basis, they indicate that the democratic constitutional principle is being harmed by violating the process of an “ongoing plebiscitary procedure” and by not heeding the objections of the Municipality of Abangares.

V.- THE PROCESSING OF FILE NUMBER 22.643 IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. The bill for the “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” being processed under legislative file No. 22.643, has followed the following iter:

1. The bill is an initiative of several legislators and was filed with the Secretariat of the Directorio of the Legislative Assembly on August 12, 2021 (see folios 01-20 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

2. The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly ordered the file to be assigned to the Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos for the corresponding report (folio 21 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

3. The bill was published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 169 of September 2, 2021 (see referral to the Imprenta Nacional at folio 22 and the cover of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

4. On September 14, 2021, a copy of agreement No. CMA-0171-2021 of the Concejo Municipal of Abangares was sent to the reporting committee, in which they communicate their opposition to bill No. 22643. This was subsequently reiterated by said council in response to the hearing granted (see folios 42-45 and 202-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

5. In ordinary session No. 18 of October 5, 2021, the Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos approved a motion for the bill to be consulted with the following institutions: Municipalidad de Abangares, Intendencia Municipal de Colorado, TSE, CNDTA, Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU), Oficina de Planificación of the Ministerio de Planificación Nacional, Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), INEC, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, and the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cabeceras de Cañas (see folios 54-66 of the copy of the legislative file where the approval of the motion is recorded, and folios 100-149, 151-173 idem, volume I).

6. Through official letter No. INT-0270-2021 of October 18, 2021, the Concejo Municipal del Distrito of Colorado sent to the Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos of the Legislative Assembly “the agreements expressing support for the project with file number 22.643” from the following institutions and community organizations: Junta de Salud de Colorado, Área de Salud de Colorado; Asociación Junta de Vecinos Higuerillas de Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Monte Potrero, Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de San Joaquín, Colorado; Asada de Monte Potrero, Colorado; ASADA ENCELOMAVI San Buenaventura, Colorado; Junta Administrativa del Liceo de Colorado; Junta de Educación de la Escuela de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Junta de Educación de la Escuela de San Joaquín, Colorado; Asociación de Pescadores y Turismo Rural de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Asociación Comité Local de Pescadores de Colorado; Comité de la Iglesia Católica de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Federación de Concejos Municipales de Distritos de Costa Rica; Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Tucurrique; Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Lepanto; Municipalidad de Talamanca; Municipalidad de Los Chiles; and Municipalidad de Garabito (see folios 67-86 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

7. Through official letter No. PE-AL-276-2021 of October 29, 2021, the institutional criterion of the INVU was submitted to the Legislative Assembly (see folios 149-150 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

8. Through official letter No. TSE-2629-2021 of November 4, 2021, the presiding magistrate of the TSE submitted his considerations regarding the bill (see folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

9. In official letter No. DGL-0673-2021 of November 9, 2021, the Registro Nacional presented its institutional criterion regarding the bill and provided the criterion of the IGN to readjust Article 3 of the bill and, thus, redefine the cantonal boundaries (see folios 185-187 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

10.

By official letter no. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of November 9, 2021, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy issued technical observations and recommendations regarding the approval of the bill (see folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

11. On November 11, 2021, the District Municipal Council of Colorado submitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs a series of agreements expressing support for the bill, originating from the district municipal councils of Cervantes and Cóbano, as well as from the municipalities of Nicoya, Siquirres, Atenas, Guatuso, San Pablo de Heredia, Tibás, Santa Ana, Quepos, and Garabito (folios 87-99 and 197-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

12. Through official letter no. DIG-TOT-0785-2021 of December 10, 2021, the agreement signed by the National Nomenclature Commission of the IGN of the National Registry was added to the legislative file, in which it was decided to approve the name “Colorado” for the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste and requested more time to examine Art. 4 of the bill (see folios 204-206 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

13. Through official letter no. MGP-CTDT-006-2021 of December 13, 2021, the agreement adopted by the Technical Committee on Territorial Administrative Division at ordinary session no. 04-2021 held on November 11, 2021, was attached to the file, through which it concluded that: “the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After analyzing the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception of the article in question” (see folios 213-214 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

14. On February 2, 2022, the District Municipal Council of Colorado provided a copy of Agreement no. CMDC-0035-2022, in which they spoke out against the statements made by the authorities of the Municipality of Abangares (see folios 234-240 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

15. At ordinary session no. 48 of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs on April 5, 2022, a substitute text motion was approved, and a favorable ruling was issued unanimously by the legislators present at the session (see folios 252-263 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I and folios 293-303 of volume II).

16. Through official letter DIG-TOT-0251-2022 of April 6, 2022, the coordinator of the National Nomenclature Commission of the National Registry attached to the legislative file the agreement reached by the Commission at ordinary session no. 003-2022 held on March 31, 2022, in which it was agreed to approve the names of the towns of El Crucero, Enramadas, Los Pajarillos, El Platanar, and El Coyol, and not to approve the names of La Palma, Lajas, San Antonio, and Santa Lucía (see folios 264-266 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

17. On April 22, 2022, the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs submitted to the Secretariat of the Directorate the affirmative majority opinion corresponding to legislative file no. 22.643 (see folios 267-291 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

18. Through official letter no. AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 of June 23, 2022, the acting director of the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly submitted the legal report on this bill (see folios 303-400 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

19. At extraordinary session no. 71 of the Legislative Plenary on September 26, 2022, a motion of order was presented and approved to consider file 22.643. Subsequently, the substantive discussion in the first debate process began, a substantive motion was presented, and the file was referred to the reporting committee (see folios 409-419 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

20. On October 11, 2022, the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs submitted to the Secretariat of the Directorate the first report on motions via Art. 137 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly (RAL) (folios 420-447 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

21. At ordinary session no. 88 of October 27, 2022, the discussion in the first debate continued, and upon the presentation of a substantive motion, referral to the reporting committee was ordered (see folios 448-463 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

22. On February 16, 2023, the Committee submitted the second report on motions (see folios 464-482 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

23. At ordinary session no. 126 of February 19, 2024, the Legislative Plenary considered the second report on motions and, as there were no motions for reiteration, the bill was considered and approved in the first debate. The foregoing, with the affirmative vote of 37 legislators (see folios 491-510 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

VI.- ON THE STATEMENT OF MOTIVES FOR THE BILL.

As can be inferred from the analysis of the bill, it was submitted to the Secretariat of the Directorate on August 12, 2021, and the initiative was signed by the following legislators: Mileidy Alvarado Arias, Franggi Nicolás Solano, Dragos Dolanescu Valenciano, Pablo Heriberto Abarca Mora, José María Villalta Flórez-Estrada, Jorge Luis Fonseca Fonseca, Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith, Ivonne Acuña Cabrera, Melvin Ángel Núñez Piña, Carmen Irene Chan Mora, María Inés Solís Quirós, Laura Guido Pérez, Nidia Lorena Céspedes Cisneros, María Vita Monge Granados, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, Wálter Muñoz Céspedes, Xiomara Priscilla Rodríguez Hernández, Otto Roberto Vargas Víquez, Sylvia Patricia Villegas Álvarez, Welmer Ramos González, Marolin Raquel Azofeifa Trejos, and Carlos Luis Avendaño Calvo.

In the statement of motives for the bill, the considerations for which the creation of the canton of Colorado is promoted, independent of the canton of Abangares, are recorded. In this regard, the following was stated:

“According to historical data, the town of Colorado has existed since before 1894. Traditionally, this town has been dedicated to agricultural activities, livestock, fishing, limestone extraction, and salt production. This latter activity has been declining in recent years, giving way to aquaculture shrimp farming.

Colorado has existed as a district since June 4, 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was established under Law No. 13, as Canton VII of Guanacaste, designating four districts, namely, Las Juntas (head town), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district Colorado. It is important to highlight that the residents of Colorado supported the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Administratively, Colorado obtained a certain degree of autonomy in relation to its parent canton with the creation of the District Municipal Council, which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23 of April 22, 1970, published in La Gaceta of April 24 of that same year. It should be noted that the creation of the District Municipal Council of Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Municipal Council of Abangares.

From then until today, the district's affairs have been administered by community representatives, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to adequately meet the needs of the inhabitants.

This way of addressing needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop absolute independence from the rest of the canton of Abangares, with which there has existed only a strictly formal sense of belonging. Furthermore, the cultural, economic, and above all sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the sociocultural configuration characteristic of the Guanacaste peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows deep traits of national and foreign immigration, coming mainly to exploit mining activity.

Regarding resource management, the District Municipal Council of Colorado began in 1971 with a budget that amounted to one hundred twenty-one thousand sixty-seven colones (¢121,067.00). For the year 2019, the budget submitted for approval was set at one billion one hundred forty-seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand five hundred thirty-nine colones and eighteen céntimos (¢1,147,289,539.18).

This demonstrates that, during the last forty years, the inhabitants of the district of Colorado have developed within their own reality and have generated the necessary economic contributions for the creation of the infrastructure to achieve the well-being of the residents.

The last three decades of development in the district of Colorado have been impacted by the establishment of two important national industries, Cemex and Coonaprosal R.L.

In 1973, Cementos del Pacífico (CEMPASA), currently CEMEX, was founded, a company that took seven years to begin operations and is currently an important source of employment and wealth in the zone.

April 27, 1974, is a memorable date for the development of the district of Colorado, given that 48 salt producers from the Colorado and Jicaral area founded the Cooperativa Nacional de Productores de Sal R.L. (COONAPROSAL, R.L.), registered and approved on November 15, 1974, by the Ministry of Labor.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE:

By 1985, 90% of the district had electricity, and in 1987, the first manual telephone exchange was installed. The aqueduct was under the charge of the District Municipal Council until May 1993, the year in which it was transferred to Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA).

After many years of constant struggle, it managed to obtain its own high school in 1995, established under the model high school modality, which has led to greater study opportunities for young people.

TERRITORIAL EXTENSION:

Colorado has a territorial extension of 195.77 Km2, distributed among thirteen hamlets: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Santa Lucía, El Coyol, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, La Palma, Cementos del Pacífico, Enramadas, and the head town which is in Colorado.

(…)

Local roads and distances. Length of roads and their importance in socioeconomic development. Regarding the type of road surface, the most prevalent are roads made of granular material (ballast), which extend for a total of 70.68 km, these being the main internal connectivity routes of the district, since most of them are used for the transit of products linked to livestock and agricultural activities; other notable roads are the dirt ones with 32.96 km, which serve an accessibility function for farms.

The main town of Colorado is at a distance of 27 kilometers or more from the cities or head towns of the nearest cantons, including the head town of the canton to which they belong.

Colorado is located 17 km from the La Amistad bridge, 30 km from Las Juntas (canton head town), 47 km from Cañas, and 58 km from Nicoya. Much of the road infrastructure is paved, with some stretches in fair condition.

As for local roads, the district of Colorado has ballasted internal roads in good condition that allow communication through nine communities: San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Concepción, Pueblo Nuevo, San Joaquín, Raizal, Higuerilla, La Palma, Barbudal, Santa Lucía, and Enramadas.

SERVICES:

The district of Colorado has the following public services and infrastructure:

- A medical clinic of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, providing service 8 daytime hours and with a current budget of ¢1,237,000,000.00.

- A Cruz Roja post, providing twenty-four-hour service, with three ambulances.

- Nine primary schools, one per community, namely: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, Cementos del Pacífico (which is a private education service), and Colorado.

- Two high schools, located in the center of Colorado (Liceo de Colorado with a specialization in Aula Bilingüe and Programa Vocacional del Plan Nacional). A high school for adult education CINDEA with a specialization in Technical careers and Educational Satellites in La Palma, Colorado, and San Buenaventura).

- Two kindergartens (CEN CINAI): one in Colorado and one in San Buenaventura.

- A delegation of the Guardia de Asistencia Rural, located in Colorado.

- A municipal building (District Municipal Council), located in Colorado.

- An automatic telephone exchange.

- Six Catholic churches, one per community (except in Raizal, Cempasa, and Peñas Blancas), five non-Catholic churches: one in Colorado, Concepción, Santa Lucía, San Joaquín, and one in Peñas Blancas.

- Six community halls, one per community, except in Raizal, Peñas Blancas, and Cempasa.

- Seven soccer fields, one per community.

- Four basketball courts, located in Cempasa, Pueblo Nuevo, San Buenaventura, and Colorado.

- Two cemeteries: one in Colorado and one in San Buenaventura.

- Garbage collection service by the Municipal Council in the communities of Santa Lucía, San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Pueblo Nuevo, Concepción, Enrramadas, San Joaquín, La Palma, Raizal, and Colorado Centro which is a Dirección Tres, which has the educational services of Special Support: Learning Problems, Emotional Problems and Conduct, Speech Therapy, Educational Support, Plastic Arts, Musical Arts, Languages among others the rest of the communities manage their own waste (sic).

- The community of Colorado centro has restaurants, grocery stores (pulperías), supermarkets, mini super, bookstores, bazaars, butcher shops, bars, hardware stores, etc.

LOCAL ORGANIZATION:

Locally, Colorado is a town that has the following community organization:

· Solidarity associations: two · Fishermen's associations: two · Sports committees: one · Committees for community defense: one · Cooperatives: five · ASOMIPE: one · Church committees: six · Parish Economic Council: one · ASADAS committees: five · Student government: Ten · Neighborhood boards: two It is worth noting that in 1995, the Cantonization Project of Colorado had been submitted to the Legislative Assembly under file number 11728, with a start date of June 27, 1993, published in the newspaper La Gaceta No. 134 dated July 15, 1993. The proponent of the project was the Abangareño Deputy Alfredo Cruz Álvarez of the Partido Unidad Social Cristiana, representative of the Province of Guanacaste. There is also a Legal Report from technical services to said file; it was approved in the first debate at plenary session No. 146 of February 28, 1995, in the extraordinary period first legislature, from May 1, 1994, to April 30, 1994.

Considering that due to the characteristics that the district of Colorado possesses, despite not complying with what is indicated in Law No. 4366, in Article 9 “with the percentage of necessary inhabitants…”, the district of Colorado currently has 5018 inhabitants, according to INEC sources (2018), if we verify data according to the population of some existing cantons in the country, we can mention that many of them do not meet that requirement and were created as cantons. Furthermore, if we compare the budgets, we can also observe a similarity.

Colorado meets the conditions shown in terms of remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administering municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which leads us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Territorial Administrative Division to be chosen as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though it is currently part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an administration independent from that one has allowed for a fairly healthy administrative and budgetary structure, this by reason of not having applied the collective bargaining agreement (convención colectiva) that covers the officials of the municipality, nor have we generated benefits for district officials based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the great differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the District Municipal Council of Colorado.

The District of Colorado has been developing significant public works; we can cite the purchase of a 10,000-square-meter plot of land for the construction of the Colorado Clinic, which is in the process of being transferred to the CCSS so that it can allocate the budgetary content for its proper construction.

A 340-square-meter building was recently built that can serve as a cantonal delegation of the Fuerza Pública, with an investment of 130 million colones.

A project of almost one billion colones was incorporated into the INDER to improve the Conchal dike, which will impact the economy of the district and the island of Chira, as it will allow improving existing economic activities (fishing and extraction of mollusks) and creating new economic activities such as rural tourism in the Gulf of Nicoya.

A Technical Training Center will be built in the center of Colorado, directed by the INA on a property of the Municipal Council of Colorado of 9 hectares, acquired in 2008 for almost 100 million colones; the infrastructure will be 2,500 square meters of construction, costing 2 billion colones. All these investments are made with tax resources collected by the District Municipal Council of Colorado through Law 5420, the 1% tax on exports of Cement produced at the Colorado Plant. This technical modality educational center will attract many students from all over the province of Guanacaste and part of the province of Puntarenas. It should be highlighted that a percentage of Law 5420 is invested in educational infrastructure in all the educational centers of the district, with an approximate annual budget of 30 million colones for said centers, in addition to economic contributions for school cafeterias and the CEN CINAI of the district, plus the transfers of resources from the real estate tax law to the schools of an approximate annual amount of 10 million colones. This makes us an institution different from many.

Being the canton of Colorado, it will directly receive the resources coming from LEY 9156 Ley Reguladora de los Derechos de Salida del Territorio Nacional, of July 25, 2013, which to date this district has not received anything from the Municipality of Abangares, which should also allocate a percentage for the construction and development of tourist infrastructure in our communities that are so potentially touristic and for the recovery of the district's cultural heritage.

Furthermore, it should be noted that with the reform of Ley 8114 and Ley 9329 Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias: Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal of November 17, 2015, starting in 2016 the District Municipal Council of Colorado administers and disposes of the resources from this law for the attention of the road network of the district of Colorado. An approximate annual sum of 350 million colones is received. Once converted into a canton, the same income would be received because the existing road network would not vary; the only difference is that the deposit would be made by the Ministry of Finance directly to the accounts of the new canton.

Currently, the Municipal Council of Colorado has sufficient income for its self-financing (…)

We can observe that the district of Colorado has a budget that has been growing, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused some weakness in planning and, therefore, in the execution of budgets, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality for budget modifications and extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to carry out so that the CMD can incorporate the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that come to improve services to citizens is necessary, such as health, public transportation, financial institutions, and public institution offices essential for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve territorial planning (ordenamiento territorial) and we would have greater development.

Being the canton of Colorado, greater economic resources will enter directly to invest in the territory, such as other national taxes that the Municipalities receive.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

VII.- A FIRST APPROACH TO THE SPECIFIC CASE The consulting legislators question whether the processing of the bill complied with the provisions of Art. 9 of the LDTA, No. 4366, which states the following:

“Art. 9.- Henceforth, no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the stated population, in very remote places of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division so recommends after prior studies of the case.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

That is, they consider the bill to be unreasonable because the population percentage of the first paragraph is not met and, by ignoring that requirement, the principle of legality is violated.

However, they omitted to point out that in the statement of motives it was expressly recorded that the bill initiative is not based on the provisions of Art. 9 of the referenced law regarding population data. In fact, it is recognized that the district of Colorado does not meet “with the percentage of necessary inhabitants.” Thus, the bill is motivated by invoking the exceptional possibility provided for in that same Art. 9 (second paragraph), which must be applied together with what is indicated in Art. 15 of the law, which says the following:

“Art. 15.- Even though the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission on Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division. (…)”.

In this regard, the following arguments were raised in the statement of motives for the bill accepted for processing by the legislators:

“Colorado meets the conditions shown in terms of remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administering municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which leads us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Territorial Administrative Division to be chosen as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste”.

Consequently, this consultation does not focus on verifying whether or not the bill meets the requirement established in the law regarding the population percentage, since it was recognized beforehand in the initiative itself that these were not met, but rather on reviewing whether the legislators adhered to the conditions to except that requirement, provided for in the legislation that regulates the creation of new cantons (Arts. 9, second paragraph, and 15 of the LDTA).

To reach a duly supported conclusion, this Chamber will review the technical criteria contained in the legislative file, the provisions that regulate the creation of cantonates, and the precedents of this Chamber and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. Finally, an analysis will be made of the most relevant regulations for the specific case that is submitted for consultation.

VIII.- ON THE CRITERIA PROVIDED TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS When referring to the legislative iter, this Chamber verified that several institutional criteria were provided to the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly, which are detailed below.

Through official letter PE-AL-276-2021 of October 29, 2021, the institutional criterion of the INVU was submitted to the Legislative Assembly, from which the following conclusions are drawn:

“The foundational basis of the project indicates that the district of Colorado has a population of 5,091 inhabitants, an amount that does not meet the requirement established in Article 9 of Law No. 4366 Law on Territorial Administrative Division, which would be true, and the exception regarding population that the same article establishes is based on very remote places of difficult communication with their administrative centers, aspects that are currently not met, since the road infrastructure is in good condition and there is bus service to different places, including Las Juntas de Abangares.

(…)

It is clear that the creation of the canton, districts, and the incorporation of towns seeks a better administrative and budgetary organization, and the district of Colorado can undertake the transformation; however, the bill must be adjusted to the principle of legality, as well as the decision made by the Legislative Assembly.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

As can be seen, the authorities of the INVU pointed out that, for the purposes of approving the new canton, the population requirements are not met, nor is the exception regarding distance met.

Regarding specifically this aspect, the TSE opposed the bill, in the following terms:

“The promoting legislators in the statement of motives point out that the creation of the new constituency fails to comply with the legal requirement of having at least 1% of the country's population (page 7 of the bill), a requirement that, as indicated, can be bypassed because other cantons have fewer than that number of inhabitants and because, as detailed, the area is far from the head town of the canton to which it currently belongs; it is also indicated that the possession of goods and services (sic) of a considerable community organization and sufficient economic resources justify that the law can be approved without the cited minimum population.

Those reasonings, although they are fully understandable, do not have sufficient weight to disregard that there is a law in force that requires accrediting a minimum population, a rule that, if not observed, would lead to an affectation of the principle of singular non-derogability of norms (…) Consequently, by affirming in the bill that the canton intended to be created does not meet one of the requirements for it and that there is no evidence that the procedure provided to except that obligation has been followed (there is no record of a favorable opinion from the National Commission on Territorial Division), it is evident that the initiative has a defect that must be corrected”. (The emphasis does not correspond to the original. See folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

Furthermore, through official letter No. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of November 9, 2021, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy recorded some technical observations, such as the following:

“The initiative is justified on grounds such as the remoteness of the district, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administration of municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence. It is also important to mention that the statement of motives indicates that the residents of Colorado gave their support to the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Since then and to date, the district’s affairs have been administered by community representatives, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to adequately satisfy the needs of the inhabitants. This way of attending to needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop absolute independence with respect to the rest of the canton of Abangares, whereby there has existed only a strictly formal sense of belonging. Moreover, the cultural, economic, and especially sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the sociocultural configuration characteristic of the Guanacastecan peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows traits of immigration of nationals and foreigners, coming mainly to exploit mining activity.” (See folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

The legislative file records that a formal hearing was provided to the President of the CDTA (see folio 102 of the copy of the legislative file); however, its technical body, namely, the Technical Committee of the Administrative Territorial Division (see Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41236-MGP of June 15, 2018), rendered a report. Said body adopted agreement No. 001-04-2021, in which it concluded the following:

“In response to the consultation on the bill, based on its analysis, the following recommendations will be made: first, the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Ley 4366. After analysis of the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception in the aforementioned article. It is further recommended that the situation be analyzed that Colorado de Abangares already has a District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) that administers the territory. Should the bill advance, it is requested that the limits already stipulated by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), which are the official ones, be respected.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original. See folio 214 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

It is observed that the opinion of the Committee was negative, since, according to its technical analysis, the site does not meet the conditions set forth in Art. 9 of the law, and it indicated that the territory does not qualify for the exception provided in that same rule regarding the distance from the administrative center.

Once the corresponding hearings were granted, the legislative file was favorably reported by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly, and in the justification, the ideas gathered in the bill's statement of motives regarding the application of the exception were recorded and taken up again:

“Colorado has existed as a district since June 4, 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was established under Law No. 13, as Canton VII of Guanacaste, designating four districts, namely, Las Juntas (head town), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district, Colorado. It is important to highlight that the residents of Colorado gave their support to the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Administratively, Colorado obtained a certain degree of autonomy, in relation to its parent canton, with the creation of the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal del distrito), which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23 of April 22, 1970, published in La Gaceta of April 24 of that same year. It is worth noting that the creation of the District Municipal Council of Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Municipal Council of Abangares.

Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding its remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administration of municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence. These factors lead us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton via the exception route, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division (Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa), to be elected as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though we currently form part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an administration independent of that one has allowed for quite sound administrative and budgetary structures, because we have not applied the collective bargaining agreement that covers the employees of the municipality, nor have we generated benefits for district employees based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the great differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the District Municipal Council of Colorado.

We can observe that the district of Colorado has a budget that has been growing, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused a certain weakness in planning and, therefore, in budget execution, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality for budget modifications and extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to make so that the CMD can incorporate the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that will improve services for citizens is necessary, such as health, public transportation, financial institutions, and offices of public institutions indispensable for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) and we would have greater development.

Colorado being a canton would mean greater economic resources would arrive directly to invest in the territory, such as other national taxes received by the Municipalities.” Furthermore, in the report rendered to the Plenary, the most relevant excerpts from the hearings received were detailed, and finally, the following was concluded:

“Once the opinions were received, the drafting adjustments suggested by the different institutions were made, which were presented in a Substitute Text Motion that was approved. Additionally, we wish to emphasize that the bill in question does not intend to make territorial modifications during presidential or municipal elections.

Regarding the opposition of the Municipality of Abangares, the District Intendancy (Intendencia) made a defense and expansion on the alleged situations indicated by the aforementioned municipality. In this sense, the management and administration of the Intendancy are made transparent.

The proposed canton has budgetary autonomy, as widely defined and clarified by the Contraloría General de la República, in its official letter PGR-C-245-2021 (…)

Thus, the assertions put forward to the contrary on this matter are unfounded and outside any scope of legality.

A District Intendancy that is not under any collective bargaining agreement, recognizing only the seniority bonuses established by law, and that has managed its resources efficiently. It even generated from its office the respective inquiries to the oversight bodies regarding taxes and remuneration.

On the other hand, it is necessary to state that the District Intendancy of Colorado presented statistics and hard data to support its arguments, whereas the municipal opinion lacks elements that allow its statements to be corroborated.

This population has the right to aspire to its canton status, as the communities of Monteverde and Río Cuarto recently did.

RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the foregoing, taking into account the response received and for reasons of opportunity and convenience, the deputies, both female and male, who are members of this Committee, render this AFFIRMATIVE MAJORITY REPORT on the bill entitled “CREATION OF CANTÓN COLORADO, TWELFTH CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF GUANACASTE”, processed under file No. 22.643, and we recommend to the Legislative Plenary its approval” (The underlining does not correspond to the original).

It is clear that the reporting committee based its decision on aspects of opportunity and convenience, ignoring – in this Chamber’s judgment – that it was not solely a matter of weighing these elements, but that it was necessary to demonstrate that the legal requirements expressly set for itself by the Legislative Assembly for the decision to create a new canton were met.

Finally, and with regard to the consultation raised in the specific case, it is pertinent to cite what was suggested by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 of June 23, 2022 – issued after the committee report – in which the following warnings were made:

“By virtue of the foregoing considerations, this advisory office draws attention to what was indicated by the Technical Committee of Administrative Territorial Division, through agreement 001-04-2021, which was made known to the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs through official letter MGP-CTDT-006-2021, of December 13, 2021; which among other aspects indicates that: ‘(…) the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Ley 4366. After the analysis of distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception in the aforementioned article.’ (the highlighting is not from the original).

The Technical Committee is a body attached to the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division, which has been entrusted with studying and proposing solutions aimed at achieving a systematic improvement of the country's territorial administration, and it acts as a technical body of the Commission, but it is not the Commission itself.

It is worth warning that although the National Commission of Territorial Division was consulted by the Committee on Legal Affairs (see folio 102 of the file) as required by Ley 4366, no response referring to this bill is on file; rather, what is only recorded is the response from its technical body.

Despite the fact that the population data does not come from the National Commission, the truth is that its technical body conducted the study that concluded that the proposed canton does not meet the population requirement demanded by law, data that the Legislative Assembly can corroborate with a request for information to the Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos.

In this regard, Law No. 4366 is categorical regarding compliance with the requirement of a population of no less than 1% of the total population of the country or the fulfillment of the population exception when that territory is very remote and difficult to communicate with its administrative center for a new canton to be created. However, given that the Technical Committee has verified that this is not met, the Legislative Assembly must proceed not to create this new canton. While it is true that the opinion of the Commission of Territorial Division is not binding on the Legislative Assembly, and its opinion is merely a legal requirement for which consultation is mandatory, the truth is that the technical body has verified that the population requirement is not met, nor even the distance requirement cited as the exception. Therefore, the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton, and doing so would violate the principle of legality set forth in Article 11 of the Constitution (Constitución Política) by failing to comply with the provisions of Article 9 of Law No. 4366. As the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated, the Legislative Assembly cannot disapply the rules it has itself approved on this matter of territorial division.” (The highlighted portions do not correspond to the original).

In this regard, this Court will later make its own conclusion on whether or not the opinion of the CNDTA is binding, as the technical body designated by the legislator itself to advise it on matters of administrative territorial division. However, suffice it to indicate for the moment that the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly itself highlighted that in the present case, the conditions of the law regarding population size are not met, and neither is the distance requirement cited as the exception. In light of the foregoing and by virtue of the principle of legality, it concluded that the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton.

IX.- ON THE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHING NEW CANTONS AND THE PRECEDENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER In general terms, the construction of our country's territorial unit is regulated primarily by Art. 168 of the Constitution (Constitución Política):

“Art. 168.- For the purposes of Public Administration, the national territory is divided into provinces; these into cantons and the cantons into districts. The law may establish special distributions.

The Legislative Assembly may decree, observing the procedures for partial amendment to this Constitution, the creation of new provinces, provided that the respective bill is previously approved in a plebiscite that the Assembly will order to be held in the province or provinces that would sustain the dismemberment.

The creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total membership.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

The constitutional provision states that the constitutional competence to create new cantons is entrusted to the Legislative Assembly, and the only condition established in the Constitution is that the vote be carried out by a qualified majority of 38 votes – a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total membership of the Legislative Branch. In this regard, as will be detailed below, this Chamber has said that this qualified legal reserve – as an exception to the general rule of Art. 119 of the Constitution – demonstrates the marked relevance that the constituent power considered decisions related to the matter of the State’s territorial organization to have, from which great implications derive, including, among others: electoral, infrastructure, and resource distribution implications.

Furthermore, it was the legislator itself that enacted a law establishing additional conditions or requirements for the creation of new cantons, setting parameters of reasonableness and proportionality in its decision. Thus, the Ley de División Territorial Administrativa (LDTA) No. 4366 of August 5, 1969, was enacted – a law that is the result of the initiative of the Committee on Government and Administration of the Legislative Assembly and drafted by the then director of the IGN, which came to update the Ley sobre División Territorial Municipal No. 56 of June 4, 1909 – and it is precisely the parameter that the legislators consider violated.

The provisions of interest are the following:

“Art. 1.- The National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa) is created, whose function shall be to advise the Public Powers in matters of administrative territorial division.

The Commission shall be composed of the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, and the Director of the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, who may be represented by officials of their respective agencies.

Provinces, cantons, or districts may not be created without first hearing the opinion of the Commission, to whose knowledge the problems of the administrative territorial division shall be submitted.

(…)

Art. 9.- Hereafter, no territory that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country shall be established as a canton, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it does not retain at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the stated population, in very remote places and with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division so recommends, following the relevant studies of the case.

Art. 13.- Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to constitute it conforms to what Article 9 indicates and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions. They must also indicate, with complete precision, the perimeter of the canton, attaching the respective map.

The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the advisability of the creation, which shall issue its opinion following a report from the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division.

(…)

Article 15.- Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission of Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division.

When changes are introduced in the territorial division, the IGN and the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos must take note of the changes in values of surface area, population, etc., publishing these values in their annual reports.

The IGN shall prepare provincial and cantonal maps, which must be revised when necessary. The municipalities of the country may contribute economically for the publication thereof.

The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission of Nomenclature.

The title of City shall be granted by the Legislative Assembly to populated centers, after previously hearing the opinion of the National Commission of Territorial Division.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

From the highlighted provisions, it follows that the aforementioned law not only creates the CNDTA but also establishes the requirements for the creation of new cantons.

This Chamber has ruled on compliance with these requirements for the creation of new cantons and has indicated the binding nature of the rules self-imposed by the legislator. Precisely, this Chamber issued Advisory Opinion (opinión consultiva) No. 1995-2009, related to the creation of the canton of Colorado as part of the province of Guanacaste, in which it made the following considerations:

“IV).- CONSTITUTIONAL NORM AND LEGAL REGIME FOR THE CREATION OF NEW CANTONS.- Article 168 of the Constitution, in relevant part, indicates that for the purposes of Public Administration, the national territory is divided into provinces, cantons, and districts; the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total membership. The Constitution contains no other provision on the creation of new cantons. As it is a general principle of Constitutional Law that all territorial jurisdiction existing at the time the supreme norm that recognizes it arises and raises it to the category of a decentralized institution with constitutional rank – in this case, the cantons – acquires the right to its full existence and identity, to its autonomy granted by a norm of equal rank (Art. 170 id.), to maintain its integrity and its condition of administrative decentralization (the latter does not imply, of course, that it is a form of State or government that excludes all other forms of political administration, because like all decentralization, it leaves intact the constituent power and even the legislative power of the State), the necessary legal-constitutional conclusion leads us to determine that it is up to the Legislative Branch to develop, or not, the competence contained in Article 168 of the Constitution for the creation of cantons, establishing the requirements and formalities that give reasonable and proportionate content to the principles that the supreme norm itself has conceived, and in any case, to the complementary ones that, without being in the original norm, are appropriate to make the exercise of the competence possible.

V.- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION (No. 4366 of August 19, 1969).- It is precisely this law that the Legislative Branch has issued to regulate the creation of new cantons. It is necessary to point out that by establishing in the final paragraph of Article 168 of the Constitution that the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the total membership of the Legislative Assembly is required for the creation of a canton, it gives a clear idea of the importance that the original constituent power gave to territorial integrity and to all matters related to the territorial subdivision of the Provinces. In the Chamber's judgment, the general principle of Law that establishes that legal norms are binding even on the authority that has enacted them and, within its competence, on its superior, implies that the law that disciplines the functioning of the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of a competence that is also constitutional binds it in the specific cases in which it must exercise it, which is nothing more than the application of the general principle of the singular non-derogability of the norm for the specific case; a general principle of constitutional rank, as it is applicable to the entirety of the legal system, as a derivation and at the same time a condition of the Rule of Law (Estado de Derecho) in its integrity. All of which means, in relation to the present matter, that for the creation of a new municipal territorial entity, the Legislative Assembly must observe the law it has enacted for this purpose, of course, without prejudice to its power to repeal or reform it prior to its exercise.

VI).- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION BIS.- That said, in the Chamber's judgment, a new canton cannot be created without complying with the administrative procedure contained in Law No. 4366, in addition to the fact that the examination of the file reveals serious formal non-compliances, all of which lead to the constitutional competence of the Legislative Assembly being substituted by public agencies and dependencies or vitiated by the omission of essential requirements. The processed matter results in a violation of the legislative procedure and, consequently, is contrary to the Constitution itself. In the following Considerandos, these non-compliances are detailed.

VII).- NON-COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CREATION OF THE CANTON.- In the Chamber's judgment, the following transcribed norms have not been observed in the processing of the bill:

‘Provinces, cantons, or districts may not be created without first hearing the opinion of the Commission, to whose knowledge the problems of the administrative territorial division shall be submitted.’ (paragraph 3, Article 1).

‘Hereafter, no territory that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country shall be established as a canton, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it does not retain at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.’ ‘By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the stated population, in very remote places and with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division so recommends, following the relevant studies of the case.’ (Article 9) ‘Upon the creation of a new canton, the limits that will separate it from the bordering cantons must be determined with complete meticulousness in the law of creation itself...’ (Article 10) ‘Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to constitute it conforms to what Article 9 indicates and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions. They must also indicate, with complete precision, the perimeter of the canton, attaching the respective map. The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the advisability of the creation, which shall issue its opinion following a report from the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division.’ (Article 13) ‘Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission of Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the Territorial Division. The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission of Nomenclature.’ (paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 15).- Indeed, the legislative file does not show that the studies and report of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division were carried out. Official letter No. 950118 of February 27, 1995, which is attached to folios 139, 140, and 141, signed by the Vice-Minister of the Interior and Police, who is, at the same time, President of the Commission, cannot have the virtue of satisfying the requirement: first, because the competence to conduct the studies and make recommendations belongs to the Commission as a body and not to its President; and second, because Law 4366 requires the studies and the consultation of the Commission, which cannot be substituted by the phrase ‘Given that we have learned that the bill is in the legislative process...’, an expression that is incompatible with the objective that Law 4366 pursues in creating the Commission, from which it is expected that it will intervene formally and specifically in every proceeding tending to the creation of a new canton. Consequently, no other conclusion can be reached than to affirm that in the processing of this bill, the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division has not participated, and, consequently, the requirements and formalities established by the legislator itself have not been met, in terms of the constitutional purposes and principles involved in the creation of new cantons. (…)

The consultation is answered in the sense that the bill for the creation of the Canton of Colorado, Twelfth of the Province of Guanacaste, is unconstitutional due to violation of the legislative procedure, and consequently, this opinion is binding. Magistrates Solano and Arguedas dissent and answer the consultation in the sense that the bill is unconstitutional insofar as it violates Articles 9 and 68 of the Constitution and is contrary to Judgment No. 6000-94 of this Chamber.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

From the foregoing precedent, it can be concluded that this Chamber established the premise that, in matters of exercising a legislative power of constitutional origin, such as the creation of cantons, the Legislative Assembly is bound by Law No. 4366. It can well be said that the LDT contains legislative procedure rules regarding the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin. That is why the cited advisory opinion precisely referred to the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm, which, according to the jurisprudence of this Court, has constitutional rank (see also Judgment No. 2020-023743 and Advisory Opinion No. 2021-009111).

What was stated by the majority in that advisory opinion was subsequently taken up again by this same Chamber in Advisory Opinion No. 2002-05801, concerning the creation of the canton of Corralillo. In said resolution, the following considerations were set forth:

“III.- The territorial organization of the State.

The Costa Rican State, despite being characterized by a unitary form, that is, despite the fact that the territories that comprise it do not enjoy true political autonomy with respect to the central power, the truth is that it is divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees: provinces, cantons, districts, populated centers, etc. This distribution of space is referred to by the Law as ‘Administrative Territorial Division’. (Cfr.

Law number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine) Although this denomination could lead us to fall into the error of thinking it is a division for merely administrative purposes (for example, for the correct planning and implementation of state and local public services), the truth is that the territorial organization adopted by the State carries a series of serious implications, which undoubtedly transcend the merely administrative sphere. In this sense, the adopted division has a direct impact on electoral organization, on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly (elected by provinces according to Article 106 of the Political Constitution), on the designation of local authorities (councilmembers, district councilmembers, and municipal mayors), on the determination of the various areas of jurisdictional competence, etc. Hence, the establishment, by the State, of a clear and precise organization has a direct impact on the proper functioning of all other forms of public action related to it. It is for the foregoing reason that the Political Constitution, in its Article 168, establishes that only the Legislative Assembly may modify the territorial organization of the Costa Rican State, as it concerns provinces and cantons. In the first case, an act approved according to the procedures for partial constitutional amendment is required, preceded by a popular referendum in the provinces involved in the dismemberment; in the second, it requires the approval of a Law by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the total deputies. The imposition of the aforementioned qualified Law reservation (an exception to the general rule of Article 119 of the Constitution) also reveals that character of marked relevance that the constituent considered applied to decisions regarding the State's territorial organization, and which derives from the profound implications that the matter in question entails.

IV.- Procedure for the creation of new cantons.

In Costa Rica, the constituent did not develop the topic regarding the necessary procedures for the creation of a canton in a detailed manner. In fact, Article 168 of the Political Constitution establishes only the following:

(…)

That is, the Fundamental Law only determined that a reinforced Law reservation exists for the constitution of new cantons, leaving the development of the express mechanisms for implementing said parliamentary competence to the ordinary legislator. Thus, the Law on Territorial Administrative Division (Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa), number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen hundred and sixty-nine, provides for the specific formalities that authorities must follow to approve the creation of a new canton or district. (…)

As a corollary of all that has been stated up to this point, it is possible to affirm that the Costa Rican legal system requires that, for the creation of a canton of the Republic, the Legislative Assembly (the sole competent body) approve a bill according to the procedures of ordinary Law, by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the totality of its members, these requirements increased by those provided for in Law number 4366. According to the reasoning followed by this Chamber in judgment 4009-95 partially transcribed, it is understood that the legislator, upon approving the Law on Territorial Administrative Division, self-limited, developing the generic contents of Article 168 of the Constitution through a more detailed and specific regulation of its own actions in this matter. Upon approving law 4366, the Legislative Assembly made use of its self-regulation powers, defining the necessary procedures to guarantee that when approving new cantons, Parliament acts with full knowledge of the scope of its decision, relating to territorial and population aspects of the new circumscriptions. The procedure imposed by the referred Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it deals with constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in Article 168 of the Constitution. In this context, it is clear that to approve the creation of a new canton, the Assembly must have certainty that it will have a population equal to or greater than one percent of the total inhabitants of the country, or failing that, it must adhere to the (technical) report issued by the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa), a body that must evaluate whether conditions of remoteness and difficult communication with respect to municipal administrative centers exist, making the creation of a new canton appropriate. Obtaining said criterion constitutes an indispensable requirement in the constitution procedure for such territorial entities. (…)

Not reaching the minimum required by the Law, and not having the criterion of the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division, without whose affirmative opinion it was impossible for the Legislative Assembly to approve the creation of the canton of Corralillo, it was impossible for Parliament to create the new canton. This omission cannot be justified by the fact that the National Commission did not attend the hearing granted to it for eight days by the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration (folio 52 of the legislative file). Article 157 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly expressly regulates matters concerning consultations that must be carried out by the Legislative Assembly to the University of Costa Rica, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Judicial Branch, and autonomous institutions, providing that if eight business days after receiving the consultation the institution does not pronounce, it is understood that it does not oppose the initiative in question. This norm clearly regulates the exercise of an institutional self-defense power, which allows the mentioned bodies and entities to express their opinion regarding a specific bill that in some way affects their interests. The participation of the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division provided for in Article 9 of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, because the Commission must base its opinion on strictly technical criteria, and it cannot provide, as in the case of the other institutions mentioned, mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the bill under discussion. This is a limitation imposed by the legislator in use of its already described self-regulation powers, in order to ensure that the decision it adopts is supported by complete technical certainty about its content and scope. If the Assembly lacks all the necessary information to act consciously, it would be leaving the decision regarding the State's territorial organization to other instances, in clear violation of the reservation established in its favor by the Political Constitution. In addition to the above, it is clear that Article 9 of Law 4366 is a special norm relative to the generic regulation of Article 157 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. All these reasons lead this Chamber to conclude that the absence of an opinion issued by the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division in the stated terms constitutes a defect in the procedure used in the discussion of legislative file number 13,515, which causes the nullity of the followed procedure, and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the procedure must be rolled back to before its approval in the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration.

The consultation is resolved in the sense that, regarding the procedure followed for the approval of the bill for the "Creation of Canton IX of the Province of Cartago, Corralillo", legislative file number 13,515, the Constitutional Chamber notes defects invalidating the legislative procedure" (The highlighting does not appear in the original).

From the careful reading of this advisory opinion, it is evident that the Chamber highlighted, first, that –upon approving the LDTA– the legislator itself established its own rules for the exercise of the competence granted in Art. 168 of the Political Constitution. This is a special regulation relating to the procedures for said exercise, which it must itself respect. Thus, from that resolution, it was established that "the procedure imposed by the referred Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it deals with constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in Article 168 of the Constitution." Second, and of special relevance for the specific case, the Chamber stressed that prior to the creation of a new canton, the criterion of the CNDTA must be known, which will verify that the territory has a population equal to or greater than 1% (one percent) of the total population of our country. In the absence of this requirement, the Legislative Assembly may only create it if the CNDTA recommends it. Indeed, this is what Art. 9 of the LDT provides, which it is appropriate to transcribe again:

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the stated population in places that are very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division recommends it, after the relevant case studies.

Therefore, it is up to this technical body to evaluate whether the conditions of remoteness and difficult communication exist regarding the municipal administrative centers to which they are attached, which would justify the creation of a new canton. The Chamber expressly indicated that obtaining said criterion is an indispensable requirement in the procedure for creating new cantonal entities. It must be understood that it must be a favorable opinion, as the law clearly says "provided that it recommends it." Thus, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive opinion ‒the recommendation‒ of the CNDTA.

What has been stated in the precedents ‒regarding compliance with self-imposed legal formalities by the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of its competencies‒ can be compared, as it contains the same logic, with the case of the removal of protected status (desafectación) of wild protected areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) of our country. This Court has affirmed that, if the creation of these zones requires technical elements, it must be understood that these are also needed for their total or partial removal of protected status, and the absence of such a requirement or technical basis causes the legislative decision to be invalidated. For example, this Chamber in judgment no. 1998-7294 ‒expressly alluding to vote no. 2009-1995 cited above‒ concluded the following:

"In accordance with the cited, mutatis mutandi, if for the creation of a protective wild area the Legislative Assembly, by means of a law, established compliance with specific requirements to determine if the designation in question is justified, the logical outcome is that, for its partial or total removal of protected status, certain requirements must also be met – such as the completion of technical environmental studies – to determine that the removal of protected status does not transgress the content of Article 50 of the Constitution" (The highlighting does not appear in the original).

In said resolution, this Chamber affirmed that "the non-observance of certain requirements has the effect of transgressing substantive norms or principles of constitutional rank" and, therefore, it was held that the Legislative Assembly cannot validly approve the reduction of an area of a protected zone (zona protectora) without first having a technical study that justifies its decision, because otherwise, its action becomes contrary to the Political Constitution due to a violation of the principle of constitutional reasonableness in relation to Articles 121, subsection 1), and 129 of the Political Charter.

Subsequently, alluding to these same considerations and the principle of singular non-derogability of norms (principio de inderogabilidad singular de las normas), the Chamber issued advisory opinion no. 2012-013367, in which it stated the following:

"This principle is a conquest of the Rule of Law arising from the French Revolution, since it was characteristic of the former absolutist regime that the king change his criteria according to his interests. So, if the legislator, developing constitutional guarantees in favor of the environment, establishes as a requirement and guarantee of the right that the reduction of protected areas requires a law and a sufficient and complete technical study justifying it, such provision binds, by virtue of the principle, the very legislative body that enacted it." (The highlighting does not appear in the original. Considerations that were later fully reiterated in judgment no. 2017-002375).

This is another good example showing that the Legislative Assembly is subject to the regulations it has itself dictated with the purpose of regulating the exercise of its constitutional powers. In both cases, due to their implications, it is a matter of subjection to technical criteria justifying the parliamentary decision.

In this regard, it is necessary to highlight that it is not a matter of the legal norm being in itself a parameter of constitutionality to evaluate the conduct of the Legislative Branch, but rather that said norm incorporates rules previously established for the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin, so failing to comply with them would imply damaging the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm, which is of constitutional order. We could also add that the disregard and non-application of said rules would imply a transgression of the principles of regularity and legal certainty that must inform the work of Parliament.

Finally, it is pertinent to note that in judgment no. 2023-06227, through which the Chamber analyzed the constitutionality of the creation of the district of Birrisito, it reached several conclusions, among others, the following:

"In order to develop this analysis, an important first conclusion can be advanced according to which, for this Court, it is clear then that the Legislative Assembly – in addition to being able to create provinces and cantons – also possesses the competence for the creation of districts, recalling the maxim that provides 'he who can do the more, can do the less,' since if that Branch of the Republic possesses the constitutional authority granted by Article 168 of the Constitution to create the former, with much greater reason it can do so for the case of districts. Furthermore, Article 14 of Law No. 4366 contains a delegation that is neither permanent nor exclusive, in such a way that the Legislative Assembly can, by itself, create districts, or modify or repeal what is established therein, without one thing being a requirement for the other, or what is the same, it can create districts without needing to modify or repeal the provisions of the Law on Territorial Administrative Division No. 4366. Interpreting it otherwise would imply the renunciation of the competence assigned to it by the Constituent, which does not follow from the fact of having delegated and regulated it in a procedure in the mentioned law that contemplates the creation of districts by the Executive Branch. The generic constitutional power to agree on the administrative distribution of the national territory has been directly attributed to the Legislative Assembly as a constitutional body, and therefore it must also include that of the districts. Even though the Constituent did not concretely define that specific treatment in Article 168 of the Constitution, by not doing so, it left open the possibility for the legislator to assume that competence in accordance with the principles of opportunity and convenience, which evidently would not be prohibited. In this sense, as will be seen later, this Chamber leans towards the retention of that competence, also, in favor of the Legislative Assembly, despite having been regulated in the law for the Executive Branch.

VI.- Continuation. From the previous items, several conclusions can be established to demonstrate that the claimant is not correct on this point:

• a)First, as this Court has already indicated, the discussion on the best territorial administrative division of Costa Rica is a matter proper to the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly. Article 168 of the Constitution is very clear in stating that this Branch may create provinces and cantons. And, in accordance with the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible for the Legislative Assembly to create districts, since the delegation made in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said norm.
• b)It is not the Chamber's function to resolve on the advisability or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of community interests, nor for electoral effects or administrative planning, so this Court has no competence to rule on the advisability or opportunity of having created the district of Birrisito.
• c)It is not true that the Legislative Assembly had to modify Law No. 4366 to be able to create the district of Birrisito. Note that this same Court, in Judgment No. 2013-012802 of 14:45 hours on September 25, 2013, expressly indicated that the delegation granted to the Executive Branch in Article 14 of that Law No. 4366, on Territorial Administrative Division to create districts, is not permanent, that is, it accepts variations by decision of the legislator, but also that it is not exclusive, which is very important in terms of the claimant's complaint because that implies that the power for the Executive Branch granted in that Article 14 can perfectly coexist with the natural power of the Legislative Assembly to create districts. It must be taken into account that this Constitutional Court has never stated that Article 14 of Law No. 4366, or this Law in its entirety, had to be modified for the Legislative Assembly to create districts. What this Court has said is that the Legislative Assembly could modify or repeal what is established in that norm – the cited Article 14 – or create new districts itself, on its own. Hence, the interpretation the claimant makes in that sense is improper.
• d)Therefore, it is more than evident that the Legislative Assembly had competence to create that district as it did, and although this is a matter of legality that is not for this Court to assess, the record shows compliance with the procedure established in Article 14 of Law No. 4366; namely:
• 1)The National Commission on Territorial Division and specifically its Technical Committee analyzed the procedure to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting from the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional) the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso.
• 2)The mandatory consultation was made to the Municipality of Paraíso, having its approval, but the National Commission on Nomenclature, the Institute of Statistics and Censuses, the Integral Development Association of Birrisito, and the National Geographic Institute were also consulted.
• 3)The boundaries of the district were established, as well as where its capital would be located and the villages that would comprise it, along with matters relating to the minimum population that would integrate that new district.
• 4)The Municipal Council of Paraíso, in ordinary session No. 16 of July 7, 2020, Article II, subsection 11, issued an agreement through which the district of Birrisito was created, having for this the endorsement of the Municipality of Paraíso. The boundaries of the new district and the hamlets that would comprise it were established; an agreement adopted definitively, further providing for it to be communicated to the Special Commission of the seven deputies of the province of Cartago.
• e)With the creation of the district of Birrisito by the Legislative Assembly, the principle of singular non-derogability of the regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality has not been violated, as claimed by the petitioner because that Branch of the Republic had full competence to do so, did not disapply any norms for the specific case, simply made use of a power it possesses and that derives from the Political Constitution itself. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers was not violated because it also did not usurp competencies of the Executive Branch, since, as has been reiterated supra, the power to create districts granted in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent for that Branch nor exclusive for the Legislative Branch. Consequently, on this point, the action must be dismissed because no violation of Constitutional Law has occurred in the terms alleged on this point. (…)".

After reviewing this precedent, it is possible to affirm that this Chamber's premise ‒as in judgment no. 2013-012802‒ is that, regarding the creation of districts, the Legislative Assembly designed an administrative procedure and delegated that competence to the Executive Branch, but it was warned that it is not a permanent or exclusive delegation, because, as stated in both precedents, the Legislative Assembly could itself create districts. That was precisely what happened and was resolved in Birrisito and was the basis for dismissing an injury to the principle of singular non-derogability of the regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality. In that matter, moreover, it was not proven that there was a negative opinion for the creation of the referred district. The judgment states the following:

"The National Commission on Territorial Division and specifically its Technical Committee analyzed the procedure to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting from the National Geographic Institute the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso." That is, there was no controversy there about the opposition of the CNDTA. This is not a minor aspect in view of the analysis of the specific case now submitted for consultation, in which, as recorded supra, the territory does not meet the population conditions of Art. 9, but neither does it meet the circumstances of distance, and for that reason, the initiative is not endorsed by a favorable opinion from the CNDTA.

From the examination of the precedents of this Chamber and the review of other legislative files in which the creation of new cantons has been approved, it is concluded that, due to the sum of indicated circumstances, the case analyzed in this consultation is a new and exceptional situation.

Indeed, this Court undertook the task of reviewing other legislative antecedents and verified that the Assembly has had the favorable opinion of the CNDTA for the recent creation of other cantons. For example, in legislative file 20.787 regarding the creation of the canton of Río Cuarto, law no. 9440, the existence of an opinion from the commission was proven, which indicated the following:

"Through official letter DVG-CMMQ-272-2016, Carmen Muñoz Quesada, in her capacity as President of the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division: issues approval of the bill. Recognizes that the case of Río Cuarto constitutes an exception, since the remoteness and difficult communication are evident and this could thus make the population criterion of the minimum 1% more flexible, as contained in the Law on Territorial Administrative Division." On the other hand, from the analysis of legislative file no. 21618, relating to the creation of the canton of Monteverde, law no. 10,019, it was verified that in the opinion of the commission tasked with reporting on the bill, the following was recorded:

"The bill has the favorable criteria of the consulted institutions and the representation of its inhabitants through the signatures that originated the file, the support of the different associations and local government bodies. No unfavorable criterion was issued.

- The district of Monteverde is located in a very remote place and of difficult communication with its administrative center, for which reason we consider the creation of this new canton, which represents a necessary initiative for the district, of benefit for the residents of Monteverde who were the ones who promoted this initiative, to be of utmost importance.

- This legislative proposal would solve the problem of dependence on the parent Municipality regarding budget processing." In this sense, the legislative file contains the favorable report of the Commission on Nomenclature and the positive opinion of the CNDTA due to the distance factor:

"Considering the hearing held in session 03-2020 and the new elements requested by this body, the National Commission on Territorial Administrative Division reconsiders the decision previously made and endorses the creation of the canton of Monteverde, as recorded in Agreement 01 of Session 04-2020, by considering, in light of the referred study, that the case is subject to the exception mentioned in Article 9 of law 4366." Finally, in legislative file no. 22,749, relating to the approval of the canton of Puerto Jiménez, law no. 10,195, it is recorded that the commission reporting on the bill recorded the following:

"In Official Letter MGP-CNDT-001-2022 of February 2, 2022, the Ministry of Governance and Police and the National Commission on Territorial Division endorse the legislative initiative in all its aspects." With which it is concluded that in these three examined antecedents, there was a favorable opinion from the corresponding CNDTA. The case under analysis is a different situation, due to the following: the exception is intended to be applied, an opinion does exist, but it is negative and advises against the creation of the canton of Colorado.

X.- ON THE ALLEGED INJURY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGALITY, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY. INJURY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGULAR NON-DEROGABILITY OF REGULATIONS As detailed supra, the consulting legislators question the injury to the cited principles because the parliamentary initiative does not respect the population requirement for creating new cantons as provided in Art. 9 of the LDTA. They consider that creating a new canton without respecting said condition is unreasonable and disproportionate.

In the case under study, according to the assessment of the legislative file, it is determined that ‒as already warned supra‒ the initiative does not meet the population requirement. However, after a careful review of the applicable regulations, it can be affirmed that non-compliance with that single requirement is not in itself detrimental to the legislative procedure, as the law itself admits the exception. The CNDTA must analyze whether the conditions exist for this to be configured (Arts. 9, second paragraph, and 15 of the LDTA).

In fact, upon reviewing the legislative proceedings for the approval of that law, legislative file no. 3552, law 4366, LDTA, it was verifiable that the legislators themselves promoted the initiative with the aim of changing a fixed population amount established in previous legislation to introduce percentages that could evolve regarding the national reality. However, in the reporting commission ‒Permanent Commission on Government and Administration Affairs‒ it was warned that the population requirement was not rigid and absolute. In this regard, the president of the commission, Mr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, affirmed the following:

"I wanted to add to what Deputy Barrantes Elizondo says, that Art. 15, paragraph 1) also states: 'Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission on Territorial Division must consider other geographical, economic, and sociological factors that inspire the formation of territorial division.' Therefore, the percentage principle is not a rigid and absolute principle." (See record of the ordinary session held by the Permanent Commission of Government and Administration on April 11, 1968, visible on folio 33 of the digital file).

Therefore, in the present case, the absence of compliance with the population requirement does not per se injure the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, since the law itself admits the exception.

In summary, the competence to create cantons is of constitutional origin (Art. 168) and attributed exclusively and excludsively to the Legislative Assembly. This law ‒LDTA‒ encompasses the mechanism created by the Assembly itself for the exercise of that competence. Therefore, respect for said mechanism acquires constitutional relevance.

From the jurisprudential review carried out here, it can be concluded that this Constitutional Court has indicated that the Legislative Assembly must observe the requirements and procedures it imposed upon itself in order to exercise its constitutional power to create new cantons, since otherwise it incurs a violation of the principles of singular non-derogability of the legal norm, regularity, and legal certainty which, as already noted, are of constitutional origin.

In the case under review, since the population requirement was not met, the Legislative Assembly could approve the creation of the canton of Colorado provided there had been a positive opinion from the CNDTA which, after verifying that the exception provided for in Article 9, second paragraph, was configured, recommended that creation. To reach this conclusion, it is necessary to refer again to the applicable norm, which states the following:

“Art. 9. (…)

By exception, new cantons that do not reach said population may be created in very remote places and places with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division so recommends, following the corresponding studies.” (Emphasis not in the original).

Therefore, the CNDTA must always issue its opinion. When the population requirement is met, it is irrelevant whether or not it recommends its creation, since what it says is not binding on the Assembly. If the population requirement is not met, the canton may be created provided the exception relating to distance or remoteness is configured. In such a case, it will not be enough for this to be verified, but it will be necessary to have the positive opinion of the CNDTA. Furthermore, that exception must be stated in that opinion, and the opinion must be positive. In that sense, it can be affirmed that this opinion is binding. That is, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive opinion—the recommendation—of the CNDTA. Of course, this does not mean that, if this positive opinion is given, the Assembly must create the canton, but rather that if the CNDTA does not recommend its creation, on the understanding that the exception of Article 9, second paragraph, is configured, the Assembly may not approve the initiative.

At this point, a conclusion is reached that differs from the one raised by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, since that unit—despite having drawn attention to the unconstitutionality of the initiative—affirmed that the opinion was not binding. In this regard, this Chamber considers that, pursuant to a careful reading and application of the norm, it must be affirmed that the opinion becomes binding when the population requirement of Article 9, first paragraph, is not met, since the norm warns that the exception established in Article 9, second paragraph, will be applied provided that the CNDTA so recommends.

If the population conditions are met and there is an affirmative opinion from the CNDTA, as stated, the Assembly is not subject to that criterion. It will be the Assembly that ultimately decides, through a qualified vote, if it considers the creation of a new canton appropriate. The same would occur if the population conditions are respected, but the CNDTA disapproves the creation of a new canton. However, it is reiterated, regarding the application of the exception provided for in Article 9, second paragraph, by decision of the Assembly itself, the positive criterion of the CNDTA is a requirement to be able to create a new canton. Recall what this Chamber has stated:

“The participation of the National Commission on Administrative Territorial Division provided for in Article 9° of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, since the Commission must base itself on strictly technical criteria to render its opinion, without mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the project under discussion being admissible, as in the case of the other mentioned institutions. This is a limitation imposed by the legislator in use of its already described powers of self-regulation, in order to ensure that the decision adopted is supported by complete technical certainty regarding its content and scope.” It is necessary to clarify that this binding nature does not arise because the legislative power has been delegated to the CNDTA, but rather it is a consequence of the legislator having wanted to aggravate the canton creation procedure in this specific manner.

In the specific case, upon reviewing the initiative and the opinion of the reviewing commission of the Legislative Assembly, as mentioned, both are based on the exceptional nature of Article 15 of the LDTA, interpreted as if it established a subsidiary possibility; however, this Chamber observes that such interpretation departs from the letter and spirit of the norm self-imposed by the legislator, compliance with which is a procedural requirement for the exercise of the constitutional competence to create cantons. Indeed, in reality, Article 15 indicates the other elements that the CNDTA may assess for the application of the exception provided for in Article 9. Therefore, that Article 15 is not an additional case to the two that are contemplated in Article 9—the one that is the rule (relating to the population requirement) and the one that is the exception (relating to distance)—but rather it refers to which aspects the CNDTA may weigh always, especially when it comes to supporting a positive opinion, in the event that the population requirement is not met.

In summary, in the approval process for new cantons, consultation must always be made to the CNDTA, which must assess the population requirement and, failing that, distance or remoteness, to which it may add analysis of the aspects mentioned in Article 15 to support the configuration of the exception of Article 9, second paragraph. Furthermore, according to this, if the population requirement is not met, a positive pronouncement from the CNDTA is necessary for the Assembly to validly create a canton. In this sense, it can be said that this opinion is binding. It is better to affirm that such a positive opinion is a mandatory condition for creating a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement. It is evident that, even if this positive opinion is issued, the Assembly may decline and not ultimately approve the proposed initiative.

In the precedents examined above—specifically relating to the approval of new cantons—the unconstitutionality of the process was declared because the legislative procedure lacked the technical inputs and opinions from the CNDTA. In the matter under review, the conclusion is reached that an essential defect of the legislative procedure was incurred because the condition self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly itself, in the sense that there should be an affirmative opinion from the CNDTA justifying the exceptionality (Article 9, second paragraph), was not met.

It is worth mentioning that this type of warning has been made by the PGR during the processing of various legislative initiatives. That consultative body has emphasized precisely the need for strict observance of the requirements set forth in Law No. 4366. For example, in legal opinion OJ-69-2019 of June 25, 2019, the following was stated:

“As we have pointed out on other occasions (OJ-058-2007 of June 27, 2007, OJ-002-2011 of January 21, 2011, OJ-101-2012 of December 5, 2012, among others), Article 168 of the Political Constitution provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly through a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members, and, to these requirements, those set forth by the Law on Administrative Territorial Division (No. 4366 of August 19, 1969) must be added, since the constitutional validity of those legal initiatives that seek the creation of new cantons depends on compliance with those requirements. (…)

In that understanding, it must be taken into consideration that Article 9° of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division indicates that no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it does not maintain at least a minimum population of the expressed percentage.

In the event of not meeting the indicated population percentage, the article provides that, exceptionally, a new canton could be created, when dealing with very remote places and places with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division so recommends, following the corresponding studies. (…)

Consequently, it must be noted that the text of the bill does not indicate the population size that the canton of Cariari intended to be created would have, and, therefore, it is not possible to determine whether it would meet the requirements of Article 9° of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division.

In the event that the population of the new canton does not reach 1% of the current population of the country, the existence of the recommendation from the National Commission on Territorial Division required by the Law must be verified, to justify the creation of the canton due to the remoteness of the place from the administrative centers and the difficulty of communication.” (Emphasis not in the original. Considerations that were reiterated and addressed to the Legislative Assembly in legal opinion OJ-112-2021 of July 8, 2021).

More recently, in legal opinion PGR-OJ-033-2023 of March 24, 2023, the PGR again rendered an opinion regarding a bill related to the creation of the Canton of Tucurrique. In said non-binding report, the following reflections were directed to the Legislative Assembly:

“Now then, as this Office of the Attorney General has maintained (see for example OJ-058-2007 of June 27, 2007), Article 168 of the Political Constitution provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly through a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members, which imposes a qualified vote in this type of initiative.

We cannot overlook that the Law on Administrative Territorial Division sets forth a series of requirements to validly constitute a new canton, same that must be of mandatory observance for those who propose the creation of a new canton. (…)

Thus, an aspect of utmost importance to consider within the present initiative is that relating to the provisions of Article 9° of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, which indicates that no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it does not maintain at least a minimum population of the expressed percentage.

Note that the norm states that—exceptionally—a new canton could be created, when dealing with very remote places and places with difficult communication with their administrative centers (canton of Jiménez), provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division so recommends, following the corresponding studies. In that sense, Article 13 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division establishes that those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what Article 9º indicates and that the rest of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions, and also requires the precise indication of the perimeter of the canton and the presentation of the respective map.” (Emphasis not in the original).

In light of the considerations made and applying them to the specific case, it is concluded that the legislative procedure has a defect of unconstitutionality that invalidates it. In the present matter, the breach of a norm that regulates the exercise of a competence attributed by the Constitution to the Legislative Assembly was verified. This breach, as consulted, violates the constitutional principles of singular non-derogability of the legal norm—procedure established in the LDTA—of regularity and of legal certainty, which must be respected in legislative work. If, for the creation of a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the legislator established as an unavoidable rule the necessity that the exception relating to remoteness and the concomitant positive opinion of the CNDTA be configured, the non-observance of this requirement in the case under review violates the aforementioned principles, and therefore it is appropriate to declare the unconstitutionality of the procedure.

XI.- ON AN ALLEGED ONGOING PLEBISCITARY PROCESS AND THE VIOLATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE The consulting legislators questioned that on October 7, 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the residents of the Canton of Abangares was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to define—pursuant to the democratic constitutional principle—whether the residents agreed or not with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was underway, with a second publication of the regulation dated October 24, 2022, and therefore the present bill under consultation would also be violating the democratic constitutional principle. In a similar sense, they highlighted the importance of giving value to and hearing the criterion of the affected municipal entity.

In this regard, concerning the holding of a popular consultation, it is necessary to emphasize that this requirement is not contemplated in the Political Constitution for the creation of cantons, but only for the creation of provinces, as follows from the literal wording of Article 168 of the Constitution.

That discussion was even settled in the minutes of approval of Law No. 4366 when the approval of Article 3 was being assessed, and in response to the query from legislator Vicente Castro regarding whether the holding of plebiscites was for both cases, the president of the committee clarified the following:

“In cantons, it has been done when there has been doubt, for example in the case of La Fortuna, before the cantonal population disappeared for well-known reasons, there was a certain agreement among the parties that this should be resolved through a plebiscite, but in reality, the Constitution only states this with respect to provinces.” (See folio 48 of the digital legislative file).

On the other hand, recall that in Judgment No. 2013-012802 this Chamber expressly warned that there was no constitutional or legal duty to conduct popular consultations for the creation of a district. Identical considerations may be reiterated for the approval of cantons:

“Note that there is no constitutional or legal duty to conduct a popular consultation as a requirement or prerequisite to validly create a district.

(…)

Thus then, no unconstitutionality is found, neither in Article 14 of the challenged Law, nor in the challenged Executive Agreement that created the district of Labrador in the canton of San Mateo, due to the fact that such creation originated from the Executive Branch. Now, regarding the omissions pointed out by the petitioner, in the sense that for the creation of the district of Labrador no popular consultation was followed nor was the criterion of the Municipality of San Mateo taken, firstly, from the district creation procedure, this Chamber only proceeds to examine these two alleged omissions, the review of the rest of the requirements, steps, or procedures that the Law establishes for the creation of districts not being appropriate, not only because it was not alleged nor substantiated in the action, but because doing so would be equivalent to a legality review that falls outside the competence of this constitutional jurisdiction. Secondly, it must be clear that for an unconstitutional omission to exist, there must be an unfulfilled constitutional obligation, in this case, the obligation that a popular consultation must be held to create a district is not derived from our Political Constitution. Not even from the legal norm can such an obligation be derived” (Emphasis not in the original).

In any case, this Chamber observes that from the statements made by the consulting legislators, what is recorded is that a regulation was issued to conduct plebiscitary consultations by the Municipality of Abangares (https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2022/10/07/COMP_07_10_2022.html). But it is not proven that a procedure was formally initiated to specifically consult on the creation or not of the Canton of Colorado. Thus, on this particular, no defect is proven.

Secondly, the consultants make a reflection on municipal autonomy and refer to the importance of hearing the criterion of the municipality that would be dismembered, in this case, the Municipality of Abangares. In this regard, this Court has no doubt that the municipal corporation was formally granted audience during the legislative procedure. Even the disagreements raised were duly assessed and dismissed by the reviewing legislative committee, which referred to the statements and evidence submitted by the District Municipal Council of Colorado. On the other hand, having reviewed the applicable regulations, it is ruled out that there exists a constitutional or self-imposed legal obligation for the Legislative Assembly to adhere to the municipal criterion of the canton from which the territory is segregated to create another canton. Therefore, on this particular, no defect is proven either.

Consequently, regarding these aspects, the invoked defects are dismissed.

XII.- CONCLUSION Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Chamber considers that the consulted initiative, bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” being processed in legislative file No. 22.643, contains invalidating defects of the legislative procedure. Specifically, because approval of the canton is sought without the positive opinion of the CNDTA, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established in the law.

In the other consulted aspects, no defects of unconstitutionality were found.

POR TANTO:

The optional consultation of constitutionality is answered in the sense that, regarding the process followed for the approval of the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” being processed in legislative file No. 22.643, invalidating defects of the legislative procedure are verified. Specifically, because approval of the canton is sought without the positive opinion of the National Commission on Administrative Territorial Division, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established in the law. In the other consulted aspects, no defects of unconstitutionality were found.

Let this resolution be notified to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Anamari Garro V. Ingrid Hess H.

Alejandro Delgado F. Hubert Fernández A.

CONSULTA LEGISLATIVA SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.

San José, at one forty-five in the afternoon on the third of September, two thousand twenty-four.

Taking into account that Magistrate Fernando Cruz Castro is on sick leave, and in order not to delay the processing of the appeal, the judgment rendered in this matter shall be served without his signature, which shall be recorded once he reincorporates to his duties.

Fernando Castillo V.

President **File No. D1-12849-2010** **SETENA RESOLUTION No. 2696-2010** **ENVIRONMENTAL VIABILITY (VIABILIDAD AMBIENTAL) GRANTED** **Prepared by:** Lic. Álvaro Sánchez Boza, Legal Advisor.

The undersigned, Álvaro Sánchez Boza, legal advisor to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), in accordance with the powers vested by Article 14 of the Organic Regulation of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Reglamento Orgánico del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), Executive Decree No. 25721-MINAE, published in La Gaceta No. 11 dated January 15, 1997, affirms that SETENA, through its Plenary Commission, at session No. 35-2010 held on August 23, 2010, unanimously agreed as follows:

I.That through this office’s resolution No. 865-2010-SETENA, the alternative report of the Preliminary Environmental Diagnosis (Diagnóstico Ambiental Preliminar, DAP) for the project called “Lomas del Paraíso,” to be located in the district of Pavón, canton of Golfito, province of Puntarenas, submitted by the company Desarrollos Mega S.A., was granted.

II.That the developer was informed that a public consultation (consulta pública) would be held at the facilities of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, located in Golfito, on July 16, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.

III.That the public consultation for the project was held on July 16, 2010, at the aforementioned location, where the required formalities were completed, including: presentation of the project, explanation of its characteristics and potential environmental impacts, and the stage for questions, answers, and observations.

IV.That no objections were presented by the participants, nor were there any observations opposing the development of the project.

V.That the DAP of the project is filed in the SETENA archives, and both the technical report and the public consultation report are available in the respective expediente D1-12849-2010.

VI.That the project’s DAP, assessed by SETENA, indicates that the project’s environmental viability could be granted, upon consideration and compliance with the environmental commitments established in this document and other applicable legal obligations.

**THEREFORE:** Based on the findings of the technical studies, reports, and the results of the public consultation, the SETENA Plenary Commission resolves:

1. To grant **environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental)** to the project called **“Lomas del Paraíso,”** submitted for processing by the company **Desarrollos Mega S.A.** , to be located in the district of Pavón, canton of Golfito, province of Puntarenas.

2. To establish the following as **environmental commitments (compromisos ambientales)** that must be complied with during the execution of the project:

1. Implement all the environmental measures contained in the DAP document, the Annexes, and the Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental, PGA).

2. Comply and ensure compliance with all applicable national environmental legislation.

3. Any change or modification to the original design that is to be introduced in the project must be previously reported to SETENA, so that the corresponding technical analysis can be performed.

4. Present an environmental guarantee deposit (depósito de garantía ambiental) in accordance with the provisions of Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE, Regulations on Environmental Guarantees (Reglamento sobre Garantías Ambientales).

5. Submit a quarterly environmental monitoring report to the SETENA office of the Osa Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Osa, ACOSA).

6. The developer must coordinate with ACOSA the monitoring and follow-up of the environmental commitment measures.

3. The company Desarrollos Mega S.A. is informed that the SETENA office of ACOSA will be responsible for the monitoring and follow-up of this project and compliance with the environmental commitments listed herein, being able to request from the developer the corresponding reports.

4. In accordance with the regulations established in Article 80 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the developer must publish this SETENA resolution in a national circulation newspaper; and in compliance with Articles 18 and 19 of the Regulations on the Procedures of SETENA (Reglamento de Procedimientos de la SETENA), it must be published in the official newspaper La Gaceta, at its own expense.

5. The interested party may appeal this resolution by filing an Appeal for Reconsideration with the SETENA Plenary Commission, and/or an Appeal for Reversal with the Minister of MINAE, within three business days following the notification of this resolution. The appeal must be filed with SETENA, with the corresponding grounds.

NOTIFY. Álvaro Sánchez Boza, Legal Advisor SETENA. — File.

Rec. No. 24-010272-0007-CO **Res. No. 2024-013908** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at twelve hours and ten minutes on the twenty-first of May, two thousand twenty-four.** Optional legislative consultation of constitutionality filed by the legislators **ADA ACUÑA CASTRO, ELIÉCER FEINZANG MINTZ, GILBERTO CAMPOS CRUZ, JOHANA OBANDO BONILLA, JORGE ANTONIO ROJAS LÓPEZ, JORGE DENGO ROSABAL, KATTIA CAMBRONERO AGUILUZ, LUIS DIEGO VARGAS RODRÍGUEZ, MANUEL MORALES DÍAZ, PAOLA NÁJERA ABARCA, PILAR CISNEROS GALLO and WALDO AGÜERO SANABRIA**, regarding the bill **“Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste”**, which is being processed under legislative file **No. 22.643**.

**WHEREAS:** **1.-** At 15:10 hrs. on **18 April 2024**, the legislators filed an optional consultation of constitutionality regarding the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste”, which is being processed under legislative file **No. 22.643**.

***On the identification of the bill submitted for consultation*** The bill was presented on the initiative of—among others—deputies Mileydi Alvarado Arias, Dragos Dolanescu, and Franggi Nicolas. It seeks the creation of the XII canton of the province of Guanacaste, with the name Colorado, resulting from the segregation of the fourth district, Colorado, from the canton of Abangares.

***On the doubts of constitutionality regarding the substance of the bill*** *Articles challenged and defects indicated:* All 12 articles of the bill are challenged. The consulting parties point out the following defects: **1)** the alleged infringement of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, by seeking to create a canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, which is what is provided in the Administrative Territorial Division Law (LDTA); **2)** the possible harm to the democratic principle, by violating the procedure of an ongoing plebiscitary process; **3)** the eventual harm to the principle of legality, because it transgresses the LDTA; and **4)** the supposed violation of Article 168 of the Constitution, which mandates respect for the LDTA.

*Relevant legal regulations* Regarding this Law No. 4366, of 19 August 1969, they state the following:

Article 1 thereof creates the National Administrative Territorial Division Commission (CNDTA), whose function is to advise the Public Powers (Legislative Assembly, Executive Branch, and municipalities) on matters of administrative territorial division. Said commission is composed of the Minister of Governance, the director of the National Geographic Institute (IGN), and the director of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC), who may be represented by officials of their respective entities.

Article 9 of Law No. 4366 refers to the number of inhabitants that the territory of the canton to be created must have. In this regard, said article states:

*“Henceforth, no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after dismemberment, it does not retain at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.* *By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the aforementioned population, in very remote locations with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division recommends it, following the relevant studies.”* Article 13 establishes that those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what Article 9 indicates and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions.

They cite, in this regard, what was resolved by the Chamber in judgment **No. 2002-05801**.

*Relevant pronouncements from institutions* *On the position of the Municipal Council of Abangares, where Colorado currently belongs* The criterion of that council is that the current canton should be maintained, since its dismemberment would only benefit a small number of the population. It refers to the latest published index, since the approximate population of the district of Colorado is 4,000 inhabitants and transgresses the requirement of 1% (one percent) of the country's population to form a canton, whereby the legislative procedure that has given continuity to the project transgresses the LDTA and, with it, the principle of legality. The foregoing, without considering, moreover, that the District Municipal Council of Colorado does not even have the necessary and urgent infrastructure to be a canton, possesses deficient aqueduct and sewerage services, and lacks the necessary institutional framework (banks, health, social services, among others).

In another line of thought, they relate that on 7 October 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the inhabitants of the Canton of Abangares was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to define—in accordance with the democratic constitutional principle—whether or not the inhabitants agreed with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was in progress, with a second publication of the regulation dated 24 October 2022, meaning that the present project under consultation would also be violating the democratic constitutional principle.

*On the criterion of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE)* According to what is indicated in Article 97 of the Political Constitution and considering that the establishment of a new administrative unit directly affects the composition of the canton, the number of inhabitants of each district, and, consequently, the eventual composition of the municipal council and district councils, it was considered that the TSE must be mandatorily consulted, since the latter has interpreted that electoral matters are acts relating to suffrage that not only include those proper to the casting of the vote, but all those described in the Constitution itself or in electoral laws and that are directly or indirectly related to electoral processes, elections, or consultations whose origin, direction, and oversight have been entrusted to this Tribunal. In this regard, the TSE in its report No. TSE-2629-2021 of 4 November 2021 determined that it did not agree with said project for not meeting the population requirement, nor being so remote from its administrative center, all in accordance with the provisions of administrative territorial division legislation.

*On the criterion of the CNDTA* The response of the technical body is that it is recommended not to create a new canton, for failing to meet the minimum population requirement. The population required to be a canton is 52,133 inhabitants, while the population of Costa Rica—according to 2022 indicators—was 5,213,362 inhabitants, with the population of Colorado not even reaching 5,000 inhabitants.

*Conclusion* They warn of a clear transgression of the rule and procedure established by the LDTA in Articles 9 and 13 and, therefore, of the principle of legality established in Article 11 and Article 168 of the Constitution, for failing to meet the population requirement at the time of processing the bill.

**2.-** In a resolution issued at 15:04 hrs. on **19 April 2024** by the Presidency of the Chamber, the consultation of constitutionality was deemed received, and the corresponding legislative file, or a certified copy thereof, was requested from the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, through its President.

**3.-** By resolution of the Presidency of the Chamber at **14:32 hrs. on 25 April 2024**, the requested certified copy of the legislative file was deemed received and was assigned to the office of Magistrate Garro Vargas, to whom it corresponds by turn. Consequently, the deadline to evacuate the consultation expires on **25 May 2024**.

**4.-** In the processing of the case, the prescriptions of law have been observed.

Drafted by Magistrate **Garro Vargas**; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.- REGARDING OPTIONAL CONSULTATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY** A prior advisory opinion on legislative projects may be requested on a mandatory basis—Article 96, subsection a) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (LJC)—or an optional basis—subsections b), c), and ch) of the same rule. In the latter case, there are three scenarios: in the first, it is the parliamentary body itself that makes the request—when formally processed with the signature of at least ten legislators—; in the second, it concerns the consultation of bills referring to the constitutional competence of the Supreme Court of Justice, the TSE, or the Comptroller General of the Republic, a consultation that must be filed by these same bodies; and, in the third, the consultation may be exercised by the Ombudsperson when they consider that fundamental rights or liberties are being infringed.

Article 98 of the LJC prescribes that in the case of bills other than constitutional reforms, the legislative consultation must be filed after the bill has been approved in the first debate and before receiving final approval in the second debate. Finally, it is pertinent to note that Article 99 of that law orders that optional consultations shall be formulated in a reasoned brief, expressing the questioned aspects of the project, as well as the reasons for which doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality are held.

**II.- REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT OPTIONAL CONSULTATION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY** The case under study is an optional legislative consultation of constitutionality. In accordance with Article 96 of the LJC, this type of consultation must be raised by at least ten legislators, once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, twelve deputies signed the consultation. Likewise, the bill being processed under legislative file **No. 22.643** was approved in the first debate procedure by the Legislative Plenary in ordinary session No. 126 of **19 February 2024**. Thus, the admissibility requirements indicated being met, the Chamber proceeds to hear the consultation filed.

Regarding the procedure, it is important to note that in the case of optional legislative consultations of constitutionality—such as the one now being heard—, and in accordance with the application and integration of the provisions of Articles 99 and 101 of the LJC, this Chamber has indicated that its review is limited solely to the specific arguments raised by the consulting deputies in their filing brief, and not to others that might be derived but were not so raised. In advisory opinion **No. 2022-9345**, this Chamber noted the following:

*“Indeed, through judgment number 2001-11643—reiterated, among others, in judgments numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, and 2021-21204—, the Chamber stated:* *‘It must also be remembered that the same law provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber shall evacuate the consultation by rendering an opinion “on the aspects and motives consulted or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional point of view”, but the court interprets that “the aspects and motives consulted” are those which, in accordance with Article 99, challenge or object to the project, or substantiate the doubt that the legislators might have about it. Given, therefore, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not receivable; if the court, notwithstanding, were to admit and resolve it, it would place itself in a situation that is outside the scope of its powers.’* *This criterion was reiterated and consolidated by the Chamber’s jurisprudence, upon determining, in the aforementioned judgment number 2012-9253, that:* *‘[T]his is so because “in the case of optional legislative consultations, ‘the competence of the Constitutional Chamber originates from the doubts or objections of constitutionality formulated by the legislators’—judgment 2001-12459—, so that if such arguments do not exist as such, or, when the consulting deputies themselves state that they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the rules or projects consulted, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any opinion, as it would be dealing with scenarios that transcend the Chamber’s competences in matters of legislative consultations of constitutionality—judgment 2002-3460—.’* *In this sense, **it is necessary to indicate that this Chamber will proceed to study only the allegations raised in a specific manner by the consulting parties and not other general questions of constitutionality of the bill in question**, in accordance with the provisions of Article 99 of the law governing this jurisdiction, whereby any pronouncement on procedural and substantive defects not alleged in time by the consulting deputies is omitted”* (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In identical sense to that expounded, this Chamber will rule exclusively on the doubts of constitutionality duly substantiated by the legislators promoting this consultative process.

**III.- PRIOR DELIMITATION ON THE OBJECT OF THIS CONSULTATION** In line with the foregoing and, in relation to the specific case, it is necessary to emphasize that it is not incumbent upon this Court to make any consideration regarding the initial section of the optional consultation of constitutionality in which the legislators make a recount of the political opportunity and convenience of what they term the “ultra-fragmentation” of the administrative territorial division of Costa Rica and set forth their vision of the State, and advocate for regionalization, which in their judgment would be more efficient in pursuit of a “decentralizing political process”. Indeed, it does not concern this Chamber to carry out a political assessment of such statements, even more so when they are not directed at attacking any specific aspect of the bill submitted for consultation. This Court has insisted in its jurisprudence that it is not its place to gauge aspects of opportunity and convenience of bills and, specifically, in advisory opinion **No. 2021-000026**, stated the following:

“The first point that must be clarified is that the Constitutional Chamber, in matters of optional consultations, according to its reiterated jurisprudence, rules only on the issues consulted, not on the entirety of the bill, such that it cannot be interpreted that beyond that scope, there exists a kind of endorsement of the consulted bill in that which no ruling exists. Indeed, ***the Chamber rules neither on the aspects of opportunity and convenience of bills, a matter reserved to the legislator, nor does it rule on the extremes not consulted***. Thus, there may well be frictions with the Constitution in a specific bill, on which no consultation was made and no ruling by this Tribunal exists through the prior consultation of constitutionality. Naturally, for those aspects, should they exist, the avenue of subsequent judicial review remains open, which is the action of unconstitutionality, to guarantee the supremacy of the Political Constitution. (in that sense, see judgments 2001-11643, 2001-12459, 2012-9253, 2019-9220, among others).” (The emphasis corresponds to the original).

It must also be remembered that the power to create new cantons was granted by the constituent power to the Legislative Assembly—subject to certain rules derived from the Political Constitution itself and others self-imposed in ordinary legislation—. For that very reason, this Chamber is not called upon to make any reflection on what the model of State should be that, respectful of the constitutional design, is most suitable or efficient. It is true that in repeated resolutions the Chamber has highlighted “the importance that the original constituent power has given to territorial integrity”, which is reflected in the very text of Article 168 of the Political Constitution (see judgments **No. 1995-2009, No. 1998-7294, and No. 2002-5801**). However, for purposes of ruling on the exercise of that power of the Legislative Assembly, the task of this Court is limited to verifying compliance with the constitutional and legal requirements—the latter understood as a mandatory self-imposed parameter by the Legislative Assembly itself for such exercise—, but not to carry out an assessment of opportunity and convenience regarding the political decision involved. Therefore, in resolution **No. 2023-06227**, it was noted that it is the Legislative Assembly to which it falls, by constitutional mandate, to decide on the best administrative territorial division of the country. Thus, it was stated that the Constitutional Chamber “has no competence whatsoever to rule on the convenience or opportunity of having created the district of Birrisito”.

Echoing its own precedents and, as applicable, the following considerations were made:

“<b><u>Based on that norm, this Chamber has held that the procedure for creating provinces and cantons is a matter of legal reserve (reserva legal); that is, the exclusive competence of the Legislative Assembly</u></b>: a) regarding the creation of provinces, it is indicated that it must be processed through the same procedure for the partial reform of the Political Constitution, in addition to convening a provincial plebiscite (see in this regard Judgment No. 1994-4091 of 15:12 hours of August 9, 1994); and b) regarding the creation of cantons, the Political Constitution requires that the bill establishing a new canton must be approved by a qualified majority; namely, a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly (see Judgment No. 1995-2009 of 10:30 hours of April 21, 1995). (…)

• A)Territorial division in Costa Rica. This Court has indicated, in Judgment No. 2002-005801 of 17:30 hours of June 12, 2002, that the Costa Rican State, despite being unitary, and despite its territories not enjoying true political autonomy from the central power, is indeed divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees such as provinces, cantons, districts, towns, among others; a distribution that has been denominated by law as the Administrative Territorial Division through a law with that name, No. 4366 of August 19, 1969. This Chamber, through Judgment No. 1994-4091 of 15:12 hours of August 9, 1994, established that:

"(…) <b><u>From a political standpoint, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, since it is not the function of this Chamber to decide on the advisability or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the proper administration of communal interests, nor for electoral purposes or administrative planning</u></b>, etc... .

(…) ...especially since in our case, the division of our geography into provinces, cantons, districts, neighborhoods, and hamlets, as long as Costa Rica remains the absolutely unitary State that it is, cannot have a political character but only an administrative one, without prejudice to the fact that, when it comes to determining territorial jurisdiction, as such called to fulfill a generality of purposes and to encompass a generality of persons—the citizens (munícipes)—certain powers of original self-regulation must be recognized, although never in the sense of true political self-determination. Thus, no problem of political self-determination nor, therefore, of original competences other than the administrative ones derived from the national legal order is at stake here." From Judgment No. 1994-4091 cited, two important elements to take into account emerge: a) <b><u>that for this Court, it is the Legislative Assembly that is responsible, by constitutional mandate, for deciding on the best administrative territorial division of the country</u></b>; and b) that the division of the territory is administrative and, therefore, does not correspond to an original right of the communities to political self-determination (see in that regard Judgment No. 1995-2009 of 10:30 hours of April 21, 1995).

From the foregoing, it is clear that, in the present matter, <b><u>the Chamber will not rule on the advisability or not of creating the district of Birrisito, given that, as has been stated in the past, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of the country is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, in the exercise of the powers derived from Articles 105 and 121, subsection 1), of the Political Constitution</u></b>. (…)

VI.- Continuation. Based on the preceding items, several conclusions can be drawn to demonstrate that the petitioner is not correct regarding this point:

• a)Firstly, as this Court has already noted, <b><u>the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of Costa Rica is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly</u></b>. Article 168 of the Constitution is very clear in stating that this Branch can create provinces and cantons. And, according to the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible that the Legislative Assembly can create districts, since the delegation made in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said norm.
• b)It is not the function of the Chamber to resolve on the advisability or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the proper administration of communal interests, nor for electoral purposes or administrative planning, <b><u>therefore this Court has no competence to rule on the advisability or appropriateness of having created the district of Birrisito</u></b>. (…)” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In the same vein, it is necessary to anticipate that this Chamber will not rule—in general terms—on the advisability or not of the creation of the canton of Colorado in the province of Guanacaste. And, as has been stated, no pronouncement will be made either on the initial reflections of the consulting legislators.

<b>IV.- OBJECT OF THE CONSULTATION</b> Having clarified the foregoing, it should be noted that the doubts of constitutionality regarding the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” processed in legislative file <b>No. 22.643</b>, can be grouped into two grievances that will be developed in independent sections.

First, the consultants consider that the bill violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and legality, as well as Article 168 of the Political Constitution, since the legislative procedure for creating a new canton was initiated contrary to what is provided by the LDTA No. 4366, in the sense that “no territory shall be erected as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country” and, neither does it meet the exceptional condition of being “in very remote places and of difficult communication with their administrative centers,” as the TSE also highlights. The legislators also cite the reports added to the legislative file rendered by the Municipal Council of Abangares and the CNDTA to conclude that in the specific case there has been non-compliance with the legal provisions that must be observed prior to the approval of the new canton. They affirm that it is unreasonable and disproportionate to establish a new canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, even more so disregarding the disagreement of the affected municipality.

Alternatively, they point out that the democratic constitutional principle is being violated by breaching the procedure of an “ongoing plebiscitary proceeding” and by not heeding the objections of the Municipality of Abangares.

<b>V.- THE PROCESSING OF FILE NUMBER 22.643 IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY</b>. The bill for the “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” processed in legislative file <b>No. 22.643</b>, has followed the following <i>iter</i>:

<b>1.</b> The bill is the initiative of several legislators and was presented to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly on <b>August 12, 2021</b> (see folios 01-20 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>2.</b> The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly ordered the file assigned to the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs for the corresponding report (folio 21 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>3.</b> The bill was published in the official gazette <a href="https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/gaceta/?date=02/09/2021"><b>La Gaceta No. 169 of September 2, 2021</b></a> (see referral to the Imprenta Nacional at folio 22 and the cover page of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>4.</b> On <b>September 14, 2021</b>, a copy of agreement No. CMA-0171-2021 of the Municipal Council of Abangares was sent to the reporting committee, in which they communicated their opposition to bill No. 22.643. This was subsequently reiterated by said council in response to the hearing granted (see folios 42-45 and 202-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>5.</b> In ordinary session No. 18 of <b>October 5, 2021</b>, the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs approved a motion <b><u>to consult the bill with the following institutions</u></b>: Municipality of Abangares, Municipal District Government (Intendencia Municipal) of Colorado, TSE, CNDTA, National Nomenclature Commission, National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), Planning Office of the Ministry of National Planning, National Geographic Institute (IGN), INEC, Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Association for the Integral Development of Cabeceras de Cañas (see folios 54-66 of the copy of the legislative file where the approval of the motion is recorded and folios 100-149, 151-173 <i>ibidem</i>, volume I).

<b>6.</b> Through official letter No. INT-0270-2021 of <b>October 18, 2021</b>, the Municipal District Council (Concejo Municipal de Distrito) of Colorado submitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly “the agreements of expression of support in favor of the project with file number 22.643” from the following institutions and community organizations: Health Board (Junta de Salud) of Colorado, Health Area of Colorado; Higuerillas de Colorado Neighborhood Association; Association for the Integral Development of Monte Potrero, Colorado; Association for the Integral Development of Colorado; Association for the Integral Development of San Joaquín, Colorado; Asada of Monte Potrero, Colorado; ASADA ENCELOMAVI San Buenaventura, Colorado; Administrative Board of the Liceo de Colorado; Education Board of the School of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Education Board of the School of San Joaquín, Colorado; Association of Fishers and Rural Tourism of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Local Fishers Committee Association of Colorado; Committee of the Catholic Church of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Federation of Municipal District Councils of Costa Rica; Municipal District Council of Tucurrique; Municipal District Council of Lepanto; Municipality of Talamanca; Municipality of Los Chiles and Municipality of Garabito (see folios 67-86 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>7.</b> Through official letter No. PE-AL-276-2021 of <b>October 29, 2021</b>, the institutional criteria of the INVU were submitted to the Legislative Assembly (see folios 149-150 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>8.</b> By means of official letter No. TSE-2629-2021 of <b>November 4, 2021</b>, the presiding magistrate of the TSE provided his considerations regarding the bill (see folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>9.</b> In official letter No. DGL-0673-2021 of <b>November 9, 2021</b>, the National Registry presented its institutional criteria regarding the bill and provided the criteria of the IGN to readjust Article 3 of the bill and, therefore, redefine the cantonal boundaries (see folios 185-187 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>10.</b> By official letter No. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of <b>November 9, 2021</b>, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy made technical observations and recommendations regarding the approval of the bill (see folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>11.</b> On <b>November 11, 2021</b>, the Municipal District Council of Colorado provided the Committee on Legal Affairs with a series of agreements expressing support for the bill, from the municipal district councils of Cervantes and Cóbano, as well as the municipalities of Nicoya, Siquirres, Atenas, Guatuso, San Pablo de Heredia, Tibás, Santa Ana, Quepos, and Garabito (folios 87-99 and 197-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>12.</b> Through official letter No. DIG-TOT-0785-2021 of <b>December 10, 2021</b>, the agreement signed by the National Nomenclature Commission of the IGN of the National Registry was provided to the legislative file, in which it was decided to approve the name “Colorado” for the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste and requested more time to examine Article 4 of the bill (see folios 204-206 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>13.</b> Through official letter No. MGP-CTDT-006-2021 of <b>December 13, 2021</b>, the agreement adopted by the Technical Committee of the CNDTA in ordinary session No. 04-2021 held on <b>November 11, 2021</b> was attached to the file, whereby it concluded that: <i>“the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After analyzing the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that <b><u>the territory does not qualify for the exception of the article in question</u></b>”</i> (see folios 213-214 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>14.</b> On <b>February 2, 2022</b>, the Municipal District Council of Colorado provided a copy of agreement No. CMDC-0035-2022 in which they pronounced against the statements made by the authorities of the Municipality of Abangares (see folios 234-240 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>15.</b> In ordinary session No. 48 of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs held on <b>April 5, 2022</b>, a motion for a substitute text was approved and it was favorably reported unanimously by the legislators present at the session (see folios 252-263 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I and folios 293-303 of volume II).

<b>16.</b> Through official letter DIG-TOT-0251-2022 of <b>April 6, 2022</b>, the coordinator of the National Nomenclature Commission of the National Registry attached to the legislative file the agreement reached by the Commission in ordinary session No. 003-2022 held on March 31, 2022, in which it was agreed to approve the names of the towns El Crucero, Enramadas, Los Pajarillos, El Platanar, and El Coyol and not to approve the names La Palma, Lajas, San Antonio, and Santa Lucía (see folios 264-266 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>17.</b> On <b>April 22, 2022</b>, the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs submitted the favorable majority report corresponding to legislative file No. 22.643 to the Secretariat of the Directorate (see folios 267-291 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

<b>18.</b> Through official letter No. AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 of <b>June 23, 2022</b>, the interim director (directora a.i.) of the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly submitted the legal report on this bill (see folios 303-400 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

<b>19.</b> In extraordinary session No. 71 of the Legislative Plenary on <b>September 26, 2022</b>, a procedural motion was presented and approved to hear file 22.643. Subsequently, the discussion on the merits in the first debate process began, a substantive motion was presented, and the file was referred to the reporting committee (see folios 409-419 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

<b>20.</b> On <b>October 11, 2022</b>, the Permanent Ordinary Committee on Legal Affairs submitted to the Secretariat of the Directorate the first report on motions via Article 137 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly (RAL) (folios 420-447 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

<b>21.</b> In ordinary session No. 88 of <b>October 27, 2022</b>, the discussion in first debate continued and, upon the presentation of a substantive motion, it was ordered sent back to the reporting committee (see folios 448-463 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

**22.** On **February 16, 2023**, the Committee sent the second report on motions (see folios 464-482 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

**23.** In ordinary session No. 126 of **February 19, 2024**, the Legislative Plenary considered the second report on motions, and as there were no motions for reiteration, the bill was considered and approved in the first debate. This was with the affirmative vote of 37 legislators (see folios 491-510 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

**VI.- ON THE STATEMENT OF MOTIVES FOR THE BILL**. As can be seen from the analysis of the bill, it was presented to the Board Secretariat on **August 12, 2021**, and the initiative was signed by the following legislators: Mileidy Alvarado Arias, Franggi Nicolás Solano, Dragos Dolanescu Valenciano, Pablo Heriberto Abarca Mora, José María Villalta Flórez-Estrada, Jorge Luis Fonseca Fonseca, Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith, Ivonne Acuña Cabrera, Melvin Ángel Núñez Piña, Carmen Irene Chan Mora, María Inés Solís Quirós, Laura Guido Pérez, Nidia Lorena Céspedes Cisneros, María Vita Monge Granados, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, Wálter Muñoz Céspedes, Xiomara Priscilla Rodríguez Hernández, Otto Roberto Vargas Víquez, Sylvia Patricia Villegas Álvarez, Welmer Ramos González, Marolin Raquel Azofeifa Trejos, and Carlos Luis Avendaño Calvo. The statement of motives for the bill sets forth the considerations for which the creation of the canton of Colorado, independent of the canton of Abangares, is promoted. In this regard, the following was stated: *“According to historical data, the town of Colorado has existed since before 1894. Traditionally, this town has been dedicated to agricultural activities, livestock, fishing, extraction of limestone, and salt production. This last activity has been declining in recent years to give way to aquaculture in shrimp farming.* *Colorado has existed as a district since June 4, 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was established according to Law No. 13, as canton VII of Guanacaste, designating four districts, namely, Las Juntas (head town), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district of Colorado. It is important to highlight that the residents of Colorado supported the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.* *Administratively, Colorado obtained a certain degree of autonomy, in relation to its mother canton, with the creation of the Municipal District Council which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, through executive decree No. 23 of April 22, 1970, published in La Gaceta of April 24 of that same year. It should be noted that the creation of the Municipal District Council of Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Municipal Council of Abangares.* *Since then and to date, the affairs of the district have been administered by representatives of the community, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to provide adequate satisfaction to the needs of the inhabitants.* *This way of addressing needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop an absolute independence from the rest of the canton of Abangares, with which there has only existed a strictly formal sense of belonging. Furthermore, the cultural, economic, and above all sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the sociocultural configuration typical of the Guanacastecan peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows deep features of the immigrations of nationals and foreigners, who came mainly to exploit mining activity.* *Regarding the management of resources, the Municipal District Council of Colorado began in 1971 with a budget amounting to one hundred twenty-one thousand sixty-seven colones (¢121,067.00). For the year 2019, the budget submitted for approval was set at one billion one hundred forty-seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand five hundred thirty-nine colones and eighteen céntimos (¢1,147,289,539.18).* *This demonstrates that, during the last forty years, the inhabitants of the district of Colorado have managed themselves within their own reality and have generated the economic contributions necessary for the creation of the infrastructure that allows for achieving the well-being of the residents.* *The last three decades, the development of the district of Colorado has been impacted by the establishment of two important national industries, Cemex and Coonaprosal R.L.* *In 1973, Cementos del Pacífico (CEMPASA) was founded, currently CEMEX, a company that took seven years to begin operations and which is currently an important source of employment and wealth in the area.* *April 27, 1974, is a memorable date for the development of the district of Colorado, given that 48 salt producers from the Colorado and Jicaral area founded the National Cooperative of Salt Producers R.L. (COONAPROSAL, R.L.), registered and approved on November 15, 1974, by the Ministry of Labor.* *PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE:* *By 1985, 90% of the district was electrified, and in 1987 the first manual telephone exchange was installed. The aqueduct was managed by the Municipal District Council until May 1993, the year in which it was transferred to the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA).* *After many years of constant struggle, it managed to obtain its own high school in 1995, established under the modality of a model school, which has fostered greater study opportunities for young people.* *TERRITORIAL EXTENSION:* *Colorado has a territorial extension of 195.77 Km2, distributed across thirteen hamlets: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Santa Lucia, El Coyol, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, La Palma, Cementos del Pacífico, Enramadas, and the head town which is in Colorado.* *(…)* *Local roads and distances. Length of roads and their importance in socioeconomic development. In relation to the type of road surface, the most common are granular material roads (ballast), which extend for a total of 70.68km, these being the primary internal connectivity routes of the district, since most of them are used for the transit of products linked to livestock and agricultural activities; other roads that stand out are dirt roads with 32.96km, which serve an accessibility function to farms.* *The main town of Colorado is located at a distance of 27 kilometers or more from the cities or head towns of the nearest cantons, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs.* *Colorado is located 17 km from the La Amistad bridge, 30 km from Las Juntas (head town of the canton), 47 km from Cañas, and 58 km from Nicoya. Much of the road infrastructure is paved, with some stretches in fair condition.* *Regarding local roads, the district of Colorado has internal ballasted roads in good condition that allow communication throughout nine communities: San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Concepción, Pueblo Nuevo, San Joaquín, Raizal, Higuerilla, La Palma, Barbudal, Santa Lucia, and Enramadas.* *SERVICES:* *The district of Colorado has the following services and public infrastructure:* - *A medical clinic of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, which provides service 8 daytime hours and has a current budget of ¢1,237,000,000.00.* - *A Red Cross post, which provides service twenty-four hours a day, with three ambulances.* - *Nine primary schools, one per community, being: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, Cementos del Pacífico (which is a private education service), and Colorado.* - *Two high schools, located in the center of Colorado (Liceo de Colorado with a specialty in Bilingual Classroom and Vocational Program of the National Plan).* A CINDEA adult education school with a specialty in Technical careers and Educational Satellites in La Palma, Colorado, and San Buenaventura.

- Two preschools (CEN CINAI): one in Colorado and another in San Buenaventura.

- A Rural Assistance Guard post, located in Colorado.

- A municipal building (District Municipal Council), located in Colorado.

- An automatic telephone exchange.

- Six Catholic churches, one per community (except in Raizal, Cempasa, and Peñas Blancas), five non-Catholic churches: one in Colorado, Concepción, Santa Lucia, San Joaquín, and one in Peñas Blancas.

- Six community halls, one per community, except in Raizal, Peñas Blancas, and Cempasa.

- Seven soccer fields, one per community.

- Four basketball courts, located in Cempasa, Pueblo Nuevo, San Buenaventura, and Colorado.

- Two cemeteries: one in Colorado and one in San Buenaventura.

- Garbage collection service provided by the Municipal Council in the communities of Santa Lucia, San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Pueblo Nuevo, Concepción, Enrramadas, San Joaquín, La Palma, Raizal, and Colorado Centro, which is a Dirección Tres school that has the educational services of Special Support: Learning Problems, Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Speech Therapy, Educational Support, Plastic Arts, Musical Arts, Languages, among others; the rest of the communities manage their own waste (sic).

- The community of Colorado centro has restaurants, small grocery stores (pulperías), supermarkets, mini-supers, bookstores, bazaars, butcher shops, bars, hardware stores, etc.

LOCAL ORGANIZATION:

Locally, Colorado is a town with the following communal organization:

· Solidarity Associations: two · Fishermen's Associations: two · Sports Committees: one · Community Defense Committees: one · Cooperatives: five · ASOMIPE: one · Church Committees: six · Parish Economic Council: one · ASADAS Committees: five · Student Government: ten · Neighborhood Boards: two It is worth noting that in 1995, the Cantonal Creation Project for Colorado had been presented before the Legislative Assembly under expediente number N.º 11728, with a start date of June 27, 1993, published in the newspaper La Gaceta N.º 134 on July 15, 1993; the proponent of the project was the Abangares Deputy Alfredo Cruz Álvarez of the Social Christian Unity Party, representative of the Province of Guanacaste. Furthermore, a Legal Report of technical services to said expediente exists. It was approved in first debate in plenary session N.°146 on February 28, 1995, in the extraordinary period of the first legislature, from May 1, 1994, to April 30, 1994.

Considering that, due to the characteristics that the Colorado district possesses, despite not complying with what is indicated in Law Nº 4366, in Article 9 "with the percentage of necessary inhabitants…", the Colorado district currently has 5,018 inhabitants, according to source INEC (2018). If we verify data on the population of some existing cantons in the country, we can mention that many of them do not meet that requirement and were created as cantons; furthermore, if we compare budgets, we can also observe a similarity.

Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding distance from the main populated centers, including the head city of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, experience in managing municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and, above all, the manifest interest of its residents in obtaining their administrative independence. These factors lead us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division, to be elected as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though it currently forms part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an independent administration from that one has allowed for a fairly sound administrative and budgetary structure. This is because we have not applied the collective bargaining agreement that covers the officials of the municipality, nor have we generated benefits in favor of the district's officials based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the major differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the District Municipal Council of Colorado.

The District of Colorado has been developing significant public works; we can cite the purchase of a 10,000-square-meter plot of land for the construction of the Colorado Clinic, which is in the process of being transferred to the CCSS so that it may allocate the budgetary content for its proper construction.

A 340-square-meter building was recently constructed, which can serve as a cantonal delegation for the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), with an investment of 130 million colones.

A project of nearly one billion colones was incorporated with INDER to improve the Conchal levee, which will impact the economy of the district and the island of Chira, as it will allow for the improvement of existing economic activities (fishing and mollusk extraction) and the creation of new economic activities, such as rural tourism in the Gulf of Nicoya.

A Technical Training Center will be built in central Colorado, directed by INA, on a property of the Municipal Council of Colorado of 9 hectares, acquired in 2008 for nearly 100 million colones. The infrastructure will consist of 2,500 square meters of construction, at a cost of 2 billion colones. All these investments are made with tax resources collected by the District Municipal Council of Colorado, through Law 5420, the 1% export tax on the Cement produced at the Colorado Plant. This technical-modality educational center will attract many students from the entire province of Guanacaste and part of the province of Puntarenas.

It is worth highlighting that a percentage of Law 5420 is invested in educational infrastructure in all the district's educational centers, with an approximate annual budget of 30 million colones for said centers, in addition to financial contributions for school cafeterias and CEN CINAI centers in the district, as well as the transfers of resources from the real estate law to the Schools, amounting to approximately 10 million colones annually; this makes us an institution different from many others.

If Colorado were a canton, it would directly receive the resources from LEY 9156, the Regulatory Law on Exit Rights from the National Territory, dated July 25, 2013, which to date this district has received nothing from the Municipality of Abangares, which should also allocate a percentage for the construction and development of tourism infrastructure in our communities, which are so potentially touristic, and for the recovery of the district's cultural heritage.

Furthermore, it should be noted that with the reform of Law 8114 and Law 9329, the Special Law for the Transfer of Competencies: Full and Exclusive Attention to the Cantonal Road Network of November 17, 2015, starting in 2016 the District Municipal Council of Colorado has administered and disposed of the resources of this law for the attention of the road network of the district of Colorado, receiving annually the sum of approximately 350 million colones. If it became a canton, it would receive the same income because the existing road network would not vary; the only difference is that the deposit would be made by the Ministry of Finance directly to the accounts of the new canton.

Currently, the Municipal Council of Colorado has sufficient income for its self-financing (…)

We can observe that the district of Colorado has had a growing budget, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused some weakness in planning, and therefore, in budget execution, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality for budget modifications, extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to carry out so that the CMD can incorporate the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that come to improve services to citizens is necessary, such as health, public transportation, financial institutions, and public institution offices indispensable for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve territorial planning and we would have greater development.

If Colorado were a canton, greater economic resources would enter directly to invest in the territory, such as other national taxes that the Municipalities receive." (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

**VII.- A FIRST APPROXIMATION TO THE SPECIFIC CASE** The consulting legislators question whether the processing of the bill complied with the provisions of Article 9 of the LDTA, No. 4366, which states the following:

"Art. 9.- Henceforth, **no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country**, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is not left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

**By exception, new cantons that do not meet the aforementioned population requirement may be created in very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers,** always provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division recommends it, following the relevant studies." (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

That is, they consider that the bill is unreasonable because the population percentage of the first paragraph is not met, and by overlooking that requirement, the principle of legality is violated.

However, they omitted to point out that the statement of purpose expressly stated that the bill's initiative is not based on what is established in Article 9 of the aforementioned law regarding population data. In fact, it is acknowledged that the Colorado district does not meet "the required percentage of inhabitants." Thus, the bill is motivated by invoking the exceptional possibility provided for in that same Article 9 (second paragraph), which must be applied together with what Article 15 of the law states, which says the following:

"Art. 15.- Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission of Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division. (…)." In this regard, the following arguments were set forth in the statement of purpose of the bill accepted for processing by the legislators:

"**Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, experience in managing municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which leads us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton via the exception route, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division to be elected the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.**" Consequently, this consultation does not focus on verifying whether the bill meets the requirement established in the law regarding the population percentage, since it was acknowledged from the outset in the initiative itself that these were not met, but rather on reviewing whether the legislators adhered to the conditions for exempting that requirement, as provided for in the legislation regulating the creation of new cantons (Articles 9, second paragraph, and 15 of the LDTA).

To reach a duly supported conclusion, this Chamber will review the technical criteria contained in the legislative record, the provisions regulating the creation of cantonal entities, and the precedents of this Chamber and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic. Finally, an analysis will be made of the most relevant regulations for the specific case submitted for consultation.

**VIII.- ON THE CRITERIA PROVIDED DURING THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS** When referring to the legislative *iter*, this Chamber verified that several institutional criteria were provided to the Permanent Ordinary Commission on Juridical Affairs of the Legislative Assembly, detailed below.

Through official communication PE-AL-276-2021 of **October 29, 2021**, the institutional criterion of INVU was sent to the Legislative Assembly, from which the following conclusions are drawn:

"**The foundation of the bill indicates that the district of Colorado has a population of 5,091 inhabitants, a quantity that does not meet the requirement established in Article 9 of Law No. 4366, the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, which would be true, and the exception regarding population that the same article establishes is based on very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers, aspects that are currently not met, since the road infrastructure is in good condition and there is bus service to different places, including Las Juntas de Abangares.** (…)

It is clear that the creation of the canton, districts, and the incorporation of settlements aims for a better administrative and budgetary organization, and the district of Colorado can assume the transformation; however, the bill must be adjusted to the principle of legality, as well as the decision made in the Legislative Assembly." (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

As can be seen, the authorities of INVU pointed out that, for the purposes of approving the new canton, the population requirements are not met, nor is the exception regarding distance met.

Concerning this aspect specifically, the TSE opposed the bill, in the following terms:

"The promoting legislators, in the statement of purpose, point out that the creation of the new constituency fails to comply with the legal requirement of having at least 1% of the country's population (page 7 of the bill), a requirement that, as indicated, can be bypassed because other cantons have fewer than that number of inhabitants and because, as detailed, the area is remote from the head town of the canton to which it currently belongs; it is also indicated that the trend of goods and services (sic), a considerable community organization, and sufficient economic resources justify that the law can be approved without the aforementioned minimum population amount.

These reasonings, although they are fully worthy of consideration, do not have sufficient substance to ignore that there is a valid law that obliges the accreditation of a minimum population amount, a rule whose non-observance would lead to an affectation of the principle of singular non-derogability of norms (…) **In this way, by affirming in the bill that the canton intended to be created does not meet one of the requirements for it and that there is no evidence that the procedure provided for exempting such obligation has been followed (there is no record of a favorable opinion from the National Commission of Territorial Division), it becomes apparent that the initiative has a defect that must be corrected**." (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original. See folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative record, volume I).

Additionally, through official communication No. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of **November 9, 2021**, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy set forth some technical observations, such as the following:

"The initiative is justified on grounds such as the district's remoteness, possession of infrastructure and basic services, experience in managing municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence; moreover, it is important to mention that the statement of purpose indicates that the residents of Colorado supported the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Since then and to date, the district's affairs have been administered by community representatives, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to provide adequate satisfaction for the inhabitants' needs. This manner of attending to needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop absolute independence from the rest of the canton of Abangares, with which there has only been a strictly formal sense of belonging. Moreover, the cultural, economic, and above all sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the sociocultural configuration typical of the Guanacaste peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows traits of immigration by nationals and foreigners, who came mainly to exploit mining activity." (See folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative record, volume I).

It is recorded in the legislative record that formal hearing was granted to the President of the CDTA (see folio 102 of the copy of the legislative record); however, its technical body, namely the Technical Committee of the Administrative Territorial Division (see Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41236-MGP of June 15, 2018), rendered its report. Said body adopted Agreement No. 001-04-2021 in which it concluded the following:

"Regarding the consultation on the bill, based on its analysis, the following recommendations will be made: **first, the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After analyzing the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception mentioned in the article.** It is further recommended that the situation that Colorado de Abangares already has a District Municipal Council that administers the territory be analyzed. In the event that the bill advances, it is requested that the limits already stipulated by the National Geographic Institute, which are the official ones, be respected." (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original. See folio 214 of the copy of the legislative record, volume I).

It is observed that the opinion of the Commission was negative, since, according to its technical analysis, the site does not meet the conditions set forth in Article 9 of the law, and it indicated that the territory does not qualify for the application of the exception provided for in that same rule regarding distance from the administrative center.

Once the corresponding hearings were granted, the legislative record was favorably reported on by the Commission on Juridical Affairs of the Legislative Assembly, and in the justification, the ideas gathered in the statement of purpose of the bill regarding the application of the exception were set forth and retaken:

Colorado has existed as a district since June 4, 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was established according to Law No. 13, as the VII canton of Guanacaste, with four districts designated, namely, Las Juntas (head town), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district, Colorado. It is important to highlight that the residents of Colorado supported the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Administratively, Colorado obtained a certain degree of autonomy in relation to its parent canton with the creation of the District Municipal Council, which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23 of April 22, 1970, published in La Gaceta of April 24 of that same year. It should be noted that the creation of the District Municipal Council of Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Municipal Council of Abangares.

Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs, possession of infrastructure and basic services, experience in managing municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which lead us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton via the exception route, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division to be elected the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though it currently forms part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an administration independent from that one has allowed it to have a fairly healthy administrative and budgetary structure, due to the fact that we have not applied the collective bargaining agreement that covers the municipality's officials, nor have we generated benefits for the district's officials based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the large differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the District Municipal Council of Colorado.

We can observe that the district of Colorado has had a growing budget, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused some weakness in planning, and therefore, in budget execution, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality for budget modifications, extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to carry out so that the CMD can incorporate the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that come to improve services to citizens is necessary, such as health, public transportation, financial institutions, and public institution offices indispensable for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve territorial planning and we would have greater development.

If Colorado were a canton, greater economic resources would enter directly to invest in the territory, such as other national taxes that the Municipalities receive." Furthermore, in the report rendered to the Plenary, the most relevant extracts of the hearings received were detailed, and the following was finally concluded:

"Once the criteria were received, the drafting adjustments suggested by the different institutions were made and presented in a Substitute Text Motion that was approved. Additionally, it is desired to emphasize that the bill in question does not intend to make territorial modifications in the course of presidential or municipal elections.

Regarding the opposition of the Municipality of Abangares, the Intendancy made a response and expansion on the alleged situations pointed out by the cited municipality. In this sense, the management and administration of the Intendancy are made transparent." The proposed canton has budgetary autonomy, as broadly defined and clarified by the Comptroller General of the Republic in its official communication PGR-C-245-2021 (…)

Thus, the assertions made to the contrary on this matter lack foundation and are outside any range of legality.

An Intendancy that is not subject to any collective bargaining agreement, recognizing only the annual salary increments established by law, and that has managed its resources efficiently. Which even generated, from its own office, the respective consultations to the oversight bodies on matters of taxes and remuneration.

On the other hand, it is necessary to indicate that the Intendancy of Colorado presented statistics, hard data on its arguments, while the municipal opinion lacks elements that allow its affirmations to be corroborated.

This population has the right to aspire to its canton status, as the communities of Monteverde and Río Cuarto recently did.

RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the foregoing, taking into account the response received and for reasons of opportunity and convenience, the deputies who are members of this Committee issue this AFFIRMATIVE MAJORITY REPORT, on the bill entitled “CREATION OF THE CANTON OF COLORADO, TWELFTH CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF GUANACASTE”, processed under file N.º 22.643, and recommend to the Legislative Plenary its approval” (The underlining does not correspond to the original).

It is clear that the committee issuing the report based its decision on aspects of opportunity and convenience, obviating – in the judgment of this Chamber – that it was not only a matter of weighing these elements, but that it was necessary to show that the legal requirements that were expressly self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly for the decision to create a new canton were met.

Finally, and regarding the consultation raised in the specific case, it is appropriate to cite what was suggested by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly AL-DEST- IJU-211-2022 of June 23, 2022 – issued after the committee report – in which the following warnings were made:

“By virtue of the foregoing considerations, this advisory body draws attention to what was indicated by the Technical Committee on Administrative Territorial Division, through agreement 001- 04-2021, which was brought to the attention of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs through official communication MGP-CTDT-006- 2021, of December 13, 2021; which among other aspects states that: ‘(…) the territory in question does not comply with article 9 of Law 4366. After the distance analysis with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception of the article in question.’ (the highlighting is not from the original).

The Technical Committee is a body attached to the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division, which has been tasked with studying and proposing solutions aimed at achieving a systematic improvement of the country's territorial administration, acting as a technical body of the Commission, but it is not the Commission itself.

It should be warned that despite the fact that the National Commission for Territorial Division was consulted by the Committee on Legal Affairs (see folio 102 of the file) as required by Law 4366, a response referring to this project is not on record; rather, the only thing recorded is the response from its technical body.

Despite the fact that the population data does not come from the National Commission, the truth is that its technical body conducted the study that concluded that the canton proposal does not meet the population requirement demanded by law, data that the Legislative Assembly can corroborate with a request for information to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses.

In this regard, Law N° 4366 is categorical regarding compliance with the population requirement of no less than 1% of the total population of the country or compliance with the population exception when that territory is very remote and of difficult communication with its administrative center for a new canton to be created, but having been verified by the Technical Committee that it is not met, the Legislative Assembly must proceed not to create this new canton. While it is true, the criterion of the Commission on Territorial Division is not binding on the Legislative Assembly but rather its criterion is only a legal requirement whose consultation is mandatory, the truth is that the technical body has verified that the population requirement is not met, nor even the distance requirement indicated as the exception, so the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton, and if it does so, it would be violating the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Political Constitution by failing to comply with the provisions of Article 9 of Law N° 4366. As the Constitutional Chamber has indicated, the Legislative Assembly cannot disapply the rules that it itself has approved on this matter of territorial division”. (What is highlighted does not correspond to the original).

In this regard, this Court will later make its own conclusion on the binding nature or not of the opinion of the CNDTA as the technical body designated by the legislator itself to advise it on matters relating to administrative territorial division. However, it suffices to indicate for the moment that the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly itself highlighted that in the present case the conditions of the law regarding the population quantity are not met, nor is the distance requirement indicated as the exception and, in light of the foregoing and by virtue of the principle of legality, it concluded that the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton.

IX.- ON THE PROVISIONS THAT REGULATE THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FORMATION OF NEW CANTONS AND THE PRECEDENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER In general terms, the construction of the territorial unit of our country is regulated primarily by Art. 168 of the Political Constitution:

“Art. 168.- For the purposes of Public Administration, the national territory is divided into provinces; these into cantons and the cantons into districts. The law may establish special distributions.

The Legislative Assembly may decree, observing the procedures for partial reform of this Constitution, the creation of new provinces, provided that the respective project was previously approved in a plebiscite that the Assembly shall order to be held in the province or provinces that support the dismemberment.

The creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members”. (The highlighted does not correspond to the original).

The constitutional provision establishes that the constitutional competence to create new cantons is entrusted to the Legislative Assembly and the only condition established in the Constitution is that the vote be carried out by a qualified majority of 38 votes – a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Branch. In this regard, as will be detailed further on, this Chamber has said that this qualified legislative reservation – as an exception to the general rule of Art. 119 of the Political Constitution – demonstrates the marked relevance that the constituent power considered that decisions related to the matter of the territorial organization of the State had, from which great implications are derived, among others: electoral, infrastructural, and resource distribution.

Furthermore, it was the legislator itself that issued a legal-rank norm that came to establish additional conditions or requirements for the creation of new cantons, setting parameters of reasonableness and proportionality in its decision. Thus, Law on Administrative Territorial Division (LDTA) N.°4366 of August 5, 1969 was issued – which is a norm, the result of the initiative of the Government and Administration Committee of the Legislative Assembly and drafted by the then director of the National Geographic Institute, which came to renovate the Law on Municipal Territorial Division N.°56 of June 4, 1909, – and it is precisely the parameter that the legislators consider transgressed.

The relevant norms are the following:

“Art. 1.- The National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division is hereby created, whose function shall be to advise the Public Powers in matters of administrative territorial division.

The Commission shall be composed of the Minister of Governance, the Director of the National Geographic Institute, and the Director of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, who may be represented by officials of their respective agencies.

Provinces, cantons, or districts may not be created without first knowing the opinion of the Commission, to whose knowledge the problems of administrative territorial division shall be submitted.

(…)

Art. 9.- Henceforth, no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is not left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the said population in places very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission for Territorial Division recommends it, following the relevant studies.

Art. 13.- Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory that is to constitute it conforms to what is indicated in Article 9 and that the rest of the canton to be dismembered also meets these conditions. They must additionally indicate, with all precision, the perimeter of the canton, enclosing the respective map.

The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the convenience of the creation, which shall pronounce itself following a report from the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division.

(…)</p> Article 15.- Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission for Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division.

When changes are introduced in the territorial division, the National Geographic Institute and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses must take note of the changes in surface area, population values, etc., publishing these values in their annual reports.

The National Geographic Institute shall prepare provincial and cantonal maps, which must be reviewed when necessary. The municipalities of the country may contribute financially to their publication.

The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission on Nomenclature.

The title of City shall be granted by the Legislative Assembly to populated places, previously hearing the opinion of the National Commission for Territorial Division”. (The highlighted does not correspond to the original).

From the highlighted norms, it is evident that the referenced law not only creates the CNDTA, but also establishes the requirements for the creation of new cantons.

This Chamber has pronounced on compliance with these requirements for the creation of new cantons and has indicated the binding nature of the norms self-imposed by the legislator. Precisely, this Chamber issued the advisory opinion n.°1995-2009, related to the creation of the canton of Colorado as part of the province of Guanacaste, in which it made the following considerations:

“IV ).- CONSTITUTIONAL NORM AND LEGAL REGIME FOR THE CREATION OF NEW CANTONS.- Article 168 of the Political Constitution, in what is relevant, indicates that for the purposes of Public Administration the national territory is divided into provinces, cantons, and districts; the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members. No other provision does the Political Constitution contain on the creation of new cantons. As it is a general principle of Constitutional Law that every territorial jurisdiction existing at the time the supreme norm that recognizes it arises and elevates it to the category of a decentralized institution with constitutional rank, in this case, the cantons, acquires the right to its full existence and identity, to its autonomy granted by a norm of equal rank (Art. 170 id.), to maintain its integrity and its condition of administrative decentralization (the latter does not imply, of course, that it is a form of State or government that excludes all other forms of political administration, because like all decentralization, it leaves the constituent power and even the legislative power of the State intact), the necessary juridical-constitutional conclusion leads us to determine that it corresponds to the Legislative Branch to exercise or not the competence contained in Article 168 of the Political Constitution for the creation of cantons, establishing the requirements and formalities that give reasonable and proportionate content to the principles that the superior norm itself may have conceived and, in any case, to the complementary ones that, without being in the original norm, are appropriate to make the exercise of the competence possible.

V.- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION (No. 4366 of August 19, 1969).- It is this law, precisely, that the Legislative Branch has issued to regulate the creation of new cantons. It is necessary to point out that when the Political Constitution establishes in the final paragraph of Article 168 that the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the totality of the members of the Legislative Assembly is required for the creation of a canton, it gives a clear idea of the importance that the original constituent power has given to territorial integrity and to all matters related to the territorial subdivision of the Provinces. In the judgment of the Chamber, the general principle of Law that establishes that legal norms bind even the authority that has issued them and, within its competence, its superior, implies that the law that disciplines the functioning of the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of a competence also constitutional binds it in the specific cases in which it must exercise it, which is nothing more than the application of the general principle of the singular non-derogability of the norm for the specific case; a general principle of constitutional rank, as it is applicable to the entirety of the legal system, as a derivation and at the same time a condition of the Rule of Law in its entirety. All of which means, in relation to the present matter, that for the creation of a new municipal territorial entity the Legislative Assembly must observe the law that it has issued for such purpose, of course, without prejudice to its power to repeal or reform it prior to its exercise.

VI ).- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION BIS.- Having said the above, in the judgment of the Chamber a new canton cannot be created without complying with the administrative procedure contained in Law No. 4366, besides the fact that from the examination of the file serious formal non-compliances are apparent, all of which lead to the constitutional competence of the Legislative Assembly being substituted by public bodies and dependencies or vitiated by the omission of essential requirements, the processed matter results in a violation of the legislative procedure and consequently, contrary to the Political Constitution itself. In the following Considerings, these non-compliances are detailed.

VII ).- NON-COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CREATION OF THE CANTON.- In the judgment of the Chamber, in the processing of the bill, the norms transcribed below have not been observed:

"Provinces, cantons, or districts may not be created without first knowing the opinion of the Commission, to whose knowledge the problems of administrative territorial division shall be submitted." (paragraph 3, Article 1).

"Henceforth, no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is not left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

"By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the said population, in places very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission for Territorial Division recommends it, following the relevant studies." (Article 9) "When a new canton is created, the limits that shall separate it from the adjoining cantons must be determined with all thoroughness, in the very law of creation..." (Article 10) "Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory that is to constitute it conforms to what is indicated in Article 9 and that the rest of the canton to be dismembered also meets these conditions. They must additionally indicate, with all precision, the perimeter of the canton, enclosing the respective map.

"The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the convenience of the creation, which shall pronounce itself following a report from the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division." (Article 13) "Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission for Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the Territorial Division.

"The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission on Nomenclature." (paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 15).- Indeed, it is not on record in the legislative file that the studies and the report of the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division had been carried out. Official communication No. 950118 of February 27, 1995, which is attached to folios 139, 140, and 141, signed by the Vice Minister of Governance and Police, who is, at the same time, President of the Commission, cannot have the virtue of fulfilling the requirement: first, because the competence to carry out the studies and make recommendations belongs to the Commission as a body and not to its President; and second, because Law 4366 requires the studies and the consultation to the Commission, which cannot be substituted by the phrase 'Given that we have learned that the bill is in the legislative process...', an expression that is incompatible with the objective pursued by Law 4366 in creating the Commission, from which it is expected that it intervene formally and specifically in every process tending to the creation of a new canton.

Consequently, <b><u>no other conclusion can be reached than to affirm that the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division did not participate in the processing of this bill and, consequently, the requirements and formalities established by the legislator itself based on the constitutional purposes and principles involved in the creation of new cantons have not been fulfilled</u></b> (…)

The consultation is answered to the effect that the bill creating the Canton of Colorado, Twelfth of the Province of Guanacaste, is unconstitutional due to a violation of the legislative procedure, and consequently, this opinion is binding. Magistrates Solano and Arguedas issue a dissenting vote and respond to the consultation to the effect that the bill is unconstitutional insofar as it violates articles 9 and 68 of the Political Constitution and is contrary to ruling No. 6000-94 of this Chamber.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

From the preceding precedent, it can be concluded that this Chamber established the premise that, in matters concerning the exercise of a legislative power of constitutional origin, such as the creation of cantons, the Legislative Assembly is bound by Law No. 4366. It can well be said that the LDT contains norms of legislative procedure regarding the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin. Therefore, the cited advisory opinion rightly referred to the principle of singular non-derogability of norms, which according to this Court’s jurisprudence has constitutional rank (see also judgment <b>No. 2020-023743</b> and advisory opinion <b>No. 2021-009111</b>).

The majority’s statements in that advisory opinion were subsequently taken up by this same Chamber in advisory opinion <b>No. 2002-05801</b>, regarding the creation of the canton of Corralillo. That resolution set forth the following considerations:

“III.- The territorial organization of the State.

The Costa Rican State, despite being characterized by a unitary form, that is, despite the fact that the territories comprising it do not enjoy true political autonomy from the central power, is indeed divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees: provinces, cantons, districts, settlements, etc. This distribution of space is termed by the Law as ‘Administrative Territorial Division.’ (Cf. Law number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen sixty-nine) Despite the fact that this denomination could lead us to mistakenly believe it is a division for purely administrative purposes (for example, for the correct planning and implementation of state and local public services), the truth is that the territorial organization the State adopts carries a series of serious implications that undoubtedly transcend the merely administrative sphere. In this sense, the adopted division has a direct impact on electoral organization, on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly (elected by provinces according to article 106 of the Political Constitution), on the designation of local authorities (council members, district councilors, and municipal mayors), on the determination of the various areas of jurisdictional competence, etc. Hence, the State’s establishment of a clear and precise organization directly affects the proper functioning of all other forms of public action related to it. It is for this reason that the Political Constitution, in its article 168, establishes that only the Legislative Assembly may modify the territorial organization of the Costa Rican State, regarding provinces and cantons. In the first case, an act approved according to the procedures for partial constitutional reform, preceded by a popular referendum in the provinces involved in the dismemberment, is required; <b><u>in the second, it requires the approval of a Law by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the total number of deputies. The imposition of the aforementioned qualified legal reserve (an exception to the general rule of article 119 of the Constitution) also reveals that character of marked relevance that the constituent body considered applicable to decisions regarding the State's territorial organization, deriving from the profound implications this matter entails.</u></b> IV.- Procedure for the creation of new cantons.

In Costa Rica, the constituent body did not elaborately develop the issue concerning the necessary procedures for creating a canton. In fact, article 168 of the Political Constitution establishes barely the following:

(…)

That is, the Fundamental Law merely determined that there is a reinforced reserve of Law for the constitution of new cantons, leaving to the ordinary legislator the development of explicit mechanisms for the implementation of this parliamentary competence. Thus, the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen sixty-nine, provides for the specific procedures that authorities must follow to approve the creation of a new canton or district. (…)

As a corollary of all that has been said up to this point, it is possible to affirm that the Costa Rican legal system requires that, for the creation of a canton of the Republic, the Legislative Assembly (the sole competent body) must approve a bill according to the procedures of ordinary Law, by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the totality of its members, these requirements being increased by those provided in Law number 4366. According to the reasoning followed by this Chamber in judgment 4009-95 partially transcribed, <b><u>it is understood that the legislator, upon approving the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, self-limited itself, developing the generic contents of constitutional article 168 through a more detailed and specific regulation of its own actions in this matter</u></b>. Upon approving law 4366, <b><u>the Legislative Assembly made use of its powers of self-regulation, defining the necessary procedures to guarantee that when approving new cantons, Parliament will act with full knowledge of the scope of its decision, in relation to aspects of territory and population of the new circumscriptions. The procedure imposed by the aforementioned Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it deals with constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in article 168 of the Constitution</u></b>. In this context, it is clear that to approve the creation of a new canton, the Assembly <b><u>must be certain that it will have a population equal to or greater than one percent of the total inhabitants of the country, or failing that, must adhere to the (technical) report issued by the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division, a body that must evaluate whether conditions of remoteness and difficult communication exist regarding the municipal administrative centers, which would make the creation of a new canton appropriate. Obtaining this opinion constitutes an indispensable requirement in the procedure for the constitution of such territorial entities</u></b>. (…)

<b><u>Not reaching the minimum required by the Law, and not having the opinion of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division, without whose affirmative report it was impossible for the Legislative Assembly to approve the creation of the canton of Corralillo, it was impossible for Parliament to create the new canton.</u></b> This omission cannot be justified by the fact that the National Commission did not respond to the hearing granted for eight days by the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration (folio 52 of the legislative file). Article 157 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly expressly regulates matters concerning consultations that must be carried out by the Legislative Assembly, to the University of Costa Rica, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Judicial Branch, and autonomous institutions, providing that if eight business days after receiving the consultation the institution does not pronounce itself, it is understood that it does not oppose the initiative in question. This rule clearly regulates the exercise of an institutional self-defense power, which allows the mentioned bodies and entities to express their opinion on a particular bill that in some way affects their interests. <b><u>The participation of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division provided for in article 9 of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, as the Commission must base itself on strictly technical criteria to render its opinion, without being able to offer, as in the case of the other mentioned institutions, mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the bill under discussion. This is a limitation imposed by the legislator in the use of its already described powers of self-regulation, in order to ensure that the decision adopted is backed by complete technical certainty regarding its content and scope. If the Assembly does not have all the necessary information to act consciously, it would be leaving the decision regarding the State's territorial organization to other instances, in clear violation of the reserve that the Political Constitution established in its favor. Furthermore, it is clear that article 9 of Law 4366 is a special norm regarding the generic regulation of article 157 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly. All these reasons lead this Chamber to conclude that the absence of an opinion rendered by the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division in the stated terms constitutes a defect in the procedure used in the discussion of legislative file number 13,515, which causes the nullity of the proceedings followed, and therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 101, paragraph 2 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the procedure must be retraced to before its approval in the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration.</u></b> The consultation is answered to the effect that, regarding the proceedings followed for the approval of the bill ‘Creation of Canton IX of the Province of Cartago, Corralillo,’ legislative file number 13,515, the Constitutional Chamber finds invalidating defects in the legislative procedure” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

A careful reading of that advisory opinion shows that the Chamber highlighted, first, that –upon approving the LDTA– the legislator itself established its own rules for the exercise of the competence granted in article 168 of the Political Constitution. This is a special regulation related to the procedures for said exercise, which it must respect itself. Thus, from that resolution it was established that “the procedure imposed by the aforementioned Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it deals with constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in article 168 of the Constitution.” Second, and especially relevant for the specific case, the Chamber stressed that prior to the creation of a new canton, the opinion of the CNDTA must be known, which will verify that the territory has a population equal to or greater than 1% (one percent) of the total population of our country. In the absence of this requirement, the Legislative Assembly may only create it if the CNDTA recommends it. Indeed, thus provides article 9 of the LDT, which it is fitting to transcribe again:

<b><u>By exception, new cantons not reaching the aforementioned population may be created in places that are very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided the National Commission of Territorial Division recommends it, following the pertinent studies.</u></b> Therefore, it is the responsibility of this technical body to evaluate whether the conditions of remoteness and difficult communication exist regarding the municipal administrative centers to which they are attached, that justify the creation of a new canton. The Chamber expressly indicated that obtaining this opinion is an indispensable requirement in the procedure for creating new cantonal entities. It must be understood that it must be a favorable opinion, as the law clearly states “provided that it recommends it.” Thus, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive opinion –the recommendation– of the CNDTA.

What was stated in the precedents –regarding the fulfillment of legal procedures self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of its competencies– can be compared, as it contains the same logic, with the case of the declassification of protected wilderness areas in our country. This Court has affirmed that, if technical elements are required for the creation of these zones, it must be understood that they are also needed for their total or partial declassification, and the absence of such a requirement or technical basis causes the legislative decision to be invalidated. For example, this Chamber, in judgment <b>No. 1998-7294</b> –expressly alluding to vote No. 2009-1995 cited <i>supra</i>– concluded the following:

“According to the cited text, <b><u>mutatis mutandi, if for the creation of a protective wilderness area the Legislative Assembly, through a law, established the fulfillment of specific requirements in order to determine if the classification in question is justified, it is logical that, for its partial or total declassification, certain requirements must also be fulfilled –such as the completion of technical environmental studies– to determine that the declassification does not transgress the content of article 50 of the Constitution”</u></b> (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In that resolution this Chamber affirmed that “<b><u>the non-observance of certain requirements has the effect of transgressing substantial norms or principles of constitutional rank</u></b>” and, therefore, it was held that the Legislative Assembly cannot validly approve the reduction of the surface area of a protective zone without first having a technical study that justifies its decision, otherwise, its action becomes contrary to the Political Constitution due to a violation of the principle of constitutional reasonableness in relation to articles 121 subsection 1) and 129 of the Political Charter.

Subsequently, alluding to these same considerations and the principle of singular non-derogability of norms, the Chamber issued advisory opinion <b>No. 2012-013367</b>, in which it stated the following:

“This principle is a conquest of the Rule of Law arising from the French Revolution, since it was characteristic of the ancient absolutist regime that the king changed criteria according to his interests. So, if the legislator, developing constitutional guarantees in favor of the environment, establishes as a requirement and guarantee of the right that a law and a sufficient and complete technical study justifying it are required for the reduction of protected areas, <b><u>such provision binds, by virtue of the principle, the very legislative body that enacted it</u></b>.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original. Considerations that were later reiterated in full in judgment <b>No. 2017-002375</b>).

This is another good example showing that the Legislative Assembly is subject to the regulations it has enacted for the purpose of regulating the exercise of its constitutional powers. In both cases, due to their implications, this involves subjection to technical criteria that justify the parliamentary decision.

In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that it is not a matter of the legal norm itself being a parameter of constitutionality to evaluate the conduct of the Legislative Branch, but rather that said norm contains rules previously established for the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin, so failing to comply with them would constitute an injury to the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm, which is of constitutional order. We could also add that ignoring and disapplying said rules would imply a transgression of the principles of regularity and legal certainty that should inform the Parliament's activities.

Finally, it is pertinent to note that in judgment <b>No. 2023-06227</b>, through which the Chamber analyzed the constitutionality of the creation of the district of Birrisito, it arrived at several conclusions, among others the following:

“In order to develop this analysis, a first important conclusion can be advanced, according to which, for this Court, it is clear then that the Legislative Assembly –besides being able to create provinces and cantons– also has competence for the creation of districts, having to recall that maxim that states ‘he who can do more, can do less,’ since if that Branch of the Republic possesses the constitutional power granted by article 168 of the Constitution to create the former, with much greater reason it can do so for the case of districts. Furthermore, article 14 of Law No. 4366 contains a delegation that is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly can, on its own, create districts, or modify or repeal what is established therein, without one being a requirement for the other, or what is the same, it can create districts without needing to modify or repeal the provisions of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division No. 4366. <b><u>Interpreting it otherwise would imply the renunciation of the competence assigned to it by the Constituent Body, which does not follow from having delegated it and regulated it in a procedure in the mentioned law, which contemplates the creation of districts by the Executive Branch.</u></b> <b><u>The generic constitutional power to agree on the administrative distribution of the national territory has been directly attributed to the Legislative Assembly as a constitutional body, and therefore must also include that of districts.</u></b> Although the Constituent Body did not concretely define that specific treatment in article 168 of the Constitution, by not doing so, it left open the possibility for the legislator to assume that competence in accordance with the principles of opportunity and convenience, which evidently would not be prohibited. In this sense, as will be seen later, this Chamber opts for the retention of that competence, also, in favor of the Legislative Assembly, despite having been regulated in the law for the Executive Branch.

<b>VI.- Continuation.</b> Based on the preceding items, several conclusions can be drawn to demonstrate that the claimant is not correct regarding this point:

<b>a)</b> First, as this Court has already noted, the discussion regarding the best administrative territorial division of Costa Rica is proper to the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly. Article 168 of the Constitution is very clear in stating that this Branch can create provinces and cantons. And, according to the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible that the Legislative Assembly may create districts, as the delegation made in article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said norm.

<b>b)</b> It is not the function of the Chamber to resolve on the convenience or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral or administrative planning purposes, therefore this Court has no competence whatsoever to pronounce on the convenience or timeliness of having created the district of Birrisito.

<b>c)</b> It is not true that the Legislative Assembly had to modify Law No. 4366 in order to create the district of Birrisito. Note that this same Court, in Judgment No. 2013-012802 of 2:45 p.m. of September 25, 2013, expressly indicated that the delegation granted to the Executive Branch in article 14 of that Law No. 4366 on Administrative Territorial Division to create districts is not permanent, that is, it accepts variations by the legislator's decision, but in addition, it is not exclusive, which is very important in terms of the claimant's complaint because this implies that the power for the Executive Branch granted in that article 14 can perfectly coexist with the natural power of the Legislative Assembly to create districts. It must be taken into account that this Constitutional Court has never stated that article 14 of Law No. 4366, or this Law in its entirety, had to be modified for the Legislative Assembly to create districts.

What this Court has said is that the Legislative Assembly could modify or repeal what is established in that regulation—Article 14 cited—or create new districts itself, on its own. Hence, the interpretation made by the claimant in this regard is improper.

**d)** Therefore, it is more than evident that the Legislative Assembly had the competence to create that district as it did, and although this is a matter of legality that this Court is not required to assess, it is on the record that the procedure established in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 was followed; namely:

**1)** The National Commission of Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial) and specifically its Technical Committee, analyzed the request to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting the National Geographic Institute (IGN) to carry out the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso.

**2)** The mandatory consultation was made to the Municipality of Paraíso, having its approval, but in addition, the National Nomenclature Commission, the Institute of Statistics and Censuses, the Integral Development Association of Birrisito, and the National Geographic Institute (IGN) were consulted.

**3)** The boundaries of the district were established, as well as where its head town would be located and the villages that would comprise it, along with matters relating to the minimum population that would form that new district.

**4)** The Municipal Council of Paraíso, in ordinary session No. 16 of July 7, 2020, Article II, subsection 11, issued an agreement by which the district of Birrisito was created, having the endorsement of the Municipality of Paraíso. The boundaries of the new district and the hamlets that would comprise it were established; an agreement that was adopted definitively, also ordering notification to the Special Commission of the seven deputies of the province of Cartago.

**e)** **<u>With the creation of the district of Birrisito by the Legislative Assembly, the principle of singular non-derogability of the regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality has not been violated, as claimed by the claimant, because that Branch of the Republic had full competence to do so, made no disapplication of rules for the specific case, and simply exercised a power it possesses, which derives from the Political Constitution itself</u>**. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers was not violated because it did not usurp the competencies of the Executive Branch since, as reiterated above, the power to create districts granted in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent for that Branch nor exclusive vis-à-vis the Legislative Branch. Consequently, with regard to this point, the action must be dismissed because no violation of the Law of the Constitution occurred in the terms alleged regarding this point. (…)”.

After reviewing this precedent, it is possible to state that the premise of this Chamber —as in ruling <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-587294"><b>No. 2013-012802</b></a>— is that, concerning the creation of districts, the Legislative Assembly designed an administrative procedure and delegated that competence to the Executive Branch, but it was noted that this is not a permanent or exclusive delegation, since, as stated in both precedents, the Legislative Assembly could itself create districts. This is precisely what happened and was resolved in Birrisito, and it was the basis for dismissing an injury to the principle of singular non-derogability of the regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality. In that matter, moreover, it was not proven that there was a negative opinion for the creation of the aforementioned district. The ruling states the following:

"The National Commission of Territorial Division and specifically its Technical Committee analyzed the request to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting the National Geographic Institute to carry out the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso." That is to say, there was no controversy there regarding the opposition of the CNDTA. This is not a minor aspect when considering the analysis of the specific case now submitted for consultation, in which, as stated *supra*, the territory does not meet the population conditions of Art. 9, nor does it meet the distance circumstances, and therefore the initiative is not endorsed by a favorable opinion from the CNDTA.

From the examination of this Chamber's precedents and the review of other legislative files in which the creation of new cantons has been approved, it is concluded that, due to the sum of the indicated circumstances, the case analyzed in this consultation constitutes a new and exceptional scenario.

Indeed, this Court undertook the task of reviewing other legislative antecedents and verified that the Assembly has had a favorable opinion from the CNDTA for the recent creation of other cantons. For example, in legislative file 20.787 regarding the creation of the canton of Río Cuarto, Law No. <a href="https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&amp;nValor1=1&amp;nValor2=86329&amp;nValor3=115044&amp;strTipM=TC">9440</a>, the existence of an opinion from the commission was documented indicating the following:

"By means of official letter DVG-CMMQ-272-2016, Carmen Muñoz Quesada, in her capacity as President of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa): issues a favorable view on the project. She recognizes that the case of Río Cuarto constitutes an exception, as the remoteness and difficult communication are evident, and this could thus relax the population criterion of the minimum 1%, contained in the Law of Administrative Territorial Division." Furthermore, from the analysis of legislative file No. 21618, relating to the creation of the canton of Monteverde, Law No. <a href="https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&amp;nValor1=1&amp;nValor2=96054&amp;nValor3=128489&amp;strTipM=TC">10,019</a>, it was verified that the opinion of the commission tasked with assessing the bill recorded the following:

"The project has the favorable criteria of the consulted institutions and the representation of its inhabitants through the signatures that originated the file, the support of the different associations and local government bodies. No unfavorable criterion was issued.

- The district of Monteverde is located in a very remote place with difficult communication to its administrative center, therefore we consider the creation of this new canton extremely important, representing a necessary initiative for the district, beneficial for the residents of Monteverde who promoted this initiative.

- This bill would solve the problem of dependence on the parent Municipality regarding budgetary processing." In that regard, the legislative file includes the favorable report from the Nomenclature Commission and the positive opinion of the CNDTA based on the distance factor:

"Considering the hearing held in session 03-2020 and the new elements requested by this body, the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division reconsiders the previously taken decision and endorses the creation of the canton of Monteverde, as recorded in Agreement 01 of Session 04-2020, considering, in light of the submitted study, that the case falls under the exception mentioned in Article 9 of Law 4366." Finally, in legislative file No. 22,749, relating to the approval of the canton of Puerto Jiménez, Law No. <a href="https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&amp;nValor1=1&amp;nValor2=97236&amp;nValor3=131020&amp;param2=1&amp;strTipM=TC&amp;lResultado=1&amp;strSim=simp">10,195</a>, it is recorded that the commission assessing the bill recorded the following:

"In Official Letter MGP-CNDT-001-2022 dated February 2, 2022, the Ministry of Governance and Police and the National Commission of Territorial Division fully endorse the bill." With which it is concluded that in these three examined antecedents there was indeed a favorable opinion from the corresponding CNDTA. The case under analysis is a different scenario, due to the following: it seeks to apply exceptionality, there is an opinion, but it is negative and advises against the creation of the canton of Colorado.

**X.- ON THE ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGALITY, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY. INFRINGEMENT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGULAR NON-DEROGABILITY OF REGULATIONS** As detailed *supra*, the consulting legislators question the infringement of the cited principles, because the parliamentary initiative does not respect the population requirement for creating new cantons as provided in Art. 9 of the LDTA. They consider that creating a new canton without respecting that condition is unreasonable and disproportionate.

In the case under study, according to the assessment of the legislative file, it is determined that —as already noted *supra*— the initiative does not meet the population requirement. However, after a careful review of the applicable regulations, it can be stated that the non-compliance with this single requirement is not in itself harmful to the legislative process, since the law itself allows for the exception. The CNDTA must analyze whether the conditions exist for this exception to apply (Arts. 9, second paragraph, and 15 of the LDTA).

In fact, upon reviewing the legislative records of the approval of that law, legislative file <a href="http://imagenes.asamblea.go.cr/EINTEGRATOR4/document.aspx?query=1009&amp;doc=1006597">No. 3552</a>, Law 4366, LDTA, it was possible to verify that the legislators themselves promoted the initiative with the aim of changing a fixed population threshold established in previous legislation, in order to introduce percentages that could evolve relative to the national reality. However, in the assessing commission —Permanent Commission on Government and Administration Affairs— it was noted that **<u>the population requirement was not rigid and absolute</u>**. In this regard, the commission's president, Mr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, stated the following:

"I wanted to add to what Deputy Barrantes Elizondo says that in Art. 15, paragraph 1) it also states: ‘Even though the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission of Territorial Division must consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors that inspire the formation of territorial division’. **<u>Therefore, the principle of the percentage is not a rigid and absolute principle</u>**.” (See record of the ordinary session held by the Permanent Commission on Government and Administration on April 11, 1968, visible on folio 33 of the digital file).

Therefore, in the present case, the absence of compliance with the population requirement does not *per se* infringe the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, since the law itself admits the exception. <s></s> In summary, the competence to create cantons is of constitutional origin (Art. 168) and attributed exclusively and preclusively to the Legislative Assembly. This law —LDTA— encompasses the mechanism created by the Assembly itself for the exercise of that competence. Therefore, respect for that mechanism acquires constitutional relevance. From the jurisprudential review conducted here, it can be concluded that this Constitutional Court has indicated that the Legislative Assembly must observe the requirements and procedures that it imposed upon itself in order to exercise its constitutional power to create new cantons, otherwise it incurs an infringement of the principles of singular non-derogability of the legal norm, regularity, and legal certainty which, as already noted, are constitutionally entrenched.

In the case under examination, the population requirement not being met, the Legislative Assembly could have approved the creation of the canton of Colorado provided there had been a positive opinion from the CNDTA that, after verifying that the exception provided in Art. 9, second paragraph, was applicable, recommended that creation. To reach such a conclusion, it is necessary to refer again to the applicable norm, which states the following:

"Art. 9. (…)

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach said population, in very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers, **<u>provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division recommends it</u>**, following the relevant case studies." (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

Thus, the CNDTA must always issue its opinion. When the population requirement is met, it is irrelevant whether or not it recommends its creation, since what it says is not binding on the Assembly. If the population requirement is not met, the canton may be created provided that the exception regarding distance or remoteness applies. In such a case, it will not be sufficient for this to be verified; rather, a positive opinion from the CNDTA must be obtained. Moreover, that exception must be recorded in that opinion and it must be positive. In that sense, it can be stated that this is binding. That is, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive opinion —the recommendation— of the CNDTA. Of course, this does not mean that, if this positive criterion is given, the Assembly must create the canton, but rather that if the CNDTA does not recommend the creation of it, under the understanding that the exception of Art. 9, second paragraph applies, the Assembly may not approve the initiative.

At this point, a conclusion different from that proposed by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly is reached, because that office —despite drawing attention to the unconstitutionality of the initiative— stated that the opinion was not binding. In this regard, this Chamber considers that, in light of a careful reading and application of the norm, it must be stated that the opinion becomes binding when the population requirement of Art. 9, first paragraph is not met, because the norm warns that the exception established in Art. 9, second paragraph will apply as long as the CNDTA so recommends.

If the population conditions are met and there is an affirmative opinion from the CNDTA, as stated, the Assembly is not bound by that criterion. It will ultimately be the Assembly that decides, through a qualified vote, whether it considers the creation of a new canton opportune. The same would occur if the population conditions are respected, but the CNDTA disapproves of the creation of a new canton. However, it is reiterated that, regarding the application of the exception provided in Art. 9, second paragraph, by decision of the Assembly itself, the positive criterion of the CNDTA is a requirement to be able to create a new canton. Recall what this Chamber stated:

"The participation of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division provided for in Article 9 of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, since the Commission must rely on strictly technical criteria to render its opinion, without there being room, as in the case of the other mentioned institutions, for mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the project under discussion. This is a limitation imposed by the legislator in use of its already described powers of self-regulation, in order to ensure that the decision it adopts is backed by complete technical certainty regarding its content and scope." It is necessary to clarify that this binding nature does not arise because the legislative power has been delegated to the CNDTA, but rather it is the consequence of the legislator having chosen to make the procedure for creating cantons more rigorous in this specific way.

In the specific case, upon reviewing the initiative and the opinion of the Assessing Commission of the Legislative Assembly, as commented, both are based on the exceptionality of Art. 15 of the LDTA, interpreted as if it established a subsidiary possibility; however, this Chamber observes that such interpretation departs from the letter and spirit of the self-imposed norm by the legislator, compliance with which is a procedural requirement for the exercise of the constitutional competence of creating cantons. Indeed, in reality, Art. 15 indicates the other elements that the CNDTA may assess for the application of the exception provided in Art. 9. Thus, that Art. 15 is not an additional scenario to the two contemplated in Art. 9 —the one that is the rule (relating to the population requirement) and the one that is the exception (relating to distance)—, but rather refers to which aspects the CNDTA may always weigh, especially when it comes to supporting a positive opinion, in case the population requirement is not met.

In summary, in the approval process for new cantons, the consultation with the CNDTA must always be carried out, which must assess the population requirement and, failing that, the distance or remoteness, to which it may add the analysis of the aspects mentioned in Art. 15 to support the applicability of the exception of Art. 9, second paragraph. Furthermore, according to this, if the population requirement is not met, a positive pronouncement from the CNDTA is necessary for the Assembly to validly create a canton. In that sense, it can be said that this opinion is binding. It is more accurate to state that such a positive opinion is a mandatory condition for creating a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement. It is evident that, even if that positive opinion is issued, the Assembly may decline and not ultimately approve the proposed initiative.

In the precedents examined *supra* —specifically relating to the approval of new cantons— the unconstitutionality of the procedure was declared because the legislative process lacked the technical inputs and opinions of the CNDTA. In the matter under examination, the conclusion is reached that an essential defect in the legislative procedure occurred because the condition self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly itself was not met, in the sense that there should have been an affirmative opinion from the CNDTA justifying the exceptionality (Art. 9, second paragraph).

It is worth mentioning that this type of warning has been made by the PGR in the processing of various legislative initiatives. That advisory body has emphasized precisely the need for strict observance of the requirements set forth in Law No. 4366.

For example, in legal opinion OJ-69-2019 of June 25, 2019, the following was stated: “As we have noted on other occasions (OJ-058-2007 of June 27, 2007, OJ-002-2011 of January 21, 2011, OJ-101-2012 of December 5, 2012, among others), Article 168 of the Constitución Política provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Asamblea Legislativa by a vote of no less than two-thirds of its total members, and, to those requirements, must be added those established by the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa (No. 4366 of August 19, 1969), since the constitutional validity of those legal initiatives that seek the creation of new cantons depends on compliance with those requirements. (…)

In this understanding, it must be taken into consideration that Article 9 of the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa indicates that no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the country’s total population, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, a minimum population of the stated percentage does not remain.

In the event that the indicated population percentage is not met, the article provides that, exceptionally, a new canton may be created when it involves very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers, provided that the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial recommends it, after the pertinent studies. (…)

Consequently, it must be noted that the text of the bill does not indicate the population figure that the canton of Cariari intended to be created would have, and, therefore, it is not possible to determine whether it would meet the requirements of Article 9 of the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa. In the event that the population of the new canton does not reach 1% of the country’s current population, the existence of the recommendation from the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial required by the Law must be verified, to justify the creation of the canton due to the remoteness of the place from administrative centers and the difficulty of communication.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original. Considerations that were reiterated and addressed to the Asamblea Legislativa in legal opinion OJ-112-2021 of July 8, 2021).

More recently, in legal opinion PGR-OJ-033-2023 of March 24, 2023, the PGR again rendered an opinion regarding a bill related to the creation of the Canton of Tucurrique. In that non-binding report, the following reflections were addressed to the Asamblea Legislativa: “Now then, as this Procuraduría has maintained (see for example OJ-058-2007 of June 27, 2007), Article 168 of the Constitución Política provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Asamblea Legislativa by a vote of no less than two-thirds of its total members, which imposes a qualified vote in this type of initiative.

We cannot overlook that the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa sets forth a series of requirements to validly constitute a new canton, which must be mandatory for those proposing the creation of a new canton. (…)

Thus, a matter of utmost importance to consider within this initiative is that related to the provisions of Article 9 of the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, which indicates that no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the country’s total population, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, a minimum population of the stated percentage does not remain.

Note that the rule states that -exceptionally-, a new canton may be created when it involves very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers (canton of Jiménez), provided that the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial recommends it, after the pertinent studies. In that regard, Article 13 of the Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa establishes that those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Asamblea Legislativa proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what Article 9 indicates and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions, and requires, in addition, the precise indication of the canton’s perimeter and the presentation of the respective map.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In light of the considerations made and applying them to the specific case, it is concluded that the legislative procedure has an unconstitutionality defect that invalidates it. In this matter, the non-compliance with a rule regulating the exercise of a competence attributed by the Constitution to the Asamblea Legislativa was verified. That non-compliance, as consulted, injures the constitutional principles of singular non-derogability of the legal norm ‒procedure established in the LDTA‒, regularity, and legal certainty, which must be respected in legislative work. If for the creation of a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the legislator established as an unavoidable rule the need for the exception related to remoteness and the concomitant positive opinion of the CNDTA to be configured, the non-observance of this requirement in the case under examination injures the aforementioned principles and therefore it is appropriate to declare the procedure unconstitutional.

XI.- ON AN ALLEGED ONGOING PLEBISCITARY PROCESS AND THE VIOLATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE The consulting legislators questioned that on October 7, 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the inhabitants of the Canton of Abangares was published in the official newspaper La Gaceta, to define ‒in accordance with the constitutional democratic principle‒ whether or not the inhabitants agreed with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was in progress, with a second publication of the regulation dated October 24, 2022, meaning that the present bill under consultation would also be violating the constitutional democratic principle. In a similar vein, they highlighted the importance of giving value to and listening to the opinion of the affected municipal entity.

In this regard, concerning the holding of a popular consultation, it is necessary to emphasize that said requirement is not contemplated in the Constitución Política for the creation of cantons, but only for the creation of provinces, as inferred from the literal wording of constitutional Art. 168.

That discussion was even settled in the approval records of law No. 4366 when the approval of Art. 3 was being assessed and in response to the query of legislator Vicente Castro regarding whether the holding of plebiscites was for both scenarios, the commission president clarified the following: “In cantons, it has been done when there has been doubt, for example in the case of La Fortuna, before the cantonal population disappeared for already known reasons, there was a certain agreement among the parties that this should be resolved through a plebiscite, but in reality, the Constitution only states it with respect to provinces.” (See folio 48 of the digital legislative file).

Furthermore, it should be recalled that in judgment No. 2013-012802 this Sala expressly warned that there was no constitutional or legal duty to hold popular consultations for the creation of a district. Identical considerations should be reiterated for the approval of cantons: “Note that there is no constitutional or legal duty to hold a popular consultation as a requirement or prerequisite to validly create a district.

(…)

Thus then, no unconstitutionality is found, neither in Article 14 of the challenged Law, nor in the challenged Executive Decree that created the district of Labrador in the canton of San Mateo, for the fact that such creation came from the Poder Ejecutivo. Now then, specifically regarding the omissions pointed out by the plaintiff, in the sense that for the creation of the district of Labrador, no popular consultation was followed nor was the opinion of the Municipality of San Mateo taken, in the first place, from the procedure for creating districts, this Sala only proceeds to examine these two alleged omissions, not corresponding to the review of the rest of the requirements, steps, or procedures that the Law establishes for the creation of districts, not only because it was not alleged or substantiated in the action, but because doing so would amount to a legality review that escapes the competence of this constitutional jurisdiction. In the second place, it must be clear that for there to be an unconstitutional omission, there must be an unfulfilled constitutional obligation, in this case, the obligation that a popular consultation must be held to create a district is not derived from our Right of the Constitución Política. Not even from the legal norm can such an obligation be derived” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In any event, this Sala observes that from the statements made by the consulting legislators, what is evident is that a regulation was issued to hold plebiscitary consultations by the Municipality of Abangares (https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2022/10/07/COMP_07_10_2022.html). But it is not proven that a procedure has been formally initiated to specifically consult on the creation or not of the Canton of Colorado. Therefore, no defect is proven in this regard.

Secondly, the consultants make a reflection on municipal autonomy and refer to the importance of listening to the opinion of the municipality that would be dismembered, in this case, the Municipality of Abangares. In this regard, this Tribunal has no doubt that the municipal corporation was formally granted a hearing during the legislative procedure. Even the disagreements raised were opportunely assessed and dismissed by the legislative committee issuing the report, which referred to the statements and evidence submitted by the Concejo Municipal de Distrito of Colorado. On the other hand, having reviewed the applicable regulations, it is ruled out that there exists a constitutional or self-imposed legal obligation for the Asamblea Legislativa to adhere to the municipal criterion of the canton from which the territory is segregated to create another canton. Therefore, no defect is proven in this particular matter either.

Consequently, regarding these aspects, the invoked defects are ruled out.

XII.- CONCLUSION Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Sala considers that the consulted initiative, the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” processed in legislative file No. 22.643, contains defects that invalidate the legislative procedure. Specifically, because the approval of the canton is sought without the positive opinion of the CNDTA, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established in law.

In the other aspects consulted, no unconstitutionality defects were found.

THEREFORE:

The facultative consultation of constitutionality is answered in the sense that, regarding the procedure followed for the approval of the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” processed in legislative file No. 22.643, defects that invalidate the legislative procedure are verified. Specifically, because the approval of the canton is sought without the positive opinion of the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established in law. In the other aspects consulted, no unconstitutionality defects were found.

Let this resolution be notified to the Directorio of the Asamblea Legislativa.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Anamari Garro V. Ingrid Hess H.

Alejandro Delgado F. Hubert Fernández A.

FILE: 24-010272-0007-CO PROCEEDING: LEGISLATIVE CONSULTATION SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.

San José, at thirteen hours forty-five minutes on the third of September two thousand twenty-four.

Taking into account that Magistrate Fernando Cruz Castro is on sick leave, and in order not to delay the processing of the appeal, the judgment rendered in this matter is to be notified without his signature, which will be recorded once he returns to his duties.

Fernando Castillo V.

170 id.), to maintain its integrity and its condition of administrative decentralization (the latter does not imply, of course, that it is a form of State or government that excludes any other form of political administration, because like any decentralization, it leaves intact the constituent power and even the legislative power of the State), the necessary legal-constitutional conclusion leads us to determine that it is the responsibility of the Legislative Power to develop or not the competence contained in article 168 of the Political Constitution for the creation of cantons, establishing the requirements and formalities that give it reasonable and proportionate content to the principles that the superior norm itself has conceived and in any case, to the complementary ones that, without being in the original norm, are appropriate to make the exercise of the competence possible.</span>…”<o:p></o:p></p> <span style="font-size:11.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:ES-CR;mso-fareast-language: EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">CO11/24</span> **File 289-2020** **Administrative Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental)** **Environmental Feasibility (Viabilidad Ambiental) – SETENA** **Requesting Party:** MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN JOSÉ **Consultant:** MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN JOSÉ **File No. D1-17096-2019-SETENA** **Property ID:** 1-1723040-2019 according to the entry to D1, according to the Cadastral Map it corresponds to property 1-1723040-2019 **District:** 01 – Carmen **Canton:** 01 – San José **Province:** 01 – San José **Map Sheet:** San José **Property Area:** 3379,34 m² **UTM Coordinates:** X: 1100789 / Y: 219422 **Cadastral Plan No:** SJ-1045348-2014 **Construction Area:** 21796,63 m² **Number of Floors:** 41 levels **Number of Units:** 1 to 256 residential, 32 offices (257 to 288), 28 commercial premises (289 to 316), 31 storage units (317 to 347), 1 machine room, 1 transformer room, 1 generator, 1 gas room, 1 garbage room, 1 electrical room, 2 cisterns.

**SETENA Resolution:** Not available at the time of the visit **Background:** Project located in a vacant lot.

**In Water Easement (Servidumbre) Area:** Not applicable **Variables Entered:** Yes **Number:** 4 **In Sustainable Construction (Construcción Sostenible) Process:** No **Wildlife Management Plan (Plan de Manejo de Vida Silvestre) in Process:** Yes **D1 Entry Date:** 23-01-2019 **D1 Entry No:** 17096-2019-SETENA **D1 Entry Attachments:** Form, Receipt, Cadastral Plan, Incorporation Letter, Setena Resolution, Property Water Availability (Disponibilidad Hídrica), Individual Electronic File, Complete D1, Topographic Survey, Cadastral Certification, Appraisal Report, 2019-2025 FOD, Owner's Powers, Cartago Pipe Registration, Location Map.

**D2 Entry Date:** 04-04-19 **D2 Entry Attachments:** Environmental Management Plan (Plan de Gestión Ambiental, PGA) Form, Receipt, Power of Attorney, Project Modifications, Justification Letter for the Modification, Contractor's Completion Report, Excavation Area Memo, Report on Works Executed to Date, SETENA Extensions, Pledge Registration, Urbanizations Registry, Payment Receipt, Delimitation by Cadastral Map, Property Use Permit, Justifications for Architect and Engineer Responsibility, Set of Plans.

**Water/Spring (Naciente)/Well Availability:** Yes **Provided by:** AyA (Aqueducts and Sewers) Drinking Water **Field Verification Date:** 02-08-2019 n.°24-010272-0007-CO </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">Res. n.°2024-013908</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at twelve hours and ten minutes on the twenty-first of May, two thousand twenty-four. </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Optional legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; color:black"> the legislators </span><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">ADA ACUÑA CASTRO, ELIÉCER FEINZANG MINTZ, GILBERTO CAMPOS CRUZ, JOHANA OBANDO BONILLA, JORGE ANTONIO ROJAS LÓPEZ, JORGE DENGO ROSABAL, KATTIA CAMBRONERO AGUILUZ, LUIS DIEGO VARGAS RODRÍGUEZ, MANUEL MORALES DÍAZ, PAOLA NÁJERA ABARCA, PILAR CISNEROS GALLO and WALDO AGÜERO SANABRIA</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">, regarding the bill <b>“Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste”</b>, which is being processed in legislative file <b>n.°22.643</b>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">WHEREAS:</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">1.-</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> At 15:10 hrs. on <b>18 April 2024</b> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">the legislators filed an optional consultation on constitutionality </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">regarding the bill “Creation of the canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste”, which is being processed in legislative file <b>n.°22.643</b>.<b></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><b><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">On the identification of the bill submitted for consultation</span></u></b><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The bill was presented on the initiative of –among others– deputies Mileydi Alvarado Arias, Dragos Dolanescu, and Franggi Nicolas. It seeks the creation of the XII canton of the province of Guanacaste, with the name Colorado, resulting from the segregation of the fourth district, Colorado, from the canton of Abangares. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">On the doubts of constitutionality regarding the substance of the bill</span></u></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Challenged articles and alleged defects:</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The 12 articles of the bill are challenged. The consultants point to the following defects: <b>1)</b> the alleged infringement of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, by attempting to create a canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, which is what is provided in the Administrative Territorial Division Law (Ley de División Territorial Administrativa, LDTA); </span><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">2)</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> the possible violation of the democratic principle, by violating the procedure of an ongoing plebiscitary process; <b>3)</b> the eventual violation of the principle of legality, because it contravenes the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">LDTA</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> and <b>4)</b> the alleged violation of art. 168 of the Constitution, which requires respecting the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">LDTA</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Relevant legal regulations</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Regarding this Law n.°4366, of 19 August 1969, they state the following: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In its art. 1, the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, CNDTA) is created, whose function is to advise the Public Powers (Legislative Assembly, Executive Branch, and municipalities), in matters of administrative territorial division. Said commission is composed of the Minister of Governance, the director of the National Geographic Institute (IGN) and that of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC), who may be represented by officials of their respective entities.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Art. 9 of Law n.°4366 refers to the number of inhabitants that the territory of the canton to be created must have. In this regard, said article states:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">“Hereinafter, no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it does not have at least a minimum population of the aforementioned percentage.</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach said population, in very remote places with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission for Administrative Territorial Division so recommends, after conducting the relevant studies.”</span></i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Art. 13 establishes that the interested parties in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what art. 9 indicates and that the rest of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">They cite, in this regard, what was resolved by the Chamber in judgment <b>n.°2002-05801</b>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Relevant institutional opinions </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">On the position of the Municipal Council of Abangares, where Colorado currently belongs </span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The opinion of that council is that the current canton should be maintained, since its dismemberment would only benefit a reduced number of the population. It refers to the latest published index, since the approximate population of the district of Colorado is 4,000 inhabitants and violates the requirement of 1% (one percent) of the country's population to form a canton, whereby the legislative procedure that has given continuity to the project contravenes the </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">LDTA</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> and, thereby, the principle of legality. The foregoing, without also taking into consideration that the District Municipal Council of Colorado does not even have the necessary and urgent infrastructure to be a canton, has deficient aqueduct and sewerage services, and lacks the necessary institutional framework (banks, health, social services, among others). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In another vein, they state that on 7 October 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the inhabitants of the Canton of Abangares was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to define –in accordance with the democratic constitutional principle– whether the inhabitants agreed or not with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was underway, with a second publication of the regulation dated 24 October 2022, meaning that the present project under consultation would also be violating the democratic constitutional principle. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">On the opinion of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE)</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In accordance with the provisions of art. 97 of the Political Constitution and considering that the establishment of a new administrative unit directly affects the composition of the canton, the number of inhabitants of each district, and, consequently, the eventual integration of the municipal council and the district councils, it was considered that the TSE should be mandatorily consulted, since it has interpreted that electoral matters are acts related to suffrage that not only include those specific to the casting of the vote, but all those described in the Constitution itself or in the electoral laws and that are directly or indirectly related to electoral processes, elections or consultations whose origin, direction and oversight has been entrusted to this Tribunal. In this regard, the TSE in its report n.°TSE-2629-2021 of 4 November 2021 determined that it did not agree with said project because it does not meet the population requirement, nor is it so far from its administrative center, all in accordance with the provisions of the administrative territorial division legislation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><u><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">On the opinion of the CNDTA </span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The technical body's response is that it is recommended not to create a new canton, as it does not meet the minimum population requirement. The population required to be a canton is 52,133 inhabitants, whereas the population of Costa Rica –according to the 2022 indicators– was 5,213,362 inhabitants, and the population of Colorado does not even reach 5,000 inhabitants. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><i><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Conclusion</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">They note a clear violation of the rule and procedure established by the LDTA in arts. 9 and 13 and, therefore, of the principle of legality established in art. 11 and of art. 168 of the Constitution, for not meeting the population requirement at the time the bill was processed.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">2.-</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> In a resolution issued at 15:04 hrs. on <b>19 April 2024</b> </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;color:black">by the Presidency of the Chamber, the consultation on constitutionality was accepted and the corresponding legislative file, or a certified copy thereof, was requested from the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly, through its President. </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;mso-layout-grid-align:none; text-autospace:none"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 150%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; color:black">3.-</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 150%;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; color:black"> By resolution </span><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">of the Presidency of the Chamber at <b>14:32 hrs. on 25 April 2024</b>, the certified copy of the requested legislative file was accepted and it was assigned to the office of Magistrate Garro Vargas to whom it corresponds by rotation. Consequently, the deadline for evacuating the consultation expires on <b>25 May 2024</b>.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">4.-</span></b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> The prescriptions of law have been observed in the processing of the case.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Drafted by Magistrate <b>Garro Vargas</b>; and,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;text-align:center"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">CONSIDERING:</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">I.- ON OPTIONAL CONSULTATIONS ON CONSTITUTIONALITY </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The prior advisory opinion on legislative projects may be requested on a mandatory basis –art. 96, subsection a) of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, LJC)– or on an optional basis –subsections b), c) and ch) of the same regulation–. In this latter case, there are three scenarios: in the first, it is the parliamentary body itself that performs it –when formally processed with the signature of at least ten legislators–; in the second, it concerns the consultation on bills referring to the constitutional competence of the Supreme Court of Justice, the TSE, or the Comptroller General of the Republic, a consultation that must be presented by these same bodies; and, in the third, the consultation may be exercised by the Ombudsman when they consider that fundamental rights or freedoms are being infringed. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Art. 98 of the LJC prescribes that in the case of bills other than constitutional reforms, the legislative consultation must be filed after the bill has been approved in the first debate and before receiving final approval in the second debate. Finally, it should be noted that art. 99 of that law orders that optional consultations must be formulated in a reasoned memorandum, expressing the challenged aspects of the bill, as well as the reasons for which there are doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality.<b></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">II.- ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THIS OPTIONAL CONSULTATION ON CONSTITUTIONALITY</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">The case under study is an optional legislative consultation on constitutionality. In accordance with art. 96 of the LJC, this type of consultation must be raised by at least ten legislators, once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, twelve deputies signed the consultation. Likewise, the bill being processed under legislative file <b>n.°22.643</b> was approved in the first debate procedure by the Legislative Plenary in ordinary session n.°126 of <b>19 February 2024</b>. Thus, having met the stated admissibility requirements, the Chamber proceeds to hear the consultation filed.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">Regarding the procedure, it is important to note that in the case of optional legislative consultations on constitutionality –such as the one now being heard–, and in accordance with the application and integration of the provisions of arts. 99 and 101 of the LJC, this Chamber has indicated that its review is limited solely to the specific arguments raised by the consulting deputies in their filing brief, and not to others that could be derived but were not so raised. In advisory opinion </span><a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1095181"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">n.° 2022-9345</span></b></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> this Chamber warned the following:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">“In effect, through judgment number 2001-11643 –reiterated, among others, in judgments numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714 and 2021-21204–, the Chamber stated:</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:2.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">‘It must also be remembered that the same law provides in its article 101 that the Chamber shall evacuate the consultation by issuing an opinion "on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional point of view", but the court interprets that "the aspects and grounds consulted" are those which, according to article 99, question or object to the project, or ground the doubt that the legislators may have about it. Given, therefore, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not admitted; if the court, notwithstanding, were to admit and absolve it, it would place itself in a situation outside the scope of its powers.’ </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">This criterion was reiterated and consolidated by the Chamber's jurisprudence, when determining, in the aforementioned judgment number 2012-9253 that:</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:2.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">‘[T]his is so because «in the case of optional legislative consultations, ‘the competence of the Constitutional Chamber originates from the doubts or constitutional objections raised by the legislators’ –judgment 2001-12459–, so that if such arguments do not exist as such, or when the consulting deputies themselves state they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the consulted norms or projects, it would be inappropriate for the Chamber to issue any opinion, as it would be dealing with cases that transcend the Chamber's powers regarding legislative consultations on constitutionality -judgment 2002-3460–.’ </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:1.0cm;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In this sense, <b><u>it is necessary to indicate that this Chamber will only address the allegations raised in a punctual manner by the consultants and not other general questions of constitutionality of the bill in question</u></b>, in accordance with the provisions of article 99 of the law governing this jurisdiction, for which reason any pronouncement on procedural and substantive defects not alleged in time by the consulting deputies is omitted” </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">(The highlighting does not correspond to the original). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In the same vein as set forth, this Chamber will rule exclusively on the doubts of constitutionality duly grounded by the legislator promoters of this consultative process. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">III.- PRELIMINARY DELIMITATION OF THE OBJECT OF THIS CONSULTATION</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">In line with the foregoing and, in relation to the specific case, it must be emphasized that this Court is not required to make any consideration on the initial section of the optional consultation on constitutionality in which the legislators recount the political timeliness and suitability of what they call the “ultra-fragmentation” of the administrative territorial division of Costa Rica and set out their vision of the State, and advocate for a regionalization, which in their view would be more efficient in pursuit of a “decentralizing political process”. In effect, it does not concern this Chamber to make a political assessment of such statements, even more so when they are not directed at attacking any specific aspect of the bill submitted for consultation. This Court has insisted in its jurisprudence that it is not its place to calibrate aspects of timeliness and suitability of bills and, specifically, in advisory opinion </span><a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1009222"><b><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">n.°2021-000026</span></b></a><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;"> stated the following: </span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">“The first point that must be clarified is that the Constitutional Chamber, in matters of optional consultations, according to its reiterated jurisprudence, only rules on the issues consulted, not on the entirety of the bill, such that it cannot be interpreted that beyond that scope, there exists a kind of endorsement of the consulted bill with respect to that on which there is no ruling. In effect, <b><u>the Chamber does not rule on aspects of timeliness and suitability of bills, a matter reserved for the legislator, nor does it rule on extremes not consulted</u></b>. In such a way that there may well be conflicts with the Constitution in a given bill, on which no consultation was made and there is no ruling by this Court through the prior consultation on constitutionality. Naturally, for those aspects, should they exist, the avenue of subsequent judicial review remains open, which is the action of unconstitutionality, to guarantee the supremacy of the Political Constitution. (in that sense see judgments 2001-11643, 2001-12459, 2012-9253, 2019-9220, among others)”.</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style:normal;mso-bidi-font-style:italic"> (The highlighting corresponds to the original). </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">&nbsp;</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm"><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">It must also be remembered that the power to create new cantons was granted by the constituent power to the Legislative Assembly –subject to certain rules derived from the Political Constitution itself and others self-imposed in ordinary legislation–. For that very reason, this Chamber is not called upon to make any reflection on what the model of the State should be that, respectful of the constitutional design, is most suitable or efficient. It is true that in repeated resolutions the Chamber has highlighted “the importance that the original constituent power has given to territorial integrity”, which is reflected in the text of art. 168 of the Political Constitution itself (see judgments <b>n.°1995-2009, n.°1998-7294 and n.°2002-5801</b>). However, for purposes of ruling on the exercise of that power by the Legislative Assembly, the task of this Court is limited to verifying compliance with the constitutional and legal requirements –understood as a mandatory parameter self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly itself for such exercise–, but not to make an assessment of timeliness and suitability on the political decision it entails. For this reason, in resolution <b>n.°2023-06227</b>, it was warned that it is the Legislative Assembly that corresponds, by constitutional mandate, to decide on the best administrative territorial division of the country. Thus, it was said that the Constitutional Chamber “has no competence whatsoever to rule on the suitability or timeliness of having created the district of Birrisito”.</span></p> Then, echoing its own precedents and, as relevant, the following considerations were made:

"**Based on that norm, this Chamber has held that the procedure for creating provinces and cantons is a matter reserved to law; that is, the exclusive competence of the Legislative Assembly**: a) regarding the creation of provinces, it is indicated that it must be processed through the same procedure for partial reform of the Political Constitution, in addition to convening a provincial plebiscite (see in this regard Judgment No. 1994-4091 of 15:12 hours on 9 August 1994); and b) regarding the creation of cantons, the Political Constitution requires that the bill establishing a new canton must be approved by a qualified majority; namely, a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Assembly (see Judgment No. 1995-2009 of 10:30 hours on 21 April 1995). (...)

• A)Territorial division in Costa Rica. This Court has stated, in Judgment No. 2002-005801 of 17:30 hours on 12 June 2002, that the Costa Rican State, despite being unitary and its territories not enjoying true political autonomy from the central power, is indeed divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees such as provinces, cantons, districts, villages, among others; a distribution that has been designated by law as the Administrative Territorial Division through a law with that name, No. 4366 of 19 August 1969. This Chamber, through Judgment No. 1994-4091 of 15:12 hours on 9 August 1994, established that:

"(...) **From a political standpoint, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, since it is not the function of this Chamber to decide on the advisability or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral or administrative planning purposes**, etc... .

(...) ...especially since in our case, the division of our geography into provinces, cantons, districts, neighborhoods and hamlets, as long as Costa Rica remains the absolutely unitary State that it is, cannot have a political character but only an administrative one, without prejudice to the fact that, when it comes to determining territorial jurisdiction, as entities called to fulfill a generality of purposes and encompass a generality of people—the citizens (munícipes)—certain original self-governing powers must be recognized, although never in the sense of true political self-determination. Therefore, what is at stake here is not any problem of political self-determination nor, consequently, of original competences other than the administrative ones derived from the national legal order." From Judgment No. 1994-4091 cited, two important elements to consider emerge: a) **that for this Court, it is the Legislative Assembly that, by constitutional mandate, is responsible for deciding on the best administrative territorial division of the country**; and b) that the division of the territory is administrative and, therefore, does not correspond to an original right of the communities to political self-determination (see in that regard Judgment No. 1995-2009 of 10:30 hours on 21 April 1995).

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that, in the present matter, **the Chamber will not rule on the advisability or not of creating the district of Birrisito, since, as has already been said in the past, the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of the country is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly, in exercise of the powers derived from Articles 105 and 121, subsection 1), of the Political Constitution**. (...)

VI.- Continuation. From the preceding items, several conclusions can be drawn to demonstrate that the plaintiff is not correct regarding this extreme:

• a)Firstly, as this Court has already pointed out, **the discussion on the best administrative territorial division of Costa Rica is a matter for the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly**. Article 168 of the Constitution is very clear in stating that this Branch can create provinces and cantons. And, according to the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible that the Legislative Assembly can create districts, since the delegation made in Article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, such that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said norm.
• b)It is not the function of this Chamber to resolve on the advisability or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral or administrative planning purposes, **so that this Court has no competence whatsoever to pronounce on the advisability or opportunity of having created the district of Birrisito**. (...)" (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In the same vein, it is necessary to anticipate that this Chamber will not rule—in general terms—on the advisability or not of the creation of the canton of Colorado in the province of Guanacaste. And, as has been said, it will also not make any pronouncement on the initial reflections of the consulting legislators.

**IV.- PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTATION** Once the foregoing is clarified, it should be noted that the doubts of constitutionality regarding the bill "Creation of the Canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste," being processed in legislative file **No. 22,643**, can be grouped into two grievances that will be developed in independent sections.

In the first place, the consultants consider that the bill violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and legality, as well as Article 168 of the Political Constitution, since the legislative procedure for the creation of a new canton was initiated contrary to what is provided in the Administrative Territorial Division Law (Ley de División Territorial Administrativa, LDTA) No. 4366, in the sense that "no territory that does not have at least one percent of the country's total population shall be erected as a canton" and it also does not meet the exceptional condition of being "in very remote places and of difficult communication with their administrative centers," as also highlighted by the TSE. The legislators also cite the reports added to the legislative file rendered by the Municipal Council of Abangares and the CNDTA to conclude that, in this specific case, there has been a failure to comply with the legal provisions that must be observed prior to the approval of the new canton. They assert that it is unreasonable and disproportionate to establish a new canton with less than 1% (one percent) of the national population, even more so by disregarding the disagreement of the affected municipality.

In the alternative, they state that the democratic constitutional principle is being harmed by violating the process of an "ongoing plebiscitary procedure" and by not heeding the oppositions of the Municipality of Abangares.

**V.- THE PROCESSING OF FILE NUMBER 22,643 IN THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY**. The "Creation of the Canton of Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste" bill, being processed in legislative file **No. 22,643**, has followed the following *iter*:

1. The bill is an initiative of several legislators and was presented to the Secretariat of the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly on **12 August 2021** (see folios 01-20 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 2. The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly ordered the file to be assigned to the Ordinary Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs for the corresponding opinion (folio 21 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 3. The bill was published in the official gazette **La Gaceta No. 169 of 2 September 2021** (see referral to the National Press on folio 22 and the cover of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 4. On **14 September 2021**, a copy of agreement No. CMA-0171-2021 of the Municipal Council of Abangares was delivered to the reporting committee, in which they communicate their opposition to bill No. 22643. This was subsequently reiterated by said council in response to the hearing granted (see folios 42-45 and 202-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 5. In ordinary session No. 18 of **05 October 2021**, the Ordinary Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs approved a motion for **the bill to be consulted with the following institutions**: Municipality of Abangares, Municipal Intendancy of Colorado, TSE, CNDTA, National Nomenclature Commission, National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU), Planning Office of the Ministry of National Planning, National Geographic Institute (IGN), INEC, Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Integral Development Association of Cabeceras de Cañas (see folios 54-66 of the copy of the legislative file where the approval of the motion is recorded and folios 100-149, 151-173 *ibid.*, volume I). 6. Through official letter No. INT-0270-2021 of **18 October 2021**, the Municipal District Council of Colorado delivered to the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Legislative Assembly "the agreements of manifestation of support for the project with file number 22,643" from the following communal institutions and organizations: Health Board of Colorado, Health Area of Colorado; Neighborhood Association Junta de Vecinos Higuerillas de Colorado; Integral Development Association Monte Potrero, Colorado; Integral Development Association of Colorado; Integral Development Association of San Joaquín, Colorado; Rural Water Board (Asada) of Monte Potrero, Colorado; Rural Water Board (ASADA) ENCELOMAVI San Buenaventura, Colorado; Administrative Board of the Liceo de Colorado; Education Board of the School of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Education Board of the School of San Joaquín, Colorado; Association of Fishermen and Rural Tourism of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Association Comité Local de Pescadores de Colorado; Committee of the Catholic Church of San Buenaventura, Colorado; Federation of Municipal District Councils of Costa Rica; Municipal District Council of Tucurrique; Municipal District Council of Lepanto; Municipality of Talamanca; Municipality of Los Chiles and Municipality of Garabito (see folios 67-86 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 7. Through official letter No. PE-AL-276-2021 of **29 October 2021**, the institutional opinion of the INVU was sent to the Legislative Assembly (see folios 149-150 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 8. By means of official letter No. TSE-2629-2021 of **4 November 2021**, the Presiding Magistrate of the TSE submitted his considerations regarding the bill (see folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 9. In official letter No. DGL-0673-2021 of **9 November 2021**, the National Registry presented its institutional opinion regarding the bill and provided the opinion of the IGN to readjust Article 3 of the bill and, therefore, redefine the cantonal boundaries (see folios 185-187 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 10. By official letter No. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of **9 November 2021**, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy made technical observations and recommendations regarding the approval of the bill (see folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 11. On **11 November 2021**, the Municipal District Council of Colorado submitted to the Committee on Legal Affairs a series of agreements manifesting support for the bill, coming from the municipal district councils of Cervantes and Cóbano, as well as from the municipalities of Nicoya, Siquirres, Atenas, Guatuso, San Pablo de Heredia, Tibás, Santa Ana, Quepos and Garabito (folios 87-99 and 197-203 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 12. By means of official letter No. DIG-TOT-0785-2021 of **10 December 2021**, the agreement signed by the National Nomenclature Commission of the IGN of the National Registry was submitted to the legislative file, in which it was decided to approve the name "Colorado" for the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste and more time was requested to examine Article 4 of the bill (see folios 204-206 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 13. Through official letter No. MGP-CTDT-006-2021 of **13 December 2021**, the agreement adopted by the Technical Committee for Administrative Territorial Division in ordinary session No. 04-2021 held on **11 November 2021** was attached to the file, through which it concluded that: *"the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After analyzing the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that **the territory does not qualify for the exception of the article in mention**"* (see folios 213-214 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 14. On **2 February 2022**, the Municipal District Council of Colorado provided a copy of agreement No. CMDC-0035-2022 in which they pronounced against the statements made by the authorities of the Municipality of Abangares (see folios 234-240 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 15. In ordinary session No. 48 of the Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs on **5 April 2022**, a substitute text motion was approved and a favorable opinion was issued unanimously by the legislators present at the session (see folios 252-263 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I and folios 293-303 of volume II). 16. Through official letter DIG-TOT-0251-2022 of **6 April 2022**, the coordinator of the National Nomenclature Commission of the National Registry attached to the legislative file the agreement reached by the Commission in ordinary session No. 003-2022 held on 31 March 2022, in which it was agreed to approve the names of the towns El Crucero, Enramadas, Los Pajarillos, El Platanar, and El Coyol, and to not approve the names La Palma, Lajas, San Antonio, and Santa Lucía (see folios 264-266 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 17. On **22 April 2022**, the Ordinary Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs sent to the Secretariat of the Directorate the affirmative majority opinion corresponding to legislative file No. 22,643 (see folios 267-291 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I). 18. Through official letter No. AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 of **23 June 2022**, the acting director (*a.i.*) of the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly sent the legal report on this bill (see folios 303-400 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II). 19. In extraordinary session No. 71 of the Legislative Plenary on **26 September 2022**, a motion of order was presented and approved to hear file 22,643. Subsequently, the discussion on the merits began in the first debate procedure, a substantive motion was presented, and the file was transferred to the reporting committee (see folios 409-419 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II). 20. On **11 October 2022**, the Ordinary Permanent Committee on Legal Affairs sent to the Secretariat of the Directorate the first report on motions via Article 137 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly (RAL) (folios 420-447 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II). 21. In ordinary session No. 88 of **27 October 2022**, the discussion in the first debate continued and, upon the presentation of a substantive motion, the referral to the reporting committee was ordered (see folios 448-463 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

22. On **16 February 2023**, the Committee submitted the second report on motions (see folios 464-482 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

23. In regular session No. 126 of **19 February 2024**, the Legislative Plenary considered the second report on motions and, as there were no motions for reiteration, the bill was considered and approved in first debate. This was by the affirmative vote of 37 legislators (see folios 491-510 of the copy of the legislative file, volume II).

**VI.- ON THE STATEMENT OF MOTIVES FOR THE BILL**.

According to the analysis of the bill, it was submitted to the Secretariat of the Board of Directors on **12 August 2021**, and the initiative was signed by the following legislators: Mileidy Alvarado Arias, Franggi Nicolás Solano, Dragos Dolanescu Valenciano, Pablo Heriberto Abarca Mora, José María Villalta Flórez-Estrada, Jorge Luis Fonseca Fonseca, Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith, Ivonne Acuña Cabrera, Melvin Ángel Núñez Piña, Carmen Irene Chan Mora, María Inés Solís Quirós, Laura Guido Pérez, Nidia Lorena Céspedes Cisneros, María Vita Monge Granados, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, Wálter Muñoz Céspedes, Xiomara Priscilla Rodríguez Hernández, Otto Roberto Vargas Víquez, Sylvia Patricia Villegas Álvarez, Welmer Ramos González, Marolin Raquel Azofeifa Trejos, and Carlos Luis Avendaño Calvo.

In the statement of motives for the bill, the considerations for promoting the creation of the canton of Colorado, independent from the canton of Abangares, are recorded. In this regard, the following was stated:

*“According to historical data, the town of Colorado has existed since before 1894. Traditionally, this town has been dedicated to agricultural, livestock, fishing, limestone extraction, and salt production activities. This last activity has been declining in recent years to give way to aquaculture in shrimp farming.* *Colorado has existed as a district since 4 June 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was established under Law No. 13, as canton VII of Guanacaste, designating four districts, namely, Las Juntas (head town), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district Colorado. It is important to note that the residents of Colorado supported the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.* *Administratively, Colorado achieved a certain degree of autonomy, in relation to its parent canton, with the creation of the District Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal del distrito) which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, by Executive Decree No. 23 of 22 April 1970, published in La Gaceta on 24 April of that same year. It should be noted that the creation of the District Municipal Council of Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Municipal Council of Abangares.* *From then until now, the affairs of the district have been managed by representatives of the community, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to provide adequate satisfaction to the needs of the inhabitants.* *This way of addressing needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop complete independence from the rest of the canton of Abangares, with which there has existed only a strictly formal sense of belonging. Moreover, the cultural, economic, and above all sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the socio-cultural configuration characteristic of the Guanacastecan peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows deep traits of immigration of nationals and foreigners, who came mainly to exploit mining activity.* *Regarding resource management, the District Municipal Council of Colorado began in 1971 with a budget that amounted to one hundred twenty-one thousand sixty-seven colones (¢121,067.00). For the year 2019, the budget submitted for approval was set at one billion one hundred forty-seven million two hundred eighty-nine thousand five hundred thirty-nine colones and eighteen céntimos (¢1,147,289,539.18).* *This shows that, over the last forty years, the inhabitants of the district of Colorado have developed within their own reality and have generated the economic contributions necessary for the creation of the infrastructure to achieve the well-being of the residents.* *The last three decades, the development of the district of Colorado has been impacted by the establishment of two important national industries, Cemex and Coonaprosal R.L.* *In 1973, Cementos del Pacífico (CEMPASA) was founded, currently CEMEX, a company that took seven years to start operations and which is currently an important source of employment and wealth in the area.* *27 April 1974 is a memorable date for the development of the district of Colorado, given that 48 salt producers from the area of Colorado and Jicaral founded the Cooperativa Nacional de Productores de Sal R.L. (COONAPROSAL, R.L.), registered and approved on 15 November 1974 by the Ministry of Labour.* *PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE:* *By 1985, 90% of the district was electrified, and in 1987 the first manual telephone exchange was installed. The aqueduct was managed by the District Municipal Council until May 1993, the year in which it was transferred to Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA).* *After many years of constant struggle, it managed to obtain its own high school in 1995, established under the model school modality, which has come to provide young people with greater study opportunities.* *TERRITORIAL EXTENSION:* *Colorado has a territorial extension of 195.77 km2, distributed across thirteen hamlets: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Santa Lucia, El Coyol, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, La Palma, Cementos del Pacífico, Enramadas, and the head town which is located in Colorado.* *(…)* *Local roads and distances. Length of roads and their importance in socio-economic development. In relation to the type of road surface, roads made of granular material (ballast) stand out in the greatest quantity, extending for a total of 70.68 km, these being the main internal connectivity routes of the district, since the majority are used for the transit of products linked to livestock and agricultural activities; other roads that stand out are dirt roads with 32.96 km, which serve the function of providing accessibility to farms.* *The main town of Colorado is located at a distance of 27 kilometres or more from the cities or head towns of the nearest cantons, including the head town of the canton to which it belongs.* *Colorado is located 17 km from the La Amistad bridge, 30 km from Las Juntas (head town of the canton), 47 km from Cañas, and 58 km from Nicoya. Much of the road infrastructure is paved, with some stretches in fair condition.* *As for local roads, the district of Colorado has internal ballasted roads in good condition that allow communication among nine communities: San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Concepción, Pueblo Nuevo, San Joaquín, Raizal, Higuerilla, La Palma, Barbudal, Santa Lucia, and Enramadas.* *SERVICES:* *The district of Colorado has the following services and public infrastructure:* - *A medical clinic of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, which provides service 8 hours during the day and has a current budget of ¢1,237,000,000.00.* - *A Red Cross post, which provides service twenty-four hours a day, with three ambulances.* - *Nine primary schools, one per community, namely: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, Cementos del Pacífico (which is a private education service), and Colorado.* - *Two high schools, located in the center of Colorado (Liceo de Colorado with a speciality in Aula Billingüe and the Vocational Programme of the National Plan).* A CINDEA adult education school with a specialty in Technical careers and Educational Satellites in La Palma, Colorado, and San Buenaventura.

- Two preschools (CEN CINAI): one in Colorado and another in San Buenaventura.

- A Rural Assistance Guard post, located in Colorado.

- A municipal building (District Municipal Council), located in Colorado.

- An automatic telephone exchange.

- Six Catholic churches, one per community (except in Raizal, Cempasa, and Peñas Blancas), five non-Catholic churches: one in Colorado, Concepción, Santa Lucia, San Joaquín, and one in Peñas Blancas.

- Six community halls, one per community, except in Raizal, Peñas Blancas, and Cempasa.

- Seven soccer fields, one per community.

- Four basketball courts, located in Cempasa, Pueblo Nuevo, San Buenaventura, and Colorado.

- Two cemeteries: one in Colorado and one in San Buenaventura.

- Garbage collection service provided by the Municipal Council in the communities of Santa Lucia, San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Pueblo Nuevo, Concepción, Enrramadas, San Joaquín, La Palma, Raizal, and Colorado Centro, which is a Dirección Tres school that has the educational services of Special Support: Learning Problems, Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Speech Therapy, Educational Support, Plastic Arts, Musical Arts, Languages, among others; the rest of the communities manage their own waste (sic).

- The community of Colorado centro has restaurants, small grocery stores (pulperías), supermarkets, mini-supers, bookstores, bazaars, butcher shops, bars, hardware stores, etc.

LOCAL ORGANIZATION:

Locally, Colorado is a town with the following communal organization:

· Solidarity Associations: two · Fishermen's Associations: two · Sports Committees: one · Community Defense Committees: one · Cooperatives: five · ASOMIPE: one · Church Committees: six · Parish Economic Council: one · ASADAS Committees: five · Student Government: ten · Neighborhood Boards: two It is worth noting that in 1995, the Cantonal Creation Project for Colorado had been presented before the Legislative Assembly under expediente number N.º 11728, with a start date of June 27, 1993, published in the newspaper La Gaceta N.º 134 on July 15, 1993; the proponent of the project was the Abangares Deputy Alfredo Cruz Álvarez of the Social Christian Unity Party, representative of the Province of Guanacaste. Furthermore, a Legal Report of technical services to said expediente exists. It was approved in first debate in plenary session N.°146 on February 28, 1995, in the extraordinary period of the first legislature, from May 1, 1994, to April 30, 1994.

Considering that, due to the characteristics that the Colorado district possesses, despite not complying with what is indicated in Law Nº 4366, in Article 9 "with the percentage of necessary inhabitants…", the Colorado district currently has 5,018 inhabitants, according to source INEC (2018). If we verify data on the population of some existing cantons in the country, we can mention that many of them do not meet that requirement and were created as cantons; furthermore, if we compare budgets, we can also observe a similarity.

Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding distance from the main populated centers, including the head city of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, experience in managing municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and, above all, the manifest interest of its residents in obtaining their administrative independence. These factors lead us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division, to be elected as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though it currently forms part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an independent administration from that one has allowed for a fairly sound administrative and budgetary structure. This is because we have not applied the collective bargaining agreement that covers the officials of the municipality, nor have we generated benefits in favor of the district's officials based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the major differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the District Municipal Council of Colorado.

The District of Colorado has been developing significant public works; we can cite the purchase of a 10,000-square-meter plot of land for the construction of the Colorado Clinic, which is in the process of being transferred to the CCSS so that it may allocate the budgetary content for its proper construction.

A 340-square-meter building was recently constructed, which can serve as a cantonal delegation for the Public Force (Fuerza Pública), with an investment of 130 million colones.

A project of nearly one billion colones was incorporated with INDER to improve the Conchal levee, which will impact the economy of the district and the island of Chira, as it will allow for the improvement of existing economic activities (fishing and mollusk extraction) and the creation of new economic activities, such as rural tourism in the Gulf of Nicoya.

A Technical Training Center will be built in central Colorado, directed by INA, on a property of the Municipal Council of Colorado of 9 hectares, acquired in 2008 for nearly 100 million colones. The infrastructure will consist of 2,500 square meters of construction, at a cost of 2 billion colones. All these investments are made with tax resources collected by the District Municipal Council of Colorado, through Law 5420, the 1% export tax on the Cement produced at the Colorado Plant. This technical-modality educational center will attract many students from the entire province of Guanacaste and part of the province of Puntarenas.

It is worth highlighting that a percentage of Law 5420 is invested in educational infrastructure in all the district's educational centers, with an approximate annual budget of 30 million colones for said centers, in addition to economic contributions for school cafeterias and CEN CINAI in the district, plus the transfers of resources from the real estate law to the Schools of an approximate annual amount of 10 million colones; this makes us an institution different from many.

Being a canton, Colorado will directly receive the resources coming from LEY 9156 Ley Reguladora de los Derechos de Salida del Territorio Nacional, of July 25, 2013, which to date this district has not received anything from the Municipality of Abangares, which should also allocate a percentage for the construction and development of tourism infrastructure in our communities that are so potentially touristic and the recovery of the district's cultural heritage.

Furthermore, it should be noted that with the reform of Law 8114 and Law 9329 Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias: Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal of November 17, 2015, starting in 2016 the Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado administers and disposes the resources of this law, for the attention of the road network of the district of Colorado, receiving annually the sum of approximately 350 million colones. If converted into a canton, it would receive the same income because the existing road network would not vary; the only difference is that the deposit would be made by the Ministry of Finance directly to the accounts of the new canton.

Currently, the Concejo Municipal de Colorado has sufficient income for its self-financing (…)

We can observe that the district of Colorado has a budget that has been growing, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused some weakness in planning, therefore, in budget execution, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality, in budget modifications, extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to carry out so that the CMD incorporates the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that come to improve services to the citizenry is necessary, such as; health, public transportation, financial institutions, and public institution offices essential for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve territorial planning and we would have greater development.

Being a canton, Colorado will receive greater economic resources directly to invest in the territory, like other national taxes that the Municipalities receive.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

**VII.- A FIRST APPROACH TO THE SPECIFIC CASE** The consulting legislators question that the processing of the bill did not comply with the provisions of Article 9 of the LDTA, No. 4366, which provides the following:

“Art. 9.- Henceforth, no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered, if after the dismemberment it is not left with at least a minimum population of the percentage expressed above.

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach said population, in places that are very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial recommends it, after the corresponding studies.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

That is, they consider that the project is unreasonable because the population percentage of the first paragraph is not met and, by obviating said requirement, the principle of legality is violated.

However, they omitted to point out that the statement of motives expressly stated that the bill initiative is not based on the provisions of Article 9 of the aforementioned law regarding population data. In fact, it is acknowledged that the district of Colorado does not meet “the required percentage of inhabitants.” Thus, the bill is motivated by invoking the exceptional possibility provided for in that same Article 9 (second paragraph), which must be applied jointly with the provisions of Article 15 of the law, which states the following:

“Art. 15.- Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the Comisión Nacional de División Administrativa may consider other geographical, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division. (…)”.

In this regard, the following arguments were set forth in the statement of motives of the bill accepted for processing by the legislators:

“Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head city of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administering municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which leads us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa to be elected as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.” Consequently, this consultation does not focus on verifying whether the project meets or does not meet the requirement established in the law regarding the population percentage, since the initiative itself acknowledged from the outset that this was not met, but rather on reviewing whether the legislators adhered to the conditions for exempting that requirement, provided for in the legislation that regulates the creation of new cantons (Articles 9, second paragraph, and 15 of LDTA).

To reach a duly supported conclusion, this Chamber will review the technical criteria contained in the legislative file, the provisions that regulate the creation of cantonates, and the precedents of this Chamber and the Procuraduría General de la República. Finally, an analysis will be made of the most relevant regulations for the specific case submitted for consultation.

**VIII.- ON THE CRITERIA SUBMITTED TO THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDING** In referring to the legislative *iter*, this Chamber verified that several institutional criteria, detailed below, were submitted to the Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos of the Asamblea Legislativa.

Through official letter PE-AL-276-2021 of **October 29, 2021**, the institutional criteria of the INVU was sent to the Asamblea Legislativa, from which the following conclusions emerge:

“It indicates the basis of the project that the district of Colorado has a population of 5,091 inhabitants, an amount that does not meet the requirement established in Article 9 of Law No. 4366 Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, which would be true, and the exception regarding the population that the same article establishes is based on places that are very remote and of difficult communication with their administrative centers, aspects that at present are not met, since the road infrastructure is in good condition and there is bus service to different places, including Las Juntas de Abangares.

(…)

It is clear that the creation of the canton, districts, and the incorporation of settlements aims at a better administrative and budgetary organization, and the district of Colorado can assume the transformation; however, the bill must be adjusted to the principle of legality, as well as the decision taken by the Asamblea Legislativa” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

As can be seen, the authorities of the INVU indicated that, for the purposes of approving the new canton, the population requirements are not met, but neither is the exception regarding distance.

Specifically regarding this aspect, the TSE opposed the bill, in the following terms:

“The promoting legislators in the statement of motives indicate that the creation of the new circumscription fails to comply with the legal requirement of having at least 1% of the country's population (page 7 of the project), a requirement which, according to what is stated, can be obviated because other cantons have fewer than that number of inhabitants and because, as detailed, the area is located far from the head city of the canton to which it currently belongs; it is also indicated that the tendency of goods and services (sic) of a considerable community organization and sufficient economic resources justify that the law can be approved disregarding the cited minimum population amount.

These reasonings, although fully worthy of consideration, do not have sufficient entity to disregard the fact that there is a valid law that requires accrediting a minimum population amount, a rule which, if not observed, would lead to an infringement of the principle of singular non-derogability of norms (…) Therefore, by affirming the project that the canton sought to be created does not meet one of the requirements for doing so and that it is not evident that the procedure provided for exempting such obligation has been followed (there is no record of a favorable opinion from the Comisión Nacional de División Territorial), it reveals that the initiative has a defect that must be corrected.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original. See folios 174-181 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

Furthermore, through official letter No. MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 of **November 9, 2021**, the Minister of National Planning and Economic Policy set forth some technical observations, as follows:

“The initiative is justified on grounds such as the remoteness of the district, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administering municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence; it is also important to mention that the statement of motives indicates that the residents of Colorado gave their support to the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

From then until the present date, the affairs of the district have been administered by representatives of the community, who have been concerned with developing the necessary means to provide adequate satisfaction to the needs of the inhabitants. This way of attending to needs has allowed the inhabitants of Colorado to develop absolute independence with respect to the rest of the canton of Abangares, with which there has existed only a strictly formal sense of belonging. Moreover, the cultural, economic, and especially sociological differences between the two regions are notorious, with the population of Colorado characterized by maintaining the sociocultural configuration characteristic of the Guanacaste peasantry, while the rest of the canton shows traits of immigration of nationals and foreigners, come mainly to exploit mining activity.” (See folios 189-195 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

The legislative file records that a formal hearing was granted to the President of the CDTA (see folio 102 of the copy of the legislative file); however, its technical body, namely, the Comité Técnico de la División Territorial Administrativo (see Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41236-MGP of June 15, 2018), rendered a report. Said body adopted Agreement No. 001-04-2021 in which it concluded the following:

“In response to the consultation on the bill, based on its analysis, the following recommendations will be made, first, the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After analyzing the distance with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception of the article in mention. Furthermore, it is recommended that the situation be analyzed that Colorado de Abangares already has a Concejo Municipal de Distrito that administers the territory. In the event that the bill moves forward, it is requested that the boundaries already stipulated by the Instituto Geográfico Nacional, which are the official ones, be respected.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original. See folio 214 of the copy of the legislative file, volume I).

It is observed that the Commission's opinion was negative, since, according to its technical analysis, the site does not meet the conditions set forth in Article 9 of the law and it indicated that the territory does not qualify to apply the exceptionality provided for in that same norm regarding distance from the administrative center.

Once the corresponding hearings were granted, the legislative file was favorably reported by the Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos of the Asamblea Legislativa, and in the justification, the ideas gathered in the statement of motives of the bill regarding the application of the exceptionality were set forth and taken up again:

Colorado has existed as a district since June 4, 1915, the date on which the canton of Abangares was erected according to Law No. 13, as canton VII of Guanacaste, designating four districts, namely, Las Juntas (head city), La Sierra, San Juan, and the 4th district Colorado. It is important to highlight that the residents of Colorado gave their support to the creation of the new canton, given the state of abandonment in which the residents of Abangares found themselves.

Administratively, Colorado obtained a certain degree of autonomy, in relation to its parent canton, with the creation of the Concejo Municipal del distrito which was created during the Trejos Fernández administration, through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 23 of April 22, 1970, published in La Gaceta of April 24 of that same year. It is worth noting that the creation of the Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado had the positive and unanimous vote of the Concejo Municipal de Abangares.

Colorado meets the conditions it demonstrates regarding remoteness from the main populated centers, including the head city of the canton to which it belongs, the possession of infrastructure and basic services, the experience in administering municipal resources, the existence of important industries and productive developments, and above all the manifest interest of its inhabitants in obtaining their administrative independence, which leads us to request the creation of Colorado as a canton by way of exception, as permitted by Article 15 of the Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa to be elected as the twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste.

Even though it currently forms part of the Canton of Abangares, the existence of an administration independent from that one has allowed for a fairly healthy administrative and budgetary structure, because we have not applied the collective bargaining agreement that covers the municipality's officials, nor have we generated benefits in favor of the district's officials based on collective bargaining agreements. The foregoing demonstrates one of the great differences between the Municipality of Abangares and the Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado.

We can observe that the district of Colorado has a budget that has been growing, but the lack of budgetary autonomy has caused some weakness in planning, therefore, in budget execution, since we depend on the actions of the parent municipality, in budget modifications, extraordinary budgets, which we must wait for them to carry out so that the CMD incorporates the district's resources.

The entry of institutions that come to improve services to the citizenry is necessary, such as; health, public transportation, financial institutions, and public institution offices essential for the development of a canton.

Having full autonomy to create urban planning policies would improve territorial planning and we would have greater development.

Being a canton, Colorado will receive greater economic resources directly to invest in the territory, like other national taxes that the Municipalities receive.

Furthermore, the report rendered to the Plenary detailed the most relevant excerpts from the hearings received and finally concluded the following:

“Once the criteria were received, the wording adjustments suggested by the different institutions were made and presented in a Substitute Text Motion that was approved. Additionally, emphasis is desired that the project in question does not intend to make territorial modifications during the course of presidential or municipal elections.

Regarding the opposition of the Municipality of Abangares, the Intendancy made a response and expansion on the supposed situations indicated by the aforementioned municipality. In this sense, the management and administration of the Intendancy is made transparent.

The proposed canton has budgetary autonomy, as defined and amply clarified by the Contraloría General de la República in its official communication PGR-C-245-2021 (…)

Consequently, the assertions made to the contrary on this matter are unfounded and entirely outside the bounds of legality.

An Intendancy that is not subject to any collective bargaining agreement, recognizing only the annual increments established by law, and that has managed its resources efficiently. It even generated, from its own office, the respective consultations to the oversight bodies on matters of taxes and remuneration.

On the other hand, it is necessary to indicate that the Intendancy of Colorado presented statistics, hard data backing its arguments, whereas the municipal opinion lacks elements that would allow its claims to be corroborated.

This population has the right to aspire to its own canton status, as the communities of Monteverde and Río Cuarto recently did.

**RECOMMENDATION** In accordance with the foregoing, **taking into account the response received and for reasons of timeliness and convenience, the deputies who are members of this Commission issue this AFFIRMATIVE MAJORITY OPINION (DICTAMEN AFIRMATIVO DE MAYORÍA) on the bill entitled “CREATION OF THE CANTON OF COLORADO, TWELFTH CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF GUANACASTE”**, processed under file **No. 22.643,** and we recommend **its approval to the Legislative Plenary** (The underlined text does not correspond to the original).

It is clear that the review committee based its decision on aspects of timeliness and convenience, disregarding—in this Chamber's judgment—that it was not solely a matter of weighing these elements, but that it was necessary to demonstrate compliance with the legal requirements that the Legislative Assembly expressly set for itself for the decision to create a new canton.

Finally, and with respect to the consultation raised in the specific case, it is pertinent to cite what was suggested by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly in AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 of **June 23, 2022**—issued after the committee opinion—in which the following warnings were made:

“By virtue of the foregoing considerations, this advisory office draws attention to what was indicated by the Technical Committee on Administrative Territorial Division (Comité Técnico de División Territorial Administrativa), through agreement 001-04-2021, which was made known to the Permanent Commission on Legal Affairs through official communication MGP-CTDT-006-2021, dated December 13, 2021; which, among other aspects, states that: ‘(…) the territory in question does not comply with Article 9 of Law 4366. After the distance analysis with respect to the administrative center, the Committee recommends that the territory does not qualify for the exception of the aforementioned article.’ (the highlighting is not from the original).

The Technical Committee is a body attached to the National Commission on Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa), which has been tasked with studying and proposing solutions aimed at achieving a systematic improvement of the country's territorial administration, acting as a technical body of the Commission, but it is not the Commission itself.

It should be noted that although the National Commission on Territorial Division was consulted by the Commission on Legal Affairs (see folio 102 of the file) as required by Law 4366, there is no record of a response referring to this project; rather, the only thing recorded is the response from its technical body.

Despite the fact that the population data does not come from the National Commission, the truth is that its technical body conducted the study and reached the conclusion that the proposed canton does not meet the population requirement demanded by law, data that the Legislative Assembly can corroborate with a request for information to the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos).

In this regard, **Law No. 4366 is categorical regarding compliance with the population requirement of no less than 1% of the total population of the country or compliance with the population exception when that territory is very remote and has difficult communication with its administrative center for a new canton to be created; but having been verified by the Technical Committee that it is not met, the Legislative Assembly must proceed not to create this new canton.** While it is true that the opinion of the Commission on Territorial Division is not binding on the Legislative Assembly, and its opinion is only a legal requirement whose consultation is mandatory, the truth is that **the technical body has verified that the population requirement is not met, nor even the distance requirement indicated as the exception; therefore, the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton, and if it were to do so, it would be violating the principle of legality established in Article 11 of the Political Constitution by failing to comply with the provisions of Article 9 of Law No. 4366. As the Constitutional Chamber has indicated, the Legislative Assembly cannot disapply the norms that it itself has approved on this matter of territorial division.”** (The text highlighted does not correspond to the original).

In this regard, this Court will later make its own conclusion on whether the opinion of the CNDTA, as the technical body designated by the legislator itself to advise it on matters of administrative territorial division, is binding or not. However, for the moment, it suffices to note that the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly itself emphasized that in the present case, the conditions of the law regarding population size are not met, nor is the distance requirement indicated as the exception, and in light of the foregoing and by virtue of the principle of legality, it concluded that the Legislative Assembly would be barred from proceeding with the approval of the creation of this canton.

**IX.- ON THE PROVISIONS REGULATING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE FORMATION OF NEW CANTONS AND THE PRECEDENTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER** In general terms, the construction of the territorial unit of our country is regulated, in the first place, by Article 168 of the Political Constitution:

“Art. 168.- For the purposes of Public Administration, the national territory is divided into provinces; these into cantons and the cantons into districts. The law may establish special distributions.

The Legislative Assembly may decree, observing the procedures for partial reform of this Constitution, the creation of new provinces, provided that the respective project has been previously approved in a plebiscite that the Assembly shall order to be held in the province or provinces that bear the dismemberment.

**The creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members**.” (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

The constitutional norm provides that the constitutional competence to create new cantons is entrusted to the Legislative Assembly, and the only condition established in the Constitution is that the vote be carried out by a qualified majority of 38 votes—a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Branch. In this regard, as will be detailed later, this Chamber has stated that this reservation of qualified law—as an exception to the general rule of Article 119 of the Political Constitution—demonstrates the marked relevance that the framers considered that decisions related to the matter of territorial organization of the State held, from which great implications derive, among others: electoral, infrastructure, and resource distribution.

Furthermore, it was the legislator itself that issued a legal norm that came to establish additional conditions or requirements for the creation of new cantons, setting parameters of reasonableness and proportionality in its decision. Thus, the LDTA No. 4366 of August 5, 1969 was enacted—a norm, the result of the initiative of the Government and Administration Commission of the Legislative Assembly and drafted by the then director of the National Geographic Institute (Instituto Geográfico Nacional), which came to renovate the [Law on Municipal Territorial Division No. 56 of June 4, 1909](https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=69034&nValor3=82967&strTipM=FN),—and it is precisely the parameter that the legislators consider violated.

The norms of interest are the following:

“Art. 1º.- **The National Commission on Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa) is created, whose function shall be to advise the Public Branches on matters of administrative territorial division.** The Commission shall be composed of the Minister of the Interior, the Director of the National Geographic Institute, and the Director of the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, who may be represented by officials of their respective agencies.

**No provinces, cantons, or districts may be created without first knowing the opinion of the Commission,** to whose knowledge the problems of administrative territorial division shall be submitted.

(…)

Art. 9º.- **Henceforth, no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is left with at least a minimum population of the aforementioned percentage.** **By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach said population, in very remote places with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division recommends it, after the pertinent studies of the case.** Art. 13.- Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory that is to constitute it complies with what is indicated in Article 9 and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions. They must also indicate, with all precision, the perimeter of the canton, attaching the respective map.

**The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the convenience of the creation, which shall pronounce itself after a report from the National Commission on Territorial Administration.** (…)

Article 15.- **Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission on Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the territorial division.** When changes are introduced in the territorial division, the National Geographic Institute and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses must take note of the changes in surface area, population, etc., publishing these values in their annual reports.

The National Geographic Institute shall prepare provincial and cantonal maps, which must be reviewed when necessary. The municipalities of the country may contribute economically to their publication.

The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission on Nomenclature.

The title of City shall be granted by the Legislative Assembly to towns, having previously heard the opinion of the National Commission on Territorial Division.” (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

From the highlighted norms, it follows that the referred law not only creates the CNDTA but also establishes the requirements for the creation of new cantons.

This Chamber has ruled on compliance with these requirements for the creation of new cantons and has indicated the binding nature of the norms self-imposed by the legislator. Precisely, this Chamber issued the advisory opinion [No. 1995-2009](https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-83772), related to the creation of the canton of Colorado as part of the province of Guanacaste, in which it made the following considerations:

“IV ).- CONSTITUTIONAL NORM AND LEGAL REGIME FOR THE CREATION OF NEW CANTONS.- Article 168 of the Political Constitution, as relevant, states that for the purposes of Public Administration, the national territory is divided into provinces, cantons, and districts; the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of the total of its members. The Political Constitution contains no other provision on the creation of new cantons. As a general principle of Constitutional Law, every territorial jurisdiction existing at the time the supreme norm that recognizes it emerges, elevating it to the category of a decentralized institution with constitutional rank—in this case, the cantons—acquires the right to its full existence and identity, to its autonomy granted by a norm of equal rank (Art. 170 id.), to maintain its integrity and its condition of administrative decentralization (this latter does not imply, of course, that it is a form of State or government that excludes all other forms of political administration, because like all decentralization, it leaves the constituent power and even the legislative power of the State intact). The necessary legal-constitutional conclusion leads us to determine that it is the responsibility of the Legislative Branch whether or not to develop the competence contained in Article 168 of the Political Constitution for the creation of cantons, establishing the requirements and formalities that give reasonable and proportionate content to the principles that the supreme norm itself has conceived, and in any case, to the complementary ones that, without being in the original norm, are appropriate to make the exercise of the competence possible.

V.- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION (No. 4366 of August 19, 1969).- It is this law, precisely, that the Legislative Branch has enacted to regulate the creation of new cantons. It is necessary to point out that, by the Political Constitution establishing in the final paragraph of Article 168 that the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the totality of the members of the Legislative Assembly is required for the creation of a canton, it gives a clear idea of the importance that the original framers gave to territorial integrity and the entire matter related to the territorial subdivision of the Provinces. **In the opinion of the Chamber, the general principle of Law establishing that legal norms bind even the authority that has issued them and, within its competence, its superior, implies that the law that governs the functioning of the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of a competence that is also constitutional, binds it in the specific cases in which it must exercise it, which is nothing more than the application of the general principle of the singular non-derogability of the norm for the specific case; a general principle of constitutional rank, as it is applicable to the entire legal system, as a derivation of and at the same time a condition for the Rule of Law in its entirety. All of which means, in relation to the present matter, that for the creation of a new municipal territorial entity, the Legislative Assembly must observe the law that it has enacted for that purpose, without prejudice, of course, to its power to repeal or reform it prior to its exercise.** VI ).- LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE TERRITORIAL DIVISION AGAIN.- Having said the above, in the opinion of the Chamber, a new canton cannot be created without complying with the administrative procedure contained in Law No. 4366, in addition to the fact that the examination of the file reveals serious formal non-compliances, all of which lead to the constitutional competence of the Legislative Assembly being substituted by public agencies and dependencies or vitiated by the omission of essential requirements. The procedure becomes a violation of the legislative procedure and, consequently, contrary to the Political Constitution itself. In the following Considerandos, these non-compliances are detailed.

VII ).- NON-COMPLIANCES WITH THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CREATION OF THE CANTON.- In the opinion of the Chamber, the following norms have not been observed in the processing of the bill:

"No provinces, cantons, or districts may be created without first knowing the opinion of the Commission, to whose knowledge the problems of administrative territorial division shall be submitted." (paragraph 3, Article 1).

"Henceforth, no territory shall be established as a canton that does not have at least one percent of the total population of the country, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, after the dismemberment, it is left with at least a minimum population of the aforementioned percentage.

"By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach said population, in very remote places with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission on Territorial Division recommends it, after the pertinent studies of the case." (Article 9) "When a new canton is created, the limits that will separate it from the bordering cantons must be determined with every minuteness, in the same law of creation..." (Article 10) "Those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory that is to constitute it complies with what is indicated in Article 9 and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions. They must also indicate, with all precision, the perimeter of the canton, attaching the respective map.

"The Legislative Assembly shall hear the Executive Branch regarding the convenience of the creation, which shall pronounce itself after a report from the National Commission on Territorial Administration." (Article 13) "Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission on Administrative Division may consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors for the formation of the Territorial Division.

"The names of the new territorial units shall be agreed upon by the National Commission on Nomenclature." (paragraphs 1 and 4, Article 15).- Indeed, the legislative file does not show that the studies and the report of the National Commission on Administrative Territorial Division were carried out. Official communication No. 950118 of February 27, 1995, which is attached to folios 139, 140, and 141, signed by the Vice-Minister of the Interior and Police, who is, at the same time, President of the Commission, cannot have the virtue of fulfilling the requirement: first, because the competence to carry out the studies and make recommendations belongs to the Commission as a body and not to its President; and second, because Law 4366 requires the studies and the consultation to the Commission, which cannot be substituted by the phrase ‘Given that we have learned that the bill is in the legislative process...’, an expression that is incompatible with the objective pursued by Law 4366 when creating the Commission, from which it is expected that it will formally and specifically intervene in every procedure aimed at the creation of a new canton.

Consequently, <b><u>no other conclusion can be reached but to affirm that the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division did not participate in the processing of this bill and, consequently, the requirements and formalities established by the legislator itself based on the constitutional purposes and principles involved in the creation of new cantons have not been fulfilled</u></b> (…)

The consultation is answered to the effect that the bill for the creation of the Canton of Colorado, the Twelfth of the Province of Guanacaste, is unconstitutional, due to a violation of the legislative procedure and, consequently, this opinion is binding. Judges Solano and Arguedas dissent and answer the consultation to the effect that the bill is unconstitutional insofar as it violates articles 9 and 68 of the Political Constitution and is contrary to ruling No. 6000-94 of this Chamber.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

From the foregoing precedent, it can be concluded that this Chamber established the premise that, in matters concerning the exercise of a legislative power of constitutional origin such as the creation of cantons, the Legislative Assembly is bound by Law No. 4366. It can well be said that the LDT contains norms of legislative procedure regarding the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin. For this reason, the cited advisory opinion rightly referred to the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm, which according to the jurisprudence of this Court has constitutional rank (see also ruling <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1071382"><b>No. 2020-023743</b></a> and advisory opinion <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1052812"><b>No. 2021-009111</b></a>).

What was stated by the majority in that advisory opinion was subsequently taken up by this same Chamber in advisory opinion <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-193628"><b>No. 2002-05801</b></a>, concerning the creation of the canton of Corralillo. The following considerations were set forth in that resolution:

“III.- The territorial organization of the State.

The Costa Rican State, despite being characterized by a unitary form, that is, despite the fact that the territories that comprise it do not enjoy true political autonomy from the central power, is indeed divided into spatial circumscriptions of various degrees: provinces, cantons, districts, towns, etc. This distribution of space is termed by the Law as ‘Administrative Territorial Division’. (Cf. Law number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen sixty-nine) Although this denomination could lead us to fall into the error of considering it a division for purely administrative purposes (for example, for the correct planning and implementation of state and local public services), the truth is that the territorial organization adopted by the State entails a series of serious implications, which undoubtedly transcend the sphere of the merely administrative. In that sense, the division adopted has a direct impact on electoral organization, on the election of deputies to the Legislative Assembly (elected by provinces according to article 106 of the Political Constitution), on the designation of local authorities (council members, district councilors, and municipal mayors), on the determination of the various areas of jurisdictional competence, etc. Hence, the establishment by the State of a clear and precise organization has a direct impact on the smooth functioning of all other forms of public action related to it. It is for this reason that the Political Constitution, in its article 168, establishes that only the Legislative Assembly may modify the territorial organization of the Costa Rican State, as it pertains to provinces and cantons. In the first case, an act approved according to the procedures for partial reform of the Constitution is required, preceded by a popular consultation in the provinces involved in the dismemberment; <b><u>in the second, it requires the approval of a Law by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the total number of deputies. The imposition of the aforementioned qualified legal reserve (an exception to the general rule of article 119 of the Constitution) also reveals that character of marked relevance that the constituent body considered applicable to decisions regarding the territorial organization of the State, and which derives from the profound implications that the matter in question entails.</u></b> IV.- Procedure for the creation of new cantons.

In Costa Rica, the constituent body did not develop the topic referring to the necessary procedures for the creation of a canton in a detailed manner. In fact, article 168 of the Political Constitution establishes barely the following:

(…)

That is, the Fundamental Law merely determined that a reinforced legal reserve exists for the constitution of new cantons, leaving to the ordinary legislator the development of the express mechanisms for the implementation of that parliamentary competence. Thus, the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, number 4366 of August nineteenth, nineteen sixty-nine, provides for the specific procedures that the authorities must follow to approve the creation of a new canton or district. (…)

As a corollary of everything stated up to this point, it is possible to affirm that the Costa Rican legal system requires that for the creation of a canton of the Republic, the Legislative Assembly (the sole competent body) must approve a bill according to the procedures of ordinary Law, by a qualified majority of two-thirds of the totality of its members, these requirements being augmented by those provided for in Law number 4366. According to the reasoning followed by this Chamber in ruling 4009-95 partially transcribed, <b><u>it is understood that the legislator, upon approving the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, self-limited itself, developing the generic contents of constitutional numeral 168 through a more detailed and specific regulation of its own action in this matter</u></b>. Upon approving Law 4366, <b><u>the Legislative Assembly used its powers of self-regulation, defining the necessary procedures to guarantee that at the time of approving new cantons, Parliament will act with full knowledge of the scope of its decision, in relation to aspects of territory and population of the new circumscriptions. The procedure imposed by the referenced Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it involves constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in constitutional article 168</u></b>. In that context, it is clear that to approve the creation of a new canton, the Assembly <b><u>must have certainty that it will have a population equal to or greater than one percent of the total inhabitants of the country, or failing that, it must adhere to the (technical) report issued by the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division, a body that must evaluate whether conditions of remoteness and difficult communication exist regarding the municipal administrative centers, which would make the creation of a new canton appropriate. Obtaining this criterion constitutes an indispensable requirement in the procedure for constituting such territorial entities</u></b>. (…)

<b><u>As the minimum required by the Law was not reached, and as the criterion of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division was not available, without whose affirmative opinion it was impossible for the Legislative Assembly to approve the creation of the canton of Corralillo, the creation of the new canton was impossible for Parliament.</u></b> This omission cannot be justified by the fact that the National Commission did not respond to the hearing granted to it for eight days by the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration (folio 52 of the legislative file). Article 157 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly expressly regulates what concerns consultations that must be carried out by the Legislative Assembly with the University of Costa Rica, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Judicial Branch, and autonomous institutions, providing that if eight business days after receiving the consultation the institution does not pronounce itself, it is understood that it does not oppose the initiative in question. This norm clearly regulates the exercise of an institutional self-defense power, which allows the mentioned bodies and entities to express their opinion regarding a specific bill that in some way affects their interests. <b><u>The participation of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division provided for in article 9 of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, since the Commission must base its opinion on strictly technical criteria, and unlike the case of the other mentioned institutions, mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the bill under discussion cannot be given. It is a limitation imposed by the legislator in use of its already described powers of self-regulation, in order to ensure that the decision it adopts is backed by complete technical certainty regarding its content and scope. If the Assembly does not have all the necessary information to act consciously, it would be leaving the decision regarding the territorial organization of the State to other instances, in clear violation of the reserve that the Political Constitution established in its favor. In addition to the above, it is clear that numeral 9 of Law 4366 is a special norm regarding the generic regulation of article 157 of the Regulations of the Legislative Assembly. All these reasons lead this Chamber to conclude that the absence of an opinion rendered by the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division in the terms stated constitutes a defect in the procedure used in the discussion of legislative file number 13,515, which causes the nullity of the proceedings followed, so that in accordance with the provisions of article 101 paragraph 2 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the procedure must be retraced to before its approval in the Permanent Ordinary Commission of Government and Administration.</u></b> The consultation is answered to the effect that, regarding the proceedings followed for the approval of the bill for the ‘Creation of Canton IX of the Province of Cartago, Corralillo’, legislative file number 13,515, the Constitutional Chamber notes invalidating defects in the legislative procedure.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

From a careful reading of that advisory opinion, it is seen that the Chamber emphasized, first, that –upon the approval of the LDTA– the legislator itself established its own rules for the exercise of the competence granted in art. 168 of the Political Constitution. It is a special regulation concerning the procedures for said exercise, which it must itself respect. Thus, from that resolution, it was established that “the procedure imposed by the referenced Law is of mandatory observance for the Assembly, and as it involves constitutional matter, its violation implies the reflexive violation of the norm contained in constitutional article 168”. Second, and of special relevance for the specific case, the Chamber underlined that prior to the creation of a new canton, the criterion of the CNDTA must be known, which will verify that the territory has a population equal to or greater than 1% (one percent) of the total population of our country. In the absence of this requirement, the Legislative Assembly may only create it if the CNDTA recommends it. Indeed, art. 9 of the LDT so provides, which it is appropriate to transcribe again:

<b><u>By exception, new cantons that do not reach the aforementioned population may be created, in places very remote and with difficult communication with their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division recommends it, after the appropriate case studies.</u></b> Thus, it is the responsibility of this technical body to evaluate whether conditions of remoteness and difficult communication exist regarding the municipal administrative centers to which they are assigned, which would justify the creation of a new canton. The Chamber expressly indicated that obtaining this criterion is an indispensable requirement in the procedure for creating new cantonal entities. It must be understood that it must be a favorable opinion, since the law clearly states “provided that it recommends it”. Therefore, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive opinion –the recommendation– of the CNDTA.

What has been stated in the precedents –regarding compliance with legal procedures self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly for the exercise of its competences– can be compared, as it contains the same logic, with the assumption of the removal of protected status (desafectación) of the protected wilderness areas of our country. This Court has affirmed that, if technical elements are required for the creation of these zones, it must be understood that they are also needed for their total or partial removal of protected status, and the absence of such a requirement or technical basis causes the legislative decision to be invalidated. For example, this Chamber, in ruling <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-82653"><b>No. 1998-7294</b></a> –expressly alluding to vote No. 2009-1995 <i>supra</i> cited– concluded the following:

“According to the cited material, <b><u>mutatis mutandi, if for the creation of a protective wilderness area the Legislative Assembly, by means of a law, established compliance with specific requirements, in order to determine if the designation in question is justified, it is logical that, for its partial or total removal of protected status, certain requirements must also be met –such as the performance of technical environmental studies– to determine that the removal of protected status does not transgress the content of constitutional article 50”</u></b> (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In that resolution, this Chamber affirmed that “<b><u>the non-observance of certain requirements has the effect of transgressing substantial norms or principles of constitutional rank</u></b>” and, therefore, it was held that the Legislative Assembly cannot validly approve the reduction of a surface area of a protective zone, without first having a technical study that justifies its decision, since, otherwise, its action becomes contrary to the Political Constitution due to violation of the principle of constitutional reasonableness in relation to arts. 121 section 1) and 129 of the Political Constitution.

Subsequently, alluding to these same considerations and the principle of singular non-derogability of norms, the Chamber issued advisory opinion <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-551124"><b>No. 2012-013367</b></a>, in which it stated the following:

“This principle is a conquest of the Rule of Law that emerged from the French Revolution, since it was characteristic of the old absolutist regime that the king changed criteria according to his interests. So, if the legislator, developing the constitutional guarantees in favor of the environment, establishes as a requirement and guarantee of the right, that a law and a sufficient and complete technical study justifying it are required for the reduction of protected areas, <b><u>such a provision binds, by virtue of the principle, the legislative body itself that enacted it</u></b>.” (The emphasis does not correspond to the original. Considerations that were subsequently reiterated in full in ruling <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-896758"><b>No. 2017-002375</b></a>).

This is another good example showing that the Legislative Assembly is subject to the regulations that it itself has issued for the purpose of regulating the exercise of its constitutional powers. In both cases, due to their implications, it concerns subjection to technical criteria that justify the parliamentary decision.

In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize that it is not that the legal norm is in itself a parameter of constitutionality to evaluate the conduct of the Legislative Branch, but rather that said norm collects rules previously established for the exercise of a legislative competence of constitutional origin, so that breaching them would suppose an injury to the principle of singular non-derogability of the norm, which is of constitutional order. We could also add that the disregard and disapplication of said rules would imply a transgression of the principles of regularity and legal certainty that must inform the work of Parliament.

Finally, it is pertinent to note that in ruling <a href="https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1163370"><b>No. 2023-06227</b></a>, by which the Chamber analyzed the constitutionality of the creation of the district of Birrisito, it reached several conclusions, among others the following:

“In order to develop this analysis, a first important conclusion can be put forward according to which, for this Court, it is clear then that the Legislative Assembly –in addition to being able to create provinces and cantons– also has the competence to create districts, remembering that maxim which provides ‘he who can do the greater, can do the lesser,’ since if that Branch of the Republic has the constitutional attribution granted by article 168, Constitutional, to create the former, with much greater reason it can do so for the case of districts. Furthermore, article 14 of Law No. 4366 contains a delegation that is neither permanent nor exclusive, so that the Legislative Assembly may, by itself, create districts, or, indeed, modify or repeal what is established therein, without one thing being a requirement for the other, or what is the same, it can create districts without the need to modify or repeal what is provided in the Law on Administrative Territorial Division No. 4366. <b><u>Interpreting it otherwise would imply the renunciation of the competence that has been assigned to it by the Constituent Body, which is not derived from the fact of having delegated and regulated it in a procedure in the mentioned law, which contemplates the creation of districts by the Executive Branch.</u></b> <b><u>The generic constitutional power to agree on the administrative distribution of the national territory has been directly attributed to the Legislative Assembly as a constitutional body, therefore it must also include that of districts</u></b>. Although the Constituent Body did not concretely define that specific treatment in article 168, Constitutional, by not doing so, it left open the possibility for the legislator to assume that competence in accordance with the principles of opportunity and convenience, which evidently would not be prohibited. In this sense, as will be seen later, this Chamber leans towards the retention of that competence, also, in favor of the Legislative Assembly, despite it having been regulated in the law for the Executive Branch.

**VI.- Continuation.** From the preceding items, several conclusions can be established to have it as demonstrated that the claimant is not correct regarding this point:

**a)** First, as this Court has already indicated, the discussion about the best administrative territorial division of Costa Rica is proper to the Political Branches of the State, particularly the Legislative Assembly. Article 168, Constitutional, is very clear in indicating that this Branch can create provinces and cantons. And, in accordance with the theory of implied powers, it is also admissible that it is the Legislative Assembly that can create districts, since the delegation made in article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent nor exclusive, in such a way that the Legislative Assembly could create districts or modify or repeal what is established in said norm.

**b)** It is not the function of the Chamber to resolve on the convenience or not of varying the distribution of the national territory for the better allocation of public resources, for the correct administration of communal interests, nor for electoral effects or administrative planning, for which reason this Court has no competence whatsoever to pronounce on the convenience or timeliness of having created the district of Birrisito.

**c)** It is not true that the Legislative Assembly had to modify Law No. 4366 in order to create the district of Birrisito. Observe that this same Court, in Ruling No. 2013-012802 of 2:45 p.m. on September 25, 2013, expressly indicated that the delegation granted to the Executive Branch in article 14 of that Law No. 4366, on Administrative Territorial Division to create districts, is not permanent, that is, it accepts variations by decision of the legislator, but also that it is not exclusive, which is very important in terms of the claimant's complaint since this implies that the power for the Executive Branch granted in that numeral 14 can perfectly coexist, together with the natural power of the Legislative Assembly to create districts. It must be taken into account that this Constitutional Court has never stated that this article 14 of Law No. 4366, or this Law in its entirety, had to be modified for the Legislative Assembly to be able to create districts.

What this Court has stated is that the Legislative Assembly could modify or repeal what is established in that regulation -cited article 14-, or it could itself, on its own, create new districts. Hence, the interpretation made by the petitioner, in that sense, is improper.

**d)** Then, it is more than evident that the Legislative Assembly had the competence to create that district as it did, and even though this is a matter of legality that this Court is not called upon to assess, the record shows that the procedure established in article 14 of Law No. 4366 was followed; namely:

**1)** The National Commission of Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial) and specifically its Technical Committee, analyzed the request to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting the National Geographic Institute (IGN) to carry out the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso.

**2)** The mandatory consultation was made to the Municipality of Paraíso, having its approval, but in addition, the National Nomenclature Commission, the Institute of Statistics and Census, the Birrisito Integral Development Association, and the National Geographic Institute (IGN) were consulted.

**3)** The boundaries of the district were established, as well as where its head town would be located and the towns that would comprise it, as well as matters relating to the minimum population that would integrate this new district.

**4)** The Municipal Council of Paraíso, in ordinary session No. 16 of July 7, 2020, Article II, subsection 11, issued an agreement by which the district of Birrisito was created, having for this purpose the endorsement of the Municipality of Paraíso. The boundaries of the new district, the hamlets that would comprise it were established; an agreement that was adopted in final form, also ordering that it be communicated to the Special Commission of the seven deputies of the province of Cartago.

**e)** **<u>With the creation of the district of Birrisito by the Legislative Assembly, the principle of singular non-repealability of regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality has not been violated as claimed by the petitioner because that Branch of the Republic had full competence to do so, it did not make any disapplication of norms for the specific case, it simply made use of a power it possesses and which derives from the Political Constitution itself</u>**. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers was not violated because it also did not usurp powers of the Executive Branch since, as has been reiterated supra, the power to create districts granted in article 14 of Law No. 4366 is neither permanent for that Branch nor exclusive of the Legislative Branch. Consequently, regarding this point, the action must be dismissed because no violation of the Law of the Constitution has occurred in the terms alleged regarding this point. (...)”.

After reviewing this precedent, it is possible to affirm that the premise of this Chamber ‒as in ruling [**No. 2013-012802**](https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-587294)‒ is that, regarding the creation of districts, the Legislative Assembly designed an administrative procedure and delegated that competence to the Executive Branch, but it was warned that this is not a permanent or exclusive delegation, since, according to what was affirmed in both precedents, the Legislative Assembly could itself create districts. That was precisely what happened and was resolved in Birrisito and was the basis for discarding an injury to the principle of singular non-repealability of regulations serving as a parameter of constitutionality. In that matter, moreover, it was not proven that there was a negative advisory opinion for the creation of the referred district. The ruling states the following:

“The National Commission of Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial) and specifically its Technical Committee, analyzed the request to create the district of Birrisito, also requesting the National Geographic Institute (IGN) to carry out the corresponding survey of the boundaries of that new district of the canton of Paraíso”.

That is to say, there was no controversy there about the opposition of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, CNDTA). This is not a minor aspect in view of the analysis of the specific case now submitted for consultation, in which, as recorded supra, the territory does not meet the population conditions of article 9, nor does it meet the distance circumstances, and therefore the initiative is not endorsed by a favorable advisory opinion from the CNDTA.

From the examination of the precedents of this Chamber and the review of other legislative files in which the creation of new cantons has been approved, it is concluded that, due to the sum of circumstances indicated, the case analyzed in this consultation is a new and exceptional hypothesis.

Indeed, this Court undertook the task of reviewing other legislative antecedents and verified that the Assembly has had the favorable advisory opinion of the CNDTA for the recent creation of other cantons. For example, in legislative file 20.787 regarding the creation of the canton of Río Cuarto, Law No. [9440](https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=86329&nValor3=115044&strTipM=TC), the existence of an advisory opinion from the commission was proven, indicating the following:

“By means of official letter DVG-CMMQ-272-2016, Carmen Muñoz Quesada, in her capacity as President of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa): issues an approval for the project. She recognizes that the case of Río Cuarto constitutes an exception, since the remoteness and difficult communication are evident and that could thus make the population criterion of the minimum 1%, contained in the Law of Administrative Territorial Division (Ley de División Territorial Administrativa), more flexible”.

Moreover, from the analysis of legislative file No. 21618, relating to the creation of the canton of Monteverde, Law No. [10.019](https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=96054&nValor3=128489&strTipM=TC), it was verified that the advisory opinion of the commission in charge of issuing a report on the bill recorded the following:

“The project has the favorable criteria of the consulted institutions and the representation of its inhabitants through the signatures that originated the file, the support of the different associations and local government bodies. No unfavorable criterion was issued.

- The district of Monteverde is located in a very remote place with difficult communication to its administrative center, for which reason we consider the creation of this new canton to be of utmost importance, representing a necessary initiative for the district, benefiting the residents of Monteverde who were the ones who promoted this initiative.

- This proposed law would solve the problem of dependence on the parent Municipality regarding budget processing.” In that sense, the legislative file contains the favorable report of the Nomenclature Commission and the positive advisory opinion of the CNDTA due to the distance factor:

“Considering the hearing held in session 03-2020 and the new elements requested by this body, the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa) reconsiders the decision previously taken and endorses the creation of the canton of Monteverde, as recorded in Agreement 01 of Session 04-2020, considering, in light of the study submitted, that the case is subject to the exception mentioned in article 9 of Law 4366”.

Finally, in legislative file No. 22.749, relating to the approval of the canton of Puerto Jiménez, Law No. [10.195](https://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=97236&nValor3=131020&param2=1&strTipM=TC&lResultado=1&strSim=simp), it is recorded that the commission issuing a report on the bill stated the following:

“In Official Letter MGP-CNDT-001-2022 dated February 2, 2022, the Ministry of Governance and Police (Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía) and the National Commission of Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial), endorse the legislative initiative in all its aspects.” With which it is concluded that in these three antecedents examined, there was indeed a favorable advisory opinion from the corresponding CNDTA. The case under analysis is a different hypothesis, due to the following: it is sought to apply exceptionality, there is indeed an advisory opinion, but it is negative and advises against the creation of the canton of Colorado.

**X.- ON THE ALLEGED INJURY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGALITY, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY. INJURY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SINGULAR NON-REPEALABILITY OF REGULATIONS** As detailed supra, the consulting legislators question the injury to the cited principles, because the parliamentary initiative does not respect the population requirement for creating new cantons as provided in article 9 of the Law of Administrative Territorial Division (LDTA). They consider that creating a new canton without respecting said condition is unreasonable and disproportionate.

In the case under study, according to the assessment of the legislative file, it is noted that ‒as already warned supra‒ the initiative does not meet the population requirement. However, after a careful review of the applicable regulations, it can be affirmed that non-compliance with this single requirement is not in itself harmful to the legislative procedure, since the law itself allows for the exception. The CNDTA must analyze whether the conditions for this exception to be configured are met (articles 9, second paragraph, and 15 of the LDTA).

In fact, upon reviewing the legislative records of the approval of that law, [legislative file No. 3552](http://imagenes.asamblea.go.cr/EINTEGRATOR4/document.aspx?query=1009&doc=1006597), Law 4366, LDTA, it was possible to verify that the legislators themselves promoted the initiative in order to change a fixed population amount established in the previous legislation, to introduce percentages that could evolve in relation to the national reality. However, in the committee issuing the report ‒Permanent Commission of Government and Administration Affairs‒ it was warned that **<u>the population requirement was not rigid and absolute</u>**. In this regard, the president of the commission, Mr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, affirmed the following:

“I wanted to add to what Deputy Barrantes Elizondo says that article 15, paragraph 1) also states: ‘Although the population factor is basic for the creation of provinces, cantons, and districts, the National Commission of Territorial Division shall consider other geographic, economic, and sociological factors that inspire the formation of the territorial division’. **<u>So, the principle of the percentage is not a rigid and absolute principle</u>**”. (See minutes of the ordinary session held by the Permanent Commission of Government and Administration on April 11, 1968, visible on folio 33 of the digital file).

Therefore, in the present case, the absence of compliance with the population requirement does not injure *per se* the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, since the law itself allows for the exception.

In summary, the competence to create cantons is of constitutional origin (article 168) and is exclusively and exclusionarily attributed to the Legislative Assembly. This law ‒LDTA‒ encompasses the mechanism created by the Assembly itself for the exercise of that competence. Therefore, respect for said mechanism acquires constitutional relevance. From the jurisprudential review carried out here, it can be concluded that this Constitutional Court has indicated that the Legislative Assembly must observe the requirements and procedures it imposed upon itself in order to exercise its constitutional power to create new cantons, because otherwise an injury is incurred to the principles of singular non-repealability of the legal norm, regularity, and legal certainty which, as already warned, are of constitutional origin.

In the case under examination, since the population requirement was not met, the Legislative Assembly could approve the creation of the canton of Colorado provided there had been a positive advisory opinion from the CNDTA which, after verifying that the exception provided in article 9, second paragraph, was configured, recommended that creation. To reach such a conclusion, it is necessary to refer again to the applicable norm, which states the following:

“Article 9. (…)

By exception, new cantons may be created that do not reach the said population, in very remote places with difficult communication to their administrative centers, **<u>provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division recommends it</u>**, after the pertinent studies of the case.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

Then, the CNDTA must always issue its advisory opinion. When the population requirement is met, it is irrelevant whether it recommends its creation or not, since what it says is not binding on the Assembly. If the population requirement is not met, the canton may be created provided that the exception relating to distance or remoteness is configured. In such a case, it will not be enough for this to be verified, but rather a positive advisory opinion from the CNDTA must be obtained. Moreover, that exception must be recorded in that advisory opinion, and it must be positive. In that sense, it can be affirmed that this opinion is binding. That is, to create a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the Legislative Assembly must necessarily have the positive advisory opinion ‒the recommendation‒ of the CNDTA. Of course, this does not mean that, if this positive criterion is given, the Assembly must create the canton, but rather that if the CNDTA does not recommend its creation, under the understanding that the exception of article 9, second paragraph, is configured, the Assembly may not approve the initiative.

At this point, a different conclusion is reached than that proposed by the Department of Technical Services of the Legislative Assembly, because that department ‒despite drawing attention to the unconstitutionality of the initiative‒ affirmed that the advisory opinion was not binding. In this regard, this Chamber considers that, upon careful reading and application of the norm, it must be affirmed that the advisory opinion becomes binding when the population requirement of article 9, first paragraph, is not met, because the norm warns that the exception established in article 9, second paragraph, will apply provided that the CNDTA so recommends.

If the population conditions are met and there is an affirmative advisory opinion from the CNDTA, as has been said, the Assembly is not bound by that criterion. It will ultimately be the Assembly that decides, through an aggravated vote, whether it considers the creation of a new canton opportune. The same would occur if the population conditions are respected, but the CNDTA disapproves of the creation of a new canton. However, it is reiterated that regarding the application of the exception provided in article 9, second paragraph, by decision of the Assembly itself, the positive criterion of the CNDTA is a requirement to be able to create a new canton. Recall what this Chamber stated:

“The participation of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division (Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa) provided for in article 9 of Law 4366 constitutes, on the contrary, a necessary element of the procedure, because the Commission must base its advisory opinion on strictly technical criteria, without being able to give, as in the case of the other mentioned institutions, mere arguments of convenience and opportunity for or against the project under discussion. It is a limitation imposed by the legislator in use of its already described powers of self-regulation, in order to ensure that the decision it adopts is supported by complete technical certainty about its content and scope.” It is necessary to clarify that this binding nature is not because the legislative power has been delegated to the CNDTA, but rather it is a consequence of the legislator having wanted to make the procedure for creating cantons more onerous in this specific way.

In the specific case, upon reviewing the initiative and the advisory opinion of the Reporting Committee of the Legislative Assembly, as commented, both are based on the exceptionality of article 15 of the LDTA, interpreted as if this established a subsidiary possibility; however, this Chamber observes that such interpretation departs from the letter and spirit of the norm self-imposed by the legislator, whose compliance is a procedural requirement for the exercise of the constitutional competence to create cantons. In effect, in reality, article 15 indicates the other elements that the CNDTA may assess for the application of the exception provided in article 9. So, that article 15 is not an additional hypothesis to the two that are contemplated in article 9 –the one that is the rule (relating to the population requirement) and the one that is the exception (relating to distance)– but rather it refers to which aspects the CNDTA may weigh always, especially when it comes to supporting a positive advisory opinion, in the event that the population requirement is not met.

In summary, in the approval process for new cantons, the consultation must always be carried out with the CNDTA, which must assess the population requirement and, failing that, distance or remoteness, to which it may add the analysis of the aspects mentioned in article 15 to support that the exception of article 9, second paragraph, is configured. Furthermore, according to this, if the population requirement is not met, a positive pronouncement from the CNDTA is necessary for the Assembly to validly create a canton. In that sense, it can be said that this advisory opinion is binding. It is better to affirm that such a positive advisory opinion is a mandatory condition for creating a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement. It is evident that, even if this positive advisory opinion is issued, the Assembly may decline and ultimately not approve the proposed initiative.

In the precedents examined supra ‒specifically relating to the approval of new cantons‒ the unconstitutionality of the process was declared because the legislative procedure lacked the technical inputs and advisory opinions from the CNDTA. In the matter under examination, the conclusion reached is that an essential defect in the legislative procedure was incurred because the condition self-imposed by the Legislative Assembly itself was not met, in the sense that there should have been an affirmative advisory opinion from the CNDTA justifying the exceptionality (article 9, second paragraph).

It is worth mentioning that this type of warning has been made by the Attorney General's Office (PGR) in the processing of various legislative initiatives. That advisory body has emphasized precisely the need for strict observance of the requirements set forth in Law No. 4366.

For example, in legal opinion OJ-69-2019 of 25 June 2019 the following was stated: “As we have pointed out on other occasions (OJ-058-2007 of 27 June 2007, OJ-002-2011 of 21 January 2011, OJ-101-2012 of 5 December 2012, among others), Article 168 of the Political Constitution provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of its total membership, and, in addition to those requirements, those set forth in the Law on Administrative Territorial Division (No. 4366 of 19 August 1969) must be added, since the constitutional validity of those legal initiatives that seek the creation of new cantons depends on compliance with those requirements. (…)

In that understanding, it must be taken into consideration that Article 9 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division indicates that no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the country’s total population, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, once the dismemberment is carried out, at least a minimum population of the expressed percentage does not remain.

If it does not meet the indicated population percentage, the article provides that, exceptionally, a new canton may be created when it concerns very remote locations with difficult communication to their administrative centers, provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division so recommends, following the relevant studies. (…)

Consequently, it must be noted that the text of the legislative bill does not indicate the amount of population that the canton of Cariari intended to be created would have, and, therefore, it is not possible to determine whether it would meet the requirements of Article 9 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division. In the event that the population of the new canton does not reach 1% of the country’s current population, the existence of the recommendation by the National Commission of Territorial Division required by the Law must be verified to justify the creation of the canton due to the remoteness of the location from the administrative centers and the difficulty of communication.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original. Considerations that were reiterated and addressed to the Legislative Assembly in legal opinion OJ-112-2021 of 8 July 2021).

More recently, in legal opinion PGR-OJ-033-2023 of 24 March 2023, the PGR again rendered an opinion regarding a legislative bill related to the creation of the Canton of Tucurrique. In that non-binding report, the following reflections were addressed to the Legislative Assembly: “Now then, as this Office of the Attorney General has sustained (see, for example, OJ-058-2007 of 27 June 2007), Article 168 of the Political Constitution provides that the creation of new cantons requires approval by the Legislative Assembly by a vote of no less than two-thirds of its total membership, which imposes a qualified vote on this type of initiative.

We cannot overlook that the Law on Administrative Territorial Division sets forth a series of requirements in order to validly constitute a new canton, which must be mandatory for those proposing the creation of a new canton. (…)

Thus, a matter of the utmost importance to consider within the present initiative is that related to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division, which indicates that no territory shall be erected into a canton that does not have at least one percent of the country’s total population, nor shall any existing canton be dismembered if, once the dismemberment is carried out, at least a minimum population of the expressed percentage does not remain.

Note that the rule indicates that —exceptionally— a new canton may be created when it concerns very remote locations with difficult communication to their administrative centers (canton of Jiménez), provided that the National Commission of Territorial Division so recommends, following the relevant studies. In that regard, Article 13 of the Law on Administrative Territorial Division establishes that those interested in the creation of a new canton must present to the Legislative Assembly proof that the territory to be constituted conforms to what Article 9 indicates and that the remainder of the canton to be dismembered also meets those conditions, and it further requires the precise indication of the canton’s perimeter and the presentation of the respective map.” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In light of the considerations made and applying them to the specific case, it is concluded that the legislative procedure has a defect of unconstitutionality that invalidates it. In the present matter, failure to comply with a norm that regulates the exercise of a competence attributed by the Constitution to the Legislative Assembly was verified. That non-compliance, as was consulted, injures the constitutional principles of singular non-derogability of the legal norm —the procedure established in the LDTA—, regularity, and legal certainty, which must be respected in legislative work. If for the creation of a canton whose territory does not meet the population requirement, the legislator established as an unavoidable rule the need for the exception related to remoteness and the concomitant favorable opinion of the CNDTA to be configured, the non-observance of this requirement in the case under examination injures the aforementioned principles and therefore it is appropriate to declare the unconstitutionality of the procedure.

XI.- ON AN ALLEGED PLEBISCITARY PROCESS IN PROGRESS AND THE INJURY TO THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE The consulting legislators questioned that on 7 October 2022, the draft regulation for the plebiscitary consultation of the inhabitants of the Canton of Abangares was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to define —in accordance with the democratic constitutional principle— whether or not the inhabitants agreed with the division of their own canton. They indicate that the plebiscite process was in progress, with a second publication of the regulation dated 24 October 2022, such that the present bill under consultation would also be violating the democratic constitutional principle. In a similar vein, they highlighted the importance of giving value to and listening to the opinion of the affected municipal entity.

In this regard, concerning the holding of a popular consultation, it is necessary to emphasize that said requirement is not contemplated in the Political Constitution for the creation of cantons, but only for the creation of provinces, as can be inferred from the literal text of Article 168 of the Constitution.

That discussion was even settled in the approval records of Law No. 4366 when the approval of Article 3 was being assessed, and upon the query by legislator Vicente Castro as to whether the holding of plebiscites was for both scenarios, the committee chairperson clarified the following:

“For cantons it has been done when there has been doubt, for example in the case of La Fortuna, before the cantonal population disappeared for already known reasons, there was a certain agreement among the parties that this should be resolved by a plebiscite, but in reality the Constitution only states it with respect to provinces.” (See folio 48 of the digital legislative file).

Furthermore, it should be recalled that in judgment No. 2013-012802, this Chamber expressly warned that there was no constitutional or legal duty to hold popular consultations for the creation of a district. Identical considerations may be reiterated for the approval of cantons:

“Note that there is no constitutional or legal duty to hold a popular consultation as a requirement or prerequisite for validly creating a district.

(…)

Thus then, no unconstitutionality whatsoever is found, neither in Article 14 of the challenged Law, nor in the challenged Executive Decree that created the district of Labrador in the canton of San Mateo, due to the fact that such creation originated from the Executive Branch. Now, properly regarding the omissions the claimant points out, in the sense that for the creation of the Labrador district no popular consultation was held nor was the opinion of the Municipality of San Mateo taken, firstly, from the procedure for creating districts this Chamber proceeds to examine only these two alleged omissions, it not being appropriate to review the rest of the requirements, steps, or procedures that the Law establishes for the creation of districts, not only because it was not alleged or substantiated in the action, but because doing so would be equivalent to an examination of legality that falls outside the competence of this constitutional jurisdiction. Secondly, it must be clear that for there to be an unconstitutional omission, there must be an unfulfilled constitutional obligation; in this case, the obligation that for creating a district there must be a popular consultation is not derived from our Political Constitution Law. Not even from the legal norm can such an obligation be derived” (The highlighting does not correspond to the original).

In any case, this Chamber observes that from the statements made by the consulting legislators, what is on record is that a regulation was issued to conduct plebiscitary consultations by the Municipality of Abangares (https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2022/10/07/COMP_07_10_2022.html). But it is not accredited that a procedure was formally initiated to consult specifically on the creation or not of the Canton of Colorado. Thus, in this regard, no defect is accredited.

Secondly, the consultants make a reflection on municipal autonomy and refer to the importance of listening to the opinion of the municipality that would be dismembered, in this case, the Municipality of Abangares. In this regard, this Court has no doubt that the municipal corporation was formally granted a hearing during the legislative procedure. Even the disagreements raised were timely assessed and dismissed by the legislative committee issuing the report, which made reference to the statements and evidence submitted by the District Municipal Council of Colorado. Moreover, upon reviewing the applicable regulations, it is ruled out that there is a constitutional or self-imposed legal obligation for the Legislative Assembly to adhere to the municipal opinion of the canton from which the territory is segregated to create another canton. Therefore, in this particular matter, no defect is accredited either.

Consequently, with respect to these aspects, the invoked defects are dismissed.

XII.- CONCLUSION Based on the arguments contained in the preceding paragraphs, this Chamber considers that the consulted initiative, the legislative bill “Creation of the canton Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” which is being processed under legislative file No. 22.643, contains invalidating defects in the legislative procedure. Specifically, because the approval of the canton is sought without the favorable opinion of the CNDTA, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established by law.

In the other aspects consulted, no defects of unconstitutionality were found.

THEREFORE:

The optional consultation of constitutionality is answered in the sense that, regarding the procedure followed for the approval of the legislative bill “Creation of the canton Colorado, twelfth canton of the province of Guanacaste,” which is being processed under legislative file No. 22.643, invalidating defects in the legislative procedure are confirmed. Specifically, because the approval of the canton is sought without the favorable opinion of the National Commission of Administrative Territorial Division, which is necessary when the territory does not meet the population requirement established by law. In the other aspects consulted, no defects of unconstitutionality were found.

Let this resolution be notified to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Anamari Garro V. Ingrid Hess H.

Alejandro Delgado F. Hubert Fernández A.

PROCESO: CONSULTA LEGISLATIVA CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at thirteen hours forty-five minutes on the third of September of two thousand twenty-four.

Taking into account that Magistrate Fernando Cruz Castro is incapacitated, and in order not to delay the processing of the appeal, let the judgment issued in the present matter be notified without his signature, which will be recorded once he rejoins his duties.

Fernando Castillo V.

Res. n.°2024-013908 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las doce horas y diez minutos del veintiuno de mayo de dos mil veinticuatro.

Consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad interpuesta por los legisladores ADA ACUÑA CASTRO, ELIÉCER FEINZANG MINTZ, GILBERTO CAMPOS CRUZ, JOHANA OBANDO BONILLA, JORGE ANTONIO ROJAS LÓPEZ, JORGE DENGO ROSABAL, KATTIA CAMBRONERO AGUILUZ, LUIS DIEGO VARGAS RODRÍGUEZ, MANUEL MORALES DÍAZ, PAOLA NÁJERA ABARCA, PILAR CISNEROS GALLO y WALDO AGÜERO SANABRIA, referente al proyecto de ley “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo n.°22.643.

RESULTANDO:

1.- Al ser las 15:10 hrs. de 18 de abril de 2024 los legisladores plantearon consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad referente al proyecto de ley “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el Sobre la identificación del proyecto de ley sometido a consulta El proyecto de ley fue presentado por iniciativa de ‒entre otros‒ los diputados Mileydi Alvarado Arias, Dragos Dolanescu, y Franggi Nicolas. Se pretende la creación del cantón XII de la provincia de Guanacaste, con el nombre Colorado, resultante de la segregación del distrito cuarto, Colorado, del cantón de Abangares.

Sobre las dudas de constitucionalidad en relación con el fondo del proyecto de ley Artículos cuestionados y vicios señalados:

Se cuestionan los 12 artículos del proyecto de ley. Los consultantes apuntan los siguientes vicios: 1) la presunta infracción a los principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, por pretender crear un cantón con menos del 1% (uno por ciento) de la población nacional, que es lo dispuesto en la Ley de División Territorial Administrativa (LDTA); 2) la posible lesión al principio democrático, por violar el trámite de un procedimiento plebiscitario en curso; 3) la eventual lesión al principio de legalidad, porque trasgrede la LDTA y 4) la supuesta violación del art. 168 constitucional, que obliga a respetar la LDTA.

Normativa legal relevante Sobre esta ley n.°4366, de 19 de agosto de 1969, indican lo siguiente:

En su art. 1° se crea la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa (CNDTA), cuya función es la de asesorar a los Poderes Públicos (Asamblea Legislativa, Poder Ejecutivo y municipalidades), en asuntos de división territorial administrativa. Dicha comisión está integrada por el ministro de Gobernación, por el director del Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN) y el del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos (INEC), quienes podrán hacerse representar por funcionarios de sus respectivas entidades.

El art. 9 de la ley n.°4366 se refiere al número de pobladores con el cual deberá contar el territorio del cantón que se quiere crear. Al respecto, dicho artículo consigna:

“En adelante no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no le quede al menos una población mínima del porcentaje Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población, dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso”.

El art. 13 establece que los interesados en la creación de un nuevo cantón deberán presentar a la Asamblea Legislativa la prueba de que el territorio que ha de constituir se ajusta a lo que indica el art. 9 y que el resto del cantón por desmembrar reúne también esas condiciones.

Citan, al respecto, lo resuelto por la Sala en la sentencia n.°2002-05801.

Pronunciamientos relevantes de instituciones Sobre la posición del Concejo Municipal de Abangares, donde actualmente pertenece Colorado El criterio de ese concejo es que se debe mantener el cantón actual, ya que su desmembración solo beneficiaría a un número reducido de población. Se remite al último índice publicado, ya que la población aproximada del distrito de Colorado es de 4.000 habitantes y transgrede el requisito del 1% (uno por ciento) de la población del país para conformar un cantón, con lo cual el procedimiento legislativo que le ha dado continuidad al proyecto transgrede la LDTA y, con ello, el principio de legalidad. Lo anterior, sin tomar en consideración, además, que el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado no cuenta ni siquiera con la infraestructura necesaria y urgente para ser un cantón, posee un servicio deficitario de acueductos y alcantarillados y no cuenta con la institucionalidad necesaria (bancos, salud, servicios sociales, entre otros).

En otro orden de ideas refieren que el 7 de octubre del 2022 se publicó el proyecto de reglamento para la consulta plebiscitaria a los pobladores del Cantón de Abangares en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, para definir, ‒de acuerdo con el principio constitucional democrático‒, si los pobladores estaban o no de acuerdo con la división de su propio cantón. Indican que el proceso del plebiscito estaba en trámite, con una segunda publicación del reglamento de fecha 24 de octubre del 2022, por lo que el presente proyecto en consulta estaría violando además el principio constitucional democrático.

Sobre el criterio del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (TSE) De acuerdo con lo señalado en el art. 97 de la Constitución Política y considerando que el establecimiento de una nueva unidad administrativa afecta de manera directa la composición del cantón, la cantidad de pobladores de cada distrito y, consecuentemente, la eventual integración del concejo municipal y los concejos de distrito, se consideró que debía ser consultado obligatoriamente al TSE, pues este ha interpretado que la materia electoral son los actos relativos al sufragio que no solo comprenden los propios de la emisión del voto, sino todos aquellos descritos en la propia Constitución o en las leyes electorales y que directa o indirectamente se relacionan con los procesos electorales, elecciones o consultas cuyo origen, dirección y vigilancia ha sido confiado a este Tribunal. Al respecto, el TSE en su informe n.°TSE-2629-2021 del 4 de noviembre de 2021 determinó que no estaba de acuerdo con dicho proyecto por no cumplir la cantidad de población, ni estar tan apartado de su centro administrativo, todo de acuerdo con lo establecido por la legislación de división territorial administrativa.

Sobre el criterio de la CNDTA La respuesta del órgano técnico es que se recomienda no crear un nuevo cantón, por no cumplir con la población mínima. La población requerida para ser cantón es de 52.133 habitantes, en tanto la población de Costa Rica ‒de acuerdo a los indicadores del 2022‒ era de 5.213.362 habitantes, siendo que la población de Colorado no llega siquiera a los 5.000 habitantes.

Conclusión

Advierten una clara transgresión a la norma y procedimiento establecido por la LDTA en los arts. 9 y 13 y, por lo tanto, al principio de legalidad establecido en art. 11 y al art.168 de la Constitución, por incumplir la cantidad de población al momento de tramitarse el proyecto de ley.

2.- En resolución de las 15:04 hrs. de 19 de abril de 2024 dictada por la Presidencia de la Sala se tuvo por recibida la consulta de constitucionalidad y se solicitó el correspondiente expediente legislativo, o bien una copia certificada del mismo, al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa, por medio de su Presidente.

3.- Mediante resolución de la Presidencia de la Sala de las 14:32 hrs. de 25 de abril de 2024 se tuvo por recibida la copia certificada del expediente legislativo solicitado y se le turnó al despacho de la magistrada Garro Vargas a quien por turno corresponde. En consecuencia, el plazo para evacuar la consulta vence el día 25 de mayo de 2024.

4.- En la substanciación del proceso se han observado las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta la Magistrada Garro Vargas; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- SOBRE LAS CONSULTAS FACULTATIVAS DE CONSTITUCIONALIDAD La opinión consultiva previa sobre los proyectos legislativos puede ser requerida de manera preceptiva ‒art. 96 inciso a) de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional (LJC)‒ o facultativa ‒incisos b), c) y ch) de la misma norma‒. En este último caso se tienen tres supuestos: en el primero, es el mismo órgano parlamentario quien la realiza ‒cuando se gestione formalmente con la firma de al menos diez legisladores‒; en el segundo, se trata de la consulta de proyectos de ley referidos a la competencia constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, el TSE o la Contraloría General de la República, consulta que debe ser presentada por estos mismos órganos; y, en el tercero, la consulta la puede ejercer el Defensor de los Habitantes cuando considere que se infringen derechos o libertades fundamentales.

El art. 98 de la LJC preceptúa que en el caso de proyectos de ley distintos de las reformas constitucionales, la consulta legislativa deberá interponerse después que el proyecto haya sido aprobado en primer debate y antes de recibir la aprobación definitiva en segundo debate. Finalmente, corresponde señalar que el art. 99 de esa ley ordena que las consultas facultativas deberán formularse en memorial razonado, con expresión de los aspectos cuestionados del proyecto, así como de los motivos por los cuales se tuvieren dudas u objeciones sobre su constitucionalidad.

II.- SOBRE LA ADMISIBILIDAD DE LA PRESENTE CONSULTA FACULTATIVA DE CONSTITUCIONALIDAD El supuesto bajo estudio es una consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad. De conformidad con el art. 96 de la LJC, este tipo de consulta debe ser planteada al menos por diez legisladores, una vez que el proyecto ha sido aprobado en primer debate. En este caso, doce diputados y diputadas suscribieron la consulta. Asimismo, el proyecto de ley que se gestiona bajo el expediente legislativo n.°22.643 fue aprobado en trámite de primer debate por parte del Plenario Legislativo en la sesión ordinaria n.°126 de 19 de febrero de 2024. Así, al encontrarse cumplidos los requisitos de admisibilidad señalados, la Sala entra a conocer la consulta planteada.

En cuanto al trámite, es importante señalar que tratándose de las consultas legislativas facultativas de constitucionalidad –como la que ahora se conoce‒, y de conformidad con la aplicación e integración de lo establecido en los arts. 99 y 101 de la LJC, esta Sala ha señalado que su conocimiento se circunscribe únicamente a los argumentos concretos planteados por los diputados y las diputadas consultantes en su escrito de interposición, y no a otros que pudieran derivarse pero que no hayan sido así planteados. En la opinión consultiva n.° 2022-9345 esta Sala advirtió lo siguiente:

“En efecto, mediante sentencia número 2001-11643 –reiterada, entre otras, en sentencias números 2012-9253, 2017-11714 y 2021-21204‒, señaló la Sala:

‘Ha de recordarse también que la misma ley dispone en su artículo 101 que la Sala evacuará la consulta dictaminando "sobre los aspectos y motivos consultados o sobre cualesquiera otros que considere relevantes desde el punto de vista constitucional", pero el tribunal interpreta que "los aspectos y motivos consultados" son los que, de acuerdo con el artículo 99, cuestionan u objetan el proyecto, o fundamentan la duda que pudieran tener los legisladores acerca de éste. Dado, pues, que la consulta se aparta de lo legalmente establecido, no es de recibo; si el tribunal, no obstante, la admitiera y absolviera, se colocaría en situación que está fuera de los alcances de sus atribuciones.’ Este criterio fue reiterado y consolidado por la jurisprudencia de la Sala, al determinar, en la ya citada sentencia número 2012-9253 que:

‘[E]sto es así por cuanto «tratándose de consultas legislativas de tipo facultativo, «la competencia de la Sala Constitucional tiene origen en las dudas o reparos de constitucionalidad que formulen los legisladores» ‒sentencia 2001-12459‒, de forma que si tales argumentos no existen como tal, o bien, cuando los propios diputados consultantes manifiesten carecer de dudas sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas o proyectos consultados, resultaría impropio para la Sala emitir criterio alguno, pues se estaría en supuestos que trascienden las competencias de la Sala en materia de consultas legislativas de constitucionalidad -sentencia 2002-3460‒.’ En este sentido, es necesario indicar que esta Sala se avocará a estudiar únicamente los alegatos planteados en forma puntual por los consultantes y no otras cuestiones generales de constitucionalidad del proyecto de ley en alusión, de conformidad con lo regulado en el artículo 99 de la ley que rige esta jurisdicción, por lo que se omite todo pronunciamiento sobre vicios de procedimiento y de fondo no alegados en tiempo por las diputadas y los diputados consultantes” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En idéntico sentido al expuesto, esta Sala se pronunciará exclusivamente sobre las dudas de constitucionalidad debidamente fundamentadas por los legisladores promotores de este proceso consultivo.

III.- DELIMITACIÓN PREVIA SOBRE EL OBJETO DE ESTA CONSULTA En sintonía con lo anterior y, en relación con el caso concreto, es preciso subrayar que a este Tribunal no le corresponde realizar consideración alguna sobre el apartado inicial de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad en el cual los legisladores hacen un recuento de oportunidad y conveniencia política de lo que ellos denominan la “ultrafragmentación” de la división territorial administrativa de Costa Rica y exponen su visión de Estado, y abogan por una regionalización, lo que a su juicio sería más eficiente en procura de un “proceso político descentralizador”. En efecto, a esta Sala no le concierne realizar una valoración política de tales manifestaciones, más todavía cuando no están dirigidas a atacar algún aspecto concreto del proyecto de ley sometido a consulta. Este Tribunal ha insistido en su jurisprudencia que no le compete calibrar aspectos de oportunidad y conveniencia de los proyectos de ley y, en concreto, en la opinión consultiva n.°2021-000026 dijo lo siguiente:

“El primer punto que hay que aclarar es que la Sala Constitucional en materia de consultas facultativas, de acuerdo con su reiterada jurisprudencia, únicamente se pronuncia sobre los temas consultados, no sobre la totalidad del proyecto de ley, de tal forma que no puede interpretarse que más allá de ese alcance, existe una especie de aval al proyecto de ley consultado en aquello que no exista pronunciamiento. En efecto, la Sala no se pronuncia ni sobre los aspectos de oportunidad y conveniencia de los proyectos de ley, materia reservada al legislador, ni tampoco se pronuncia sobre los extremos no consultados. De tal forma que bien pueden existir roces con la Constitución en un determinado proyecto de ley, sobre los que no se consultó y no existe pronunciamiento de este Tribunal mediante la consulta previa de constitucionalidad. Naturalmente que, para esos aspectos, de existir, queda abierta la vía de control judicial posterior, que es la acción de inconstitucionalidad, para garantizar la supremacía de la Constitución Política. (en ese sentido ver sentencias 2001-11643, 2001-12459, 2012-9253, 2019-9220, entre otras)”. (Lo resaltado corresponde al original).

También debe recordarse que la competencia de crear nuevos cantones fue otorgada por el constituyente a la Asamblea Legislativa ‒sujeta a ciertas reglas derivadas de la propia Constitución Política y otras auto impuestas en la legislación ordinaria‒. Por eso mismo esta Sala no está llamada a realizar reflexión alguna sobre cuál debería ser el modelo de Estado que, respetuoso del diseño constitucional, resulte más idóneo o eficiente. Es verdad que en reiteradas resoluciones la Sala ha destacado “la importancia que el constituyente originario le ha dado a la integridad territorial”, lo cual se encuentra reflejado en el propio texto del art. 168 de la Constitución Política (ver sentencias n.°1995-2009, n.°1998-7294 y n.°2002-5801). Sin embargo, para efectos de pronunciarse sobre el ejercicio de esa competencia de la Asamblea Legislativa, la labor de este Tribunal se limita a verificar el cumplimiento de los requisitos constitucionales y legales ‒entendidos estos como un parámetro obligatorio auto impuesto por la propia Asamblea Legislativa para tal ejercicio‒, pero no a realizar una valoración de oportunidad y conveniencia sobre la decisión política que comporta. Por eso, en la resolución n.°2023-06227, se advirtió que es a la Asamblea Legislativa a la que le corresponde, por mandato constitucional, decidir sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa del país. Así, se dijo que la Sala Constitucional “no tiene ninguna competencia para pronunciarse sobre la conveniencia u oportunidad de haberse creado el distrito de Birrisito”. Entonces, haciendo eco de sus propios antecedentes y, en lo conducente, se realizaron las siguientes consideraciones:

“Con sustento en esa norma, esta Sala ha estimado que el procedimiento de creación de provincias y cantones, es materia de reserva legal; es decir, competencia exclusiva de la Asamblea Legislativa: a) sobre la creación de provincias, se indica que debe tramitarse a través del mismo procedimiento para la reforma parcial de la Constitución Política, además de convocarse un plebiscito provincial (véase al respecto la Sentencia N° 1994-4091 de las 15:12 horas de 9 de agosto de 1994); y b) sobre la creación de cantones, la Constitución Política exige que el proyecto de ley que constituya un nuevo cantón, deba ser aprobado por una mayoría calificada; a saber, votación de dos tercios de los miembros de la Asamblea (ver Sentencia N° 1995-2009 de las 10:30 horas de 21 de abril de 1995). (…)

• A)División territorial en Costa Rica. Este Tribunal ha señalado, en Sentencia N° 2002-005801 de las 17:30 horas de 12 de junio de 2002, que el Estado costarricense, a pesar de ser unitario, y de que sus territorios no gozan de una verdadera autonomía política respecto del poder central, sí se encuentra dividido en circunscripciones espaciales de diversos grados como son las provincias, cantones, distritos, poblados, entre otros; distribución que ha sido denominada por la ley como División Territorial Administrativa a través de una ley con ese nombre N°4366 de 19 de agosto de 1969. Esta Sala, mediante Sentencia N°1994-4091 de las 15:12 horas de 9 de agosto de 1994, estableció que:

"(…) Desde el punto de vista político, la discusión sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa es propia de los Poderes Políticos del Estado, particularmente de la Asamblea Legislativa, puesto que no es función de la Sala la de resolver sobre la conveniencia o no de variar la distribución del territorio nacional para la mejor asignación de los recursos públicos, para la correcta administración de los intereses comunales, ni para los efectos electorales o de planificación administrativa, etc... .

(…) ...máxime que en nuestro caso, la división de nuestra geografía en provincias, cantones, distritos, barrios y caseríos, mientras Costa Rica se mantenga como el Estado absolutamente unitario que es, no puede tener carácter político sino solamente administrativo, sin perjuicio de que, tratándose de determinar la competencia de carácter territorial, como tales llamadas a cumplir una generalidad de fines y a abarcar una generalidad de personas, -los munícipes- haya que reconocerles ciertos poderes de autonormación originarios, aunque nunca en sentido de una verdadera autodeterminación política. No está, pues, en juego, aquí ningún problema de autodeterminación política ni, por lo tanto, de competencias originarias que no sean las administrativas derivadas del orden jurídico nacional".

A partir de la Sentencia N°1994-4091 de cita, se desprenden dos elementos importantes a tomar en cuenta: a) que para este Tribunal es a la Asamblea Legislativa a la que le corresponde, por mandato constitucional, decidir sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa del país; y b) que la división del territorio es administrativa y, por lo tanto, no corresponde a un derecho originario de las comunidades a la autodeterminación política (ver en tal sentido Sentencia N° 1995-2009 de las 10:30 horas de 21 de abril de 1995).

A partir de lo anterior, es claro que, en el presente asunto, la Sala no se pronunciará en relación a la conveniencia o no de crear el distrito de Birrisito, toda vez que, como ya se ha dicho en el pasado, la discusión sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa del país, es propia de los Poderes Políticos del Estado, particularmente de la Asamblea Legislativa, en ejercicio de las competencias derivadas de los artículos 105 y 121, inciso 1), de la Constitución Política. (…)

VI.- Continuación. A partir de los anteriores ítems, se pueden sentar varias conclusiones para tener por demostrado que no lleva razón el accionante en cuanto a este extremo:

• a)En primer lugar, como ya lo señaló este Tribunal, la discusión sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa de Costa Rica, es propia de los Poderes Políticos del Estado, particularmente de la Asamblea Legislativa. El artículo 168, Constitucional, es muy claro al señalar que este Poder puede crear provincias y cantones. Y, de acuerdo con la teoría de los poderes implícitos, es admisible también que sea la Asamblea Legislativa la que pueda crear distritos, pues la delegación que se hizo en el artículo 14, de la Ley N° 4366, no es permanente ni es excluyente, de modo tal que la Asamblea Legislativa podría crear distritos o modificar o derogar lo establecido en dicha norma.
• b)No es función de la Sala resolver sobre la conveniencia o no de variar la distribución del territorio nacional para la mejor asignación de los recursos públicos, para la correcta administración de los intereses comunales, ni para los efectos electorales o de planificación administrativa, por lo que este Tribunal no tiene ninguna competencia para pronunciarse sobre la conveniencia u oportunidad de haberse creado el distrito de Birrisito. (…)” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En idéntico sentido, es preciso anticipar que esta Sala no se va a pronunciar ‒en términos generales‒ sobre la conveniencia o no de la creación del cantón de Colorado de la provincia de Guanacaste. Y, como se ha dicho, tampoco se hará pronunciamiento alguno sobre las reflexiones iniciales de los legisladores consultantes.

IV.- OBJETO DE LA CONSULTA Una vez aclarado lo anterior, debe advertirse que las dudas de constitucionalidad respecto del proyecto de ley “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el agravios que se van a desarrollar en acápites independientes.

En primer término, los consultantes consideran que el proyecto de ley lesiona los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad y legalidad, así como el art. 168 de la Constitución Política, toda vez que se inició el procedimiento legislativo de creación de un nuevo cantón contrariando lo que dispone la LDTA n.°4366, en el sentido de que “no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país” y, tampoco cumple con la condición excepcional de estar “en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos”, tal como también lo destaca el TSE. Los legisladores citan además los informes agregados al expediente legislativo rendidos por el Concejo Municipal de Abangares y la CNDTA para concluir que en el caso concreto se ha dado un incumplimiento de las disposiciones legales que deben observarse previo a la aprobación del nuevo cantón. Afirman que resulta irrazonable y desproporcionado establecer un cantón nuevo con menos del 1% (uno por ciento) de la población nacional, más aún desatendiendo la disconformidad de la municipalidad afectada.

De forma subsidiaria, señalan que se está lesionando el principio constitucional democrático por violarse el trámite de un “procedimiento plebiscitario en curso” y por no atender las oposiciones de la Municipalidad de Abangares.

V.- LA TRAMITACIÓN DEL EXPEDIENTE NÚMERO 22.643 EN LA ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA. El proyecto de “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo n.°22.643, ha seguido el siguiente iter:

1. El proyecto de ley es de iniciativa de varios legisladores y fue presentado en la Secretaría del Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa en fecha 12 de agosto de 2021 (ver folios 01-20 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

2. La Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa ordenó asignar el expediente a la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos para el dictamen correspondiente (folio 21 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

3. El proyecto de ley fue publicado en el diario oficial La Gaceta n.°169 de 2 de setiembre de 2021 (ver remisión a la Imprenta Nacional a folio 22 y la portada de la copia del 4. El 14 de setiembre de 2021 se hizo llegar a la comisión dictaminadora copia del acuerdo n.°CMA-0171-2021 del Concejo Municipal de Abangares en el que comunican su oposición al proyecto de ley n.°22643. Lo cual fue reiterado posteriormente por dicho concejo en atención a la audiencia conferida (ver folios 42-45 y 202-203 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

5. En la sesión ordinaria n.°18 de 05 de octubre de 2021, la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos aprobó una moción para que el proyecto de ley sea consultado a las siguientes instituciones: Municipalidad de Abangares, Intendencia Municipal de Colorado, TSE, CNDTA, Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura, Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU), Oficina de Planificación del Ministerio de Planificación Nacional, Instituto Geográfico Nacional (IGN), INEC, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cabeceras de Cañas (ver folios 54-66 de la copia del expediente legislativo donde consta la aprobación de la moción y folios 100-149, 151-173 ídem, tomo I).

6. Mediante el oficio n.°INT-0270-2021 de 18 de octubre de 2021 el Concejo Municipal del Distrito de Colorado le hizo llegar a la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos de la Asamblea Legislativa “los acuerdos de manifestación de apoyo a favor del proyecto con número de expediente 22.643” de las siguientes instituciones y organizaciones comunales: Junta de Salud de Colorado, Área de Salud de Colorado; Asociación Junta de Vecinos Higuerillas de Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral Monte Potrero, Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Colorado; Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de San Joaquín, Colorado; Asada de Monte Potrero, Colorado; ASADA ENCELOMAVI San Buenaventura, Colorado; Junta Administrativa del Liceo de Colorado; Junta de Educación de la Escuela de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Junta de Educación de la Escuela de San Joaquín, Colorado; Asociación de Pescadores y Turismo Rural de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Asociación Comité Local de Pescadores de Colorado; Comité de la Iglesia Católica de San Buenaventura, Colorado; Federación de Concejos Municipales de Distritos de Costa Rica; Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Tucurrique; Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Lepanto; Municipalidad de Talamanca; Municipalidad de Los Chiles y Municipalidad de Garabito (ver folios 67-86 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

7. Mediante oficio n.°PE-AL-276-2021 de 29 de octubre de 2021 se remitió ante la Asamblea Legislativa el criterio institucional del INVU (ver folios 149-150 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

8. Por medio del oficio n.°TSE-2629-2021 de 4 de noviembre de 2021 el magistrado presidente del TSE allegó sus consideraciones en relación con el proyecto de ley (ver folios 174-181 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

9. En oficio n.°DGL-0673-2021 de 9 de noviembre de 2021 el Registro Nacional presentó su criterio institucional en relación con el proyecto de ley y aportó el criterio del IGN para reajustar el art. 3° del proyecto y, por tanto, redefinir los límites cantonales (ver folios 185-187 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

10. Por oficio n.°MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 de 9 de noviembre de 2021 la ministra de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica realizó las observaciones técnicas y recomendaciones en relación con la aprobación del proyecto de ley (ver folios 189-195 de la copia del 11. En fecha 11 de noviembre de 2021, el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado aportó ante la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos una serie de acuerdos de manifestación de apoyo al proyecto de ley, procedentes de los concejos municipales de distritos de Cervantes y Cóbano, así como de las municipalidades de Nicoya, Siquirres, Atenas, Guatuso, San Pablo de Heredia, Tibás, Santa Ana, Quepos y Garabito (folios 87-99 y 197-203 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

12. Por medio del oficio n.°DIG-TOT-0785-2021 de 10 de diciembre de 2021 se aportó al expediente legislativo el acuerdo suscrito por la Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura del IGN del Registro Nacional en el que se decidió aprobar el nombre de “Colorado” para el cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste y solicitó más tiempo para examinar el art. 4 del proyecto de ley (ver folios 204-206 de la copia del 13. Mediante el oficio n.°MGP-CTDT-006-2021 de 13 de diciembre de 2021 se adjuntó al expediente el acuerdo adoptado por el Comité Técnico de División Territorial Administrativa en la sesión ordinaria n.°04-2021 realizada el día 11 de noviembre de 2021, mediante el cual concluyó que: “el territorio en cuestión no cumple con el artículo 9° de la ley 4366. Luego de análisis de la distancia con respecto al centro administrativo, el Comité recomienda que el territorio no califica para la excepción del artículo en mención” (ver folios 213-214 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

14. El 2 de febrero de 2022 el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado aportó copia del acuerdo n.°CMDC-0035-2022 en el que se pronunciaron en contra de las manifestaciones realizadas por las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Abangares (ver folios 234-240 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

15. En la sesión ordinaria n.°48 de la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos de fecha 5 de abril de 2022 se aprobó una moción de texto sustitutivo y se dictaminó favorablemente de forma unánime por los legisladores presentes en la sesión (ver folios 252-263 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I y folios 293-303 del tomo II).

16. Por medio del oficio DIG-TOT-0251-2022 de 6 de abril de 2022 el coordinador de la Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura del Registro Nacional adjuntó al expediente legislativo el acuerdo tomado por la Comisión en la sesión ordinaria n.°003-2022 celebrada el 31 de marzo de 2022 en el que se acordó aprobar los nombres de los poblados El Crucero, Enramadas, Los Pajarillos, El Platanar y el Coyol y no aprobar los nombres La Palma, Lajas, San Antonio y Santa Lucía (ver folios 264-266 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

17. El 22 de abril de 2022 la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos remitió ante la Secretaría del Directorio el dictamen afirmativo de mayoría correspondiente al expediente legislativo n.°22.643 (ver folios 267-291 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

18. Mediante el oficio n.°AL-DEST-IJU-211-2022 de 23 de junio de 2022 la directora a.i. del Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa remitió el informe jurídico sobre este proyecto de ley (ver folios 303-400 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

19. En la sesión extraordinaria n.°71 del Plenario Legislativo de 26 de setiembre de 2022 se presentó y aprobó una moción de orden para conocer el expediente 22.643. Posteriormente, se inició la discusión por el fondo en el trámite de primer debate, se presentó una moción de fondo y se trasladó el expediente ante la comisión dictaminadora (ver folios 409-419 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

20. El 11 de octubre de 2022 la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos remitió ante la Secretaría del Directorio el primer informe de mociones vía art. 137 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa (RAL) (folios 420-447 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

21. En la sesión ordinaria n.°88 de 27 de octubre de 2022 se continuó con la discusión en primer debate y, al presentarse una moción de fondo, se dispuso la remisión ante la comisión dictaminadora (ver folios 448-463 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

22. El 16 de febrero de 2023 la Comisión remitió el segundo informe de mociones (ver folios 464-482 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

23. En la sesión ordinaria n.°126 de 19 de febrero de 2024 el Plenario Legislativo conoció el segundo informe de mociones y, al no haber mociones de reiteración, se conoció y aprobó en primer debate el proyecto de ley. Lo anterior, con el voto afirmativo de 37 legisladores (ver folios 491-510 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo II).

VI.- SOBRE LA EXPOSICIÓN DE MOTIVOS DEL PROYECTO DE LEY.

Según se desprende del análisis del proyecto de ley, este fue presentado ante la Secretaría del Directorio en fecha 12 de agosto de 2021 y la iniciativa fue suscrita por los siguientes legisladores: Mileidy Alvarado Arias, Franggi Nicolás Solano, Dragos Dolanescu Valenciano, Pablo Heriberto Abarca Mora, José María Villalta Flórez-Estrada, Jorge Luis Fonseca Fonseca, Eduardo Newton Cruickshank Smith, Ivonne Acuña Cabrera, Melvin Ángel Núñez Piña, Carmen Irene Chan Mora, María Inés Solís Quirós, Laura Guido Pérez, Nidia Lorena Céspedes Cisneros, María Vita Monge Granados, Carlos Ricardo Benavides Jiménez, Wálter Muñoz Céspedes, Xiomara Priscilla Rodríguez Hernández, Otto Roberto Vargas Víquez, Sylvia Patricia Villegas Álvarez, Welmer Ramos González, Marolin Raquel Azofeifa Trejos y Carlos Luis Avendaño Calvo.

En la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley se consignan las consideraciones por las cuales se promueve la creación del cantón de Colorado, de forma independiente del cantón de Abangares. Al respecto, se manifestó lo siguiente:

“Según datos históricos, el poblado de Colorado existe desde antes de 1894. Tradicionalmente, este pueblo se ha dedicado a las actividades agrícolas, ganaderas, pesca, extracción de piedra caliza y a la salinera. Esta última actividad ha venido decayendo en los últimos años para darle paso a la acuicultura en el cultivo de camarón.

Colorado existe como distrito desde el 4 de junio de 1915, fecha en que se erigió el cantón Abangares según la Ley N.º 13, como cantón VII de Guanacaste, designándose cuatro distritos, a saber, Las Juntas (cabecera), La Sierra, San Juan, y el distrito 4º Colorado. Es importante destacar que los vecinos de Colorado dieron el apoyo a la creación del nuevo cantón, dado el estado de abandono en que se encontraban los vecinos de Abangares.

Administrativamente, Colorado obtuvo cierto grado de autonomía, en relación a su cantón madre, con la creación del Concejo Municipal del distrito el cual fue creado durante la administración Trejos Fernández, mediante el decreto ejecutivo N º 23 de 22 de abril de 1970, publicado en La Gaceta de 24 de abril de ese mismo año. Cabe destacar que la creación del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado contó con el voto positivo y unánime del Concejo Municipal de Abangares.

Desde entonces y hasta la fecha, los asuntos del distrito han sido administrados por representantes de la comunidad, quienes se han preocupado por desarrollar los medios necesarios para brindar una adecuada satisfacción a las necesidades de los habitantes.

Esta forma de atender las necesidades, ha permitido a los habitantes de Colorado, desarrollar una independencia absoluta con respecto al resto del cantón de Abangares, con el cual ha existido solamente un sentido de pertenencia estrictamente formal. Más aún, son notorias las diferencias culturales, económicas y sobre todo sociológicas entre las dos regiones, caracterizándose la población de Colorado por mantener la configuración sociocultural característica del campesinado guanacasteco, en tanto el resto del cantón muestra profundos rasgos de las inmigraciones de nacionales y extranjeros, venidos principalmente a explotar la actividad minera.

En cuanto al manejo de recursos, el Concejo Municipal del distrito de Colorado inicia en 1971 con un presupuesto que ascendía a ciento veintiún mil sesenta y siete colones (¢121.067,00). Para el año 2019 el presupuesto enviado a aprobación se estableció en mil ciento cuarenta y siete millones doscientos ochenta y nueve mil quinientos treinta y nueve colones dieciocho céntimos (¢1.147.289.539,18).

Esto demuestra que, durante los últimos cuarenta años, los habitantes del distrito de Colorado se han desenvuelto dentro de su propia realidad y han generado los aportes económicos necesarios para la creación de la infraestructura que permita alcanzar el bienestar de los pobladores.

Las últimas tres décadas el desarrollo del distrito de Colorado ha sido impactado por el establecimiento de dos importantes industrias nacionales, Cemex y Coonaprosal R.L.

En 1973 se fundó Cementos del Pacífico (CEMPASA), actualmente CEMEX, empresa que tardó siete años para iniciar labores y que actualmente es una importante fuente de empleos y riqueza en la zona.

El 27 de abril de 1974 es una fecha memorable para el desarrollo del distrito de Colorado, dado que 48 productores de sal de la zona de Colorado y Jicaral, fundaron la Cooperativa Nacional de Productores de Sal R.L. (COONAPROSAL, R.L.), inscrita y aprobada el 15 de noviembre de 1974 por parte del Ministerio de Trabajo.

INFRAESTRUCTURA PÚBLICA:

Para 1985 el 90% del distrito estaba electrificado y en 1987 se instaló la primera central telefónica manual. El acueducto estuvo a cargo del Concejo Municipal de Distrito hasta mayo de 1993 año en que hizo el traspaso a Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA).

Después de muchos años de constante lucha logró obtener su propio colegio en el año 1995, establecido bajo la modalidad de colegio modelo, el cual ha venido a propiciar que los jóvenes tengan mayores posibilidades de estudio.

EXTENSIÓN TERRITORIAL:

Colorado tiene una extensión territorial de 195.77 Km2, distribuido en trece caseríos: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Santa Lucia, El Coyol, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, La Palma, Cementos del Pacífico, Enramadas y la cabecera que se encuentra en Colorado.

(…)

Caminos vecinales y distancias. Longitud de caminos y su importancia en el desarrollo socioeconómico. En relación al tipo de superficie de rodamiento, sobresale en mayor cantidad las vías en material granular (Lastre), las cuales se extienden por un total de 70.68km, siendo estas las principales vías de conectividad interna del distrito, ya que su mayoría son utilizadas para el tránsito de productos vinculados a las actividades de ganadería y agricultura; otras de las vías que sobresalen son las de tierra con 32.96km, las cuales cumplen una función de accesibilidad a fincas.

El poblado principal de Colorado se encuentra a una distancia de 27 kilómetros o más, de las ciudades o cabeceras de los cantones más próximos incluyendo la cabecera del cantón al que pertenecen.

Colorado se encuentra a 17 Kms del puente de La Amistad, a 30 Kms de Las Juntas (cabecera del cantón), a 47 Kms de Cañas y a 58 Kms de Nicoya. Mucha de la infraestructura vial se encuentra pavimentada, con algunos trechos en condiciones regulares.

En cuanto a los caminos vecinales, el distrito de Colorado presenta caminos internos lastrados en buen estado que permite la comunicación por nueve comunidades: San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Concepción, Pueblo Nuevo, San Joaquín, Raizal, Higuerilla, La Palma, Barbudal, Santa Lucia y Enramadas.

SERVICIOS:

El distrito de Colorado cuenta con los siguientes servicios e infraestructura pública:

- Una clínica médica de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, que presta servicio 8 horas diurnas y que cuenta con un presupuesto actual de ¢1.237.000.000.00.

- Un puesto de la Cruz Roja, que presta servicio las veinticuatro horas, con tres ambulancias.

- Nueve escuelas primarias, una por comunidad, sean: Raizal, Higuerillas, Concepción, San Joaquín, Pueblo Nuevo, Barbudal, Peñas Blancas, San Buenaventura, Cementos del Pacífico (que es servicio privado de educación) y Colorado.

- Dos colegios, ubicados en el centro de Colorado (Liceo de Colorado con especialidad en Aula Billingüe y Programa Vocacional del Plan Nacional). Un colegio para educación para adultos CINDEA con especialidad en carreras Técnicas y Satélites educativos en La Palma, Colorado y San Buenaventura).

- Dos jardines de niños (CEN CINAI).: uno en Colorado y otro en San Buenaventura.

- Una delegación de la Guardia de Asistencia Rural, ubicada en Colorado.

- Un edificio municipal (Concejo Municipal de distrito), ubicado en Colorado.

- Una central telefónica automática.

- Seis iglesias católicas, una por comunidad (excepto en Raizal, Cempasa y Peñas Blancas), cinco iglesias no católicas: una en Colorado, Concepción, Santa Lucia, San Joaquín y una en Peñas Blancas.

- Seis salones comunales, uno por comunidad, excepto en Raizal, Peñas Blancas y Cempasa.

- Siete canchas de fútbol, una por comunidad.

- Cuatro canchas de basquetbol, ubicadas en Cempasa, Pueblo Nuevo, San Buenaventura y Colorado.

- Dos cementerios: uno en Colorado y uno en San Buenaventura.

- Servicio de recolección de basura por parte del Concejo Municipal en las comunidades de Santa Lucia, San Buenaventura, Peñas Blancas, Pueblo Nuevo, Concepción, Enrramadas, San Joaquín, La Palma, Raizal y Colorado Centro el cual es una Dirección Tres, que cuenta con los servicios educativos de Apoyo Especial: Problemas de Aprendizaje, Problemas Emocionales y Conducta, Terapia de Lenguaje, Apoyo educativo, Artes Plásticas, Artes musicales, Idiomas entre otros el resto de las comunidades manejan sus propios desechos (sic).

- La comunidad de Colorado centro cuenta con restaurantes, pulperías, supermercados, mini super, librerías, bazares, carnicerías, bares, ferreterías, etc.

ORGANIZACIÓN LOCAL:

Localmente Colorado es un pueblo tiene la siguiente organización comunal:

· Asociaciones solidaristas: dos · Asociaciones de pescadores: dos · Comités de deportes: uno · Comités pro defensa de la comunidad: uno · Cooperativas: cinco · ASOMIPE: una · Comités de iglesia: seis · Consejo Económico Parroquial: uno · Comités de ASADAS: cinco · Gobierno estudiantil: Diez · Juntas de vecinos: dos Cabe resaltar que en el año 1995 el Proyecto de Cantonato de Colorado, había sido presentado ante la Asamblea Legislativa con número de expediente N.º 11728, con fecha de inicio el 27 de junio de 1993, publicado en el periódico La Gaceta N.º 134 con fecha del 15 de julio 1993, la persona proponente del proyecto fue el Diputado Abangareño Alfredo Cruz Álvarez del Partido Unidad Social Cristiana, representante de la Provincia de Guanacaste, además existe un Informe Jurídico de servicios técnicos a dicho expediente, fue aprobado en primer debate en la sesión plenaria N.°146 del 28 de febrero de 1995, en el periodo extraordinario primera legislatura, del 1° de mayo de 1994 al 30 de abril del 1994.

Considerando que por características que posee el distrito Colorado, a pesar de no cumplir con lo que indica la ley Nº 4366, en el artículo 9 “con el porcentaje de habitantes necesarios…”, el distrito de Colorado, actualmente cuenta con 5018 habitantes, según fuente INEC (2018), si verificamos datos según población de algunos cantones existente en el país, podemos mencionar que muchos de ellos no cumplen con ese requisito y fueron creados como cantones, además si comparamos los presupuestos también podemos observar una similitud.

Colorado cumple con las condiciones que muestra en cuanto a lejanía de los principales centros poblados, incluyendo la cabecera del cantón al que pertenece, la tenencia de infraestructura y servicios básicos, la experiencia en administración de recursos municipales, la existencia de industrias y desarrollos productivos importantes y sobre todo el interés manifiesto de sus pobladores por obtener su independencia administrativa, hacen que solicitemos la creación de Colorado como cantón por la vía de la excepción, según lo permite el artículo 15 de la Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa para ser elegido cantón doceavo de la provincia de Guanacaste.

Aún y cuando actualmente se forma parte del Cantón de Abangares, por la existencia de una administración independiente de aquella, ha permitido tener una estructura administrativa y presupuestaria bastante sana, ello en razón de que no hemos aplicado la convención colectiva que cobija a los funcionarios de la municipalidad y tampoco hemos generado beneficios en favor de los funcionarios del distrito fundamentados en convenciones colectivas. Lo anterior demuestra una de las grandes diferencias entre Municipalidad de Abangares y el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado.

El Distrito de Colorado ha venido desarrollándose en obras públicas importante, podemos citar la compra de un terreno de 10.000 metros cuadrados para la construcción de la Clínica de Colorado, el cual está en proceso de traspaso a la CCSS para que esta asigne el contenido presupuestario para su debida construcción.

Se construyó recientemente un edificio de 340 metros cuadrados que puede cumplir como una delegación cantonal de la Fuerza Pública, con una inversión de 130 millones de colones.

Se incorporó un proyecto de casi mil millones de colones al INDER, para mejorar el dique Conchal, que viene impactar la economía del distrito y la isla de Chira, ya que va a permitir mejorar las actividades de económicas existentes (pesca y extracción de moluscos) y crear nuevas actividades económicas como por ejemplo el turismo rural en el golfo de Nicoya.

Se construirá un Centro de Formación Técnica en el centro de Colorado, dirigido por el INA en una propiedad del Concejo Municipal de Colorado de 9 hectáreas, adquiridas en el año 2008 por casi 100 millones de colones, la infraestructura será de 2500 metros cuadrados de construcción, tiene un costo de 2 mil millones de colones, todas estas inversiones con recursos de impuestos que recauda el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado, mediante la ley 5420, el 1% a las exportaciones del Cemento producido en la Planta de Colorado, este centro educativo de modalidad técnico atraerá muchos estudiantes de toda la provincia de Guanacaste y parte de la provincia de Puntarenas. Cabe resaltar que un porcentaje de la ley 5420, lo invertimos en infraestructura educativa en todos los centros educativos del distrito, con un presupuesto aproximado anual de 30 millones de colones para dichos centros, además de aportes económicos para comedores escolares y CEN CINAI del distrito, además de las transferencias de los recursos de la ley de bienes inmuebles a las Escuelas de un monto aproximado anualmente de 10 millones de colones, esto nos hace una institución diferente a muchas.

Siendo Colorado cantón recibirá directamente los recursos provenientes de la LEY 9156 Ley Reguladora de los Derechos de Salida del Territorio Nacional, del 25 de julio del 2013, que a la fecha este distrito no ha recibido nada por parte de la Municipalidad de Abangares, quien debería asignar un porcentaje también para la construcción y el desarrollo de infraestructura turística de nuestras comunidades que son tan potencialmente turísticas y la recuperación del patrimonio cultural del distrito.

Además, cabe señalar que con la reforma de la Ley 8114 y Ley 9329 Ley Especial para la Transferencia de Competencias: Atención Plena y Exclusiva de la Red Vial Cantonal 17 de noviembre del 2015, a partir del año 2016 el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado administra y dispone los recursos de esta ley, para la atención de la red vial del distrito de Colorado, se reciben anualmente la suma de 350 millones de colones aproximadamente. Convertidos en cantón se recibiría el mismo ingreso porque no variaría la red vial existente, la única diferencia es que el depósito lo realizaría el Ministerio de Hacienda de forma directa a las cuentas del nuevo cantón.

Actualmente el Concejo Municipal de Colorado tiene ingresos suficientes para su autofinanciación (…)

Podemos observar que el distrito de Colorado cuenta un presupuesto ha venido en crecimiento, pero la falta de autonomía presupuestaria ha provocado que se tenga un poco de debilidad en la planificación, por lo tanto, en la ejecución de presupuestos, ya que dependemos del accionar de la municipalidad madre, en modificaciones presupuestarias, presupuestos extraordinarios, que debemos de esperar que ellos realicen para que el CMD incorpore los recursos del distrito.

La entrada de instituciones que vengan a mejorar los servicios a la ciudadanía se hace necesario, tales como; salud, transporte público, instituciones financieras y oficinas de instituciones pública indispensable para el desarrollo de un cantón.

Tener la autonomía plena para crear políticas de planificación urbana vendría a mejorar el ordenamiento territorial y tendríamos mayor desarrollo.

Siendo Colorado cantón, ingresarán mayores recursos económicos de forma directa para invertir en el territorio, como otros impuestos nacionales que reciben las Municipalidades”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

VII.- UNA PRIMERA APROXIMACIÓN AL CASO CONCRETO Los legisladores consultantes cuestionan que en la tramitación del proyecto de ley no se cumplió con lo establecido en el art. 9 de la LDTA, n.°4366, que dispone lo siguiente:

“Art. 9º.- En adelante no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no le quede al menos una población mínima del porcentaje expresado antes.

Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población, dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

Es decir, consideran que el proyecto es irrazonable porque no se cumple con el porcentaje poblacional del párrafo primero y, al obviarse dicho requisito, se viola el principio de legalidad.

No obstante, omitieron señalar que en la exposición de motivos se consignó expresamente que la iniciativa del proyecto de ley no se basa en lo establecido en el art. 9 de la referida ley respecto a los datos poblacionales. De hecho, se reconoce que el distrito Colorado no cumple “con el porcentaje de habitantes necesarios”. Así, el proyecto de ley se motiva invocando la posibilidad excepcional prevista en ese mismo art. 9 (párrafo segundo), el cual se debe aplicar juntamente con lo que señala el art. 15 de la ley que dice lo siguiente:

“Art. 15.- Aunque el factor población, sea básico para la creación de provincias, cantones y distritos, la Comisión Nacional de División Administrativa podrá considerar otros factores de tipo geográfico, económico y sociológico, para la formación de la división territorial. (…)”.

Al respecto, en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley acogido para trámite por los legisladores se plantearon los siguientes argumentos:

“Colorado cumple con las condiciones que muestra en cuanto a lejanía de los principales centros poblados, incluyendo la cabecera del cantón al que pertenece, la tenencia de infraestructura y servicios básicos, la experiencia en administración de recursos municipales, la existencia de industrias y desarrollos productivos importantes y sobre todo el interés manifiesto de sus pobladores por obtener su independencia administrativa, hacen que solicitemos la creación de Colorado como cantón por la vía de la excepción, según lo permite el artículo 15 de la Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa para ser elegido cantón doceavo de la provincia de Guanacaste”.

En consecuencia, esta consulta no se centra en verificar si el proyecto cumple o no el requisito establecido en la ley respecto del porcentaje poblacional, pues de antemano se reconoció en la propia iniciativa que estas no se cumplían, sino en revisar si los legisladores se apegaron a las condiciones para excepcionar ese requisito, previstas en la legislación que regula la creación de nuevos cantones (arts. 9 párrafo segundo y 15 de LDTA).

Para llegar a una conclusión debidamente sustentada, esta Sala hará un repaso sobre los criterios técnicos que constan en el expediente legislativo, las disposiciones que regulan la creación de cantonatos, y los precedentes de esta Sala y de la Procuraduría General de la República. Finalmente, se hará un análisis de la normativa más relevante para el caso concreto que es sometido a consulta.

VIII.- SOBRE LOS CRITERIOS ALLEGADOS AL TRÁMITE PARLAMENTARIO Al referir el iter legislativo, esta Sala constató que ante la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Asuntos Jurídicos de la Asamblea Legislativa se allegaron varios criterios institucionales que de seguido se detallan.

Mediante oficio PE-AL-276-2021 de 29 de octubre de 2021 se remitió ante la Asamblea Legislativa el criterio institucional del INVU, del cual se desprenden las siguientes conclusiones:

“Indica la fundamentación del proyecto que el distrito de Colorado posee una población de 5.091 habitantes, cantidad que no cumple con el requisito que establece en el artículo 9 de la ley n.°4366 Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, lo cual sería cierto y, la excepción en cuanto a la población que el mismo artículo establece, se basa en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, aspectos que en la actualidad no se cumple, ya que la infraestructura vial se encuentra en buenas condiciones y existe servicio de autobús hacia diferentes lugares, incluyendo las Juntas de Abangares.

(…)

Queda claro que la creación del cantón, distritos y la incorporación de poblados pretende una mejor organización administrativa y presupuestaria, y el distrito de Colorado puede asumir la transformación, sin embargo, debe ajustarse el proyecto de ley al principio de legalidad, así como la decisión que se tome en la Asamblea Legislativa” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

Tal y como se aprecia, las autoridades del INVU señalaron que, para efectos de la aprobación del nuevo cantón, no se cumplen con los requerimientos poblacionales, pero tampoco con la excepción en cuanto a distancia.

En lo relativo concretamente a este aspecto, el TSE se opuso al proyecto de ley, en los siguientes términos:

“Los legisladores promoventes en la exposición de motivos, señalan que la creación de la nueva circunscripción incumple con el requisitos legal de tener al menor el 1° de la población del país (página 7 del proyecto), exigencia que, según se indica, puede obviarse en razón de que otros cantones tienen menos de esa cantidad de habitantes y que, según se detalla, la zona se encuentra lejana a la cabecera del cantón al que actualmente pertenece; también se indica que la tendencia de bienes y servicios (sic) de una considerable organización comunal y de recursos económicos suficientes justifican que se pueda aprobar la ley prescindiéndose de la citada cantidad mínima de población.

Esos razonamientos aunque son plenamente atendibles, no tienen la entidad suficiente para desconocer que existe una ley vigente que obliga a acreditar una cantidad mínima de población, regla que de no observarse, llevaría a una afectación del principio de inderogabilidad singular de las normas (…) De esa suerte, al afirmar el proyecto que el cantón que se pretende crear no cumple con uno de los requisitos para ello y que no se evidencia que se haya seguido el procedimiento previsto para excepcionar tal obligación (no consta que exista un dictamen favorable de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial), se hace ver que la iniciativa tiene un defecto que debe corregirse”. ( Lo destacado no corresponde al original. Ver folios 174-181 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

Además, mediante el oficio n.°MIDEPLAN-DM-OF-1040-2021 de 9 de noviembre de 2021, la ministra de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica consignó algunas observaciones técnicas, como las siguientes:

“La iniciativa se justifica en motivos como la lejanía del distrito, la tenencia de infraestructura y servicios básicos, la experiencia en administración de recursos municipales, la existencia de industrias y desarrollos productivos importantes y sobre todo el interés manifiesto de sus pobladores por obtener su independencia administrativa, además es importante mencionar que en la la creación del nuevo cantón, dado el estado de abandono en que se encontraban los vecinos de Abangares.

Desde entonces y hasta la fecha, los asuntos del distrito han sido administrados por representantes de la comunidad, quienes se han preocupado por desarrollar los medios necesarios para brindar una adecuada satisfacción a las necesidades de los habitantes. Esta forma de atender las necesidades ha permitido a los habitantes de Colorado, desarrollar una independencia absoluta con respecto al resto del cantón de Abangares, con lo cual ha existido solamente un sentido de pertenencia estrictamente formal. Más aún, son notorias las diferencias culturales, económicas y sobre todo sociológicas entre las dos regiones, caracterizándose la población de Colorado por mantener la configuración sociocultural características del campesinado guanacasteco, en tanto el resto del cantón muestra rasgos de inmigraciones de nacionales y extranjeros, venidos principalmente a explotar la actividad minera.” (Ver folios 189-195 de la copia del expediente legislativo, tomo I).

En el expediente legislativo consta que se brindó formal audiencia al Presidente de la CDTA (ver folio 102 de la copia del expediente legislativo), sin embargo rindió informe su órgano técnico, a saber, el Comité Técnico de la División Territorial Administrativo (ver decreto ejecutivo n.°41236-MGP de 15 de junio de 2018). Dicho órgano tomó el acuerdo n.°001-04-2021 en el que concluyó lo siguiente:

“Ante la consulta sobre el proyecto de ley, de acuerdo al análisis del mismo se realizarán las siguientes recomendaciones, primero, el territorio en cuestión no cumple con el artículo 9° de la ley 4366. Luego de análisis de la distancia con respecto al centro administrativo, el Comité recomienda que el territorio no califica para la excepción del artículo en mención. Se recomienda, además, que se analice la situación de que Colorado de Abangares ya cuenta con un Concejo Municipal de Distrito que administra el territorio. En caso de que el proyecto de ley avance, se solicita que se respeten los límites ya estipulados por el Instituto Geográfico Nacional y que son los oficiales”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original. Ver folio 214 de la copia del Se observa que el dictamen de la Comisión fue negativo, pues, según su análisis técnico, el sitio no cumple con las condiciones dispuestas en el art. 9 de la ley e indicó que el territorio no califica para aplicar la excepcionalidad prevista en esa misma norma en lo relativo a la distancia respecto del centro administrativo.

Una vez otorgadas las audiencias correspondientes, el de Asuntos Jurídicos de la Asamblea Legislativa y en la justificación se consignaron y retomaron las ideas recogidas en la exposición de motivos del proyecto de ley relativas a la aplicación de la excepcionalidad:

“Colorado existe como distrito desde el 4 de junio de 1915, fecha en que se erigió el cantón Abangares según la Ley N.º 13, como cantón VII de Guanacaste, designándose cuatro distritos, a saber, Las Juntas (cabecera), La Sierra, San Juan, y el distrito 4º Colorado. Es importante destacar que los vecinos de Colorado dieron el apoyo a la creación del nuevo cantón, dado el estado de abandono en que se encontraban los vecinos de Abangares.

Administrativamente, Colorado obtuvo cierto grado de autonomía, en relación a su cantón madre, con la creación del Concejo Municipal del distrito el cual fue creado durante la administración Trejos Fernández, mediante el decreto ejecutivo N º 23 de 22 de abril de 1970, publicado en La Gaceta de 24 de abril de ese mismo año. Cabe destacar que la creación del Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado contó con el voto positivo y unánime del Concejo Municipal de Abangares.

Colorado cumple con las condiciones que muestra en cuanto a lejanía de los principales centros poblados, incluyendo la cabecera del cantón al que pertenece, la tenencia de infraestructura y servicios básicos, la industrias y desarrollos productivos importantes y sobre todo el interés manifiesto de sus pobladores por obtener su independencia administrativa, hacen que solicitemos la creación de Colorado como cantón por la vía de la excepción, según lo permite el artículo 15 de la Ley de la División Territorial Administrativa para ser elegido cantón doceavo de la provincia de Guanacaste.

Aún y cuando actualmente se forma parte del Cantón de Abangares, por la existencia de una administración independiente de aquella, ha permitido tener una estructura administrativa y presupuestaria bastante sana, ello en razón de que no hemos aplicado la convención colectiva que cobija a los funcionarios de la municipalidad y tampoco hemos generado beneficios en favor de los funcionarios del distrito fundamentados en convenciones colectivas. Lo anterior demuestra una de las grandes diferencias entre Municipalidad de Abangares y el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado.

Podemos observar que el distrito de Colorado cuenta un presupuesto ha venido en crecimiento, pero la falta de autonomía presupuestaria ha provocado que se tenga un poco de debilidad en la planificación, por lo tanto, en la ejecución de presupuestos, ya que dependemos del accionar de la municipalidad madre, en modificaciones presupuestarias, presupuestos extraordinarios, que debemos de esperar que ellos realicen para que el CMD incorpore los recursos del distrito.

La entrada de instituciones que vengan a mejorar los servicios a la ciudadanía se hace necesario, tales como; salud, transporte público, instituciones financieras y oficinas de instituciones pública indispensable para el desarrollo de un cantón.

Tener la autonomía plena para crear políticas de planificación urbana vendría a mejorar el ordenamiento territorial y tendríamos mayor desarrollo.

Siendo Colorado cantón, ingresarán mayores recursos económicos de forma directa para invertir en el territorio, como otros impuestos nacionales que reciben las Municipalidades”.

Además, en el informe rendido al Plenario se detallaron los extractos más relevantes de las audiencias recibidas y finalmente se concluyó lo siguiente:

“Una vez recibidos los criterios, se procedió a realizar los ajustes de redacción sugeridos por las diferentes instituciones que fueron presentados en una Moción de Texto Sustitutivo que fue aprobada. Adicionalmente se desea hacer énfasis que el proyecto de marras no pretende realizar modificaciones territoriales en el curso de elecciones presidenciales ni municipales.

Sobre la oposición de la Municipalidad de Abangares, la Intendencia realizó un descargo y ampliación sobre las supuestas situaciones señaladas por el municipio de cita. En este sentido, se transparenta la gestión y administración de la Intendencia.

El cantón propuesto cuenta con autonomía presupuestaria, así definido y aclarado ampliamente por la Contraloría General de la República, en su oficio PGR-C-245-2021 (…)

De manera que, las aseveraciones esgrimidas en sentido contrario sobre esta materia resultan carentes de sustento y fuera de todo rango de legalidad.

Una Intendencia que se encuentra fuera de convención colectiva alguna, reconociendo únicamente las anualidades establecidas por ley y que ha hecho un manejo eficiente de sus recursos. Que incluso generó desde su dependencia las consultas respectivas a los entes fiscalizadores en materia de tributos y de remuneraciones.

Por otro lado, es menester indicar que la Intendencia de Colorado presentó estadísticas, datos duros sobre sus argumentos, mientras que el criterio municipal adolece de elementos que permitan corroborar sus afirmaciones.

Esta población tiene derecho a aspirar a su cantonato, como recientemente lo hicieron las comunidades de Monteverde y Río Cuarto.

RECOMENDACIÓN De conformidad con lo expuesto, tomando en cuenta la respuesta recibida y por criterios de oportunidad y conveniencia, las diputadas y los diputados integrantes de esta Comisión, rendimos el presente DICTAMEN AFIRMATIVO DE MAYORÍA, del proyecto de ley denominado “CREACIÓN DEL CANTÓN COLORADO, CANTÓN DUODÉCIMO DE LA PROVINCIA DE GUANACASTE”, tramitado bajo el expediente N.º 22.643, y recomendamos al Pleno Legislativo su aprobación” (Lo subrayado no corresponde al original).

Es claro que la comisión dictaminadora basó su decisión en aspectos de oportunidad y conveniencia, obviando ‒a juicio de esta Sala‒ que no se trataba solamente de ponderar estos elementos, sino que era preciso mostrar que se cumplían los requisitos legales que expresamente fueron auto fijados por la Asamblea Legislativa para la decisión de crear un nuevo cantón.

Finalmente, y en lo relativo a la consulta planteada en el caso concreto, corresponde citar lo sugerido por el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa AL-DEST- IJU-211-2022 de 23 de junio de 2022 ‒emitido luego del dictamen en comisión‒, en el cual se realizaron las siguientes advertencias:

“En virtud de las anteriores consideraciones, esta asesoría llama la atención respecto a lo señalado por el Comité Técnico de División Territorial Administrativa, mediante el acuerdo 001- 04-2021, mismo que hizo del conocimiento de la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Jurídicos por medio del oficio MGP-CTDT-006- 2021, del 13 de diciembre de 2021; el cual entre otros aspectos señala que: “(…) el territorio en cuestión no cumple con el artículo 9° de la ley 4366. Luego del análisis de distancia con respecto al centro administrativo, el Comité recomienda que el territorio no califica para la excepción del artículo en mención.” (el resaltado no es del original).

El Comité Técnico es un órgano adscrito a la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, a quien se le ha encargado estudiar y proponer las soluciones tendientes a lograr un mejoramiento sistemático de la administración territorial del país, siendo que funge como un órgano técnico de la Comisión, pero no es la Comisión en sí.

Es de advertir de que pese a que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial fue consultada por la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos (ver folio 102 del expediente) tal como lo exige la Ley 4366, no consta una respuesta refiriéndose a este proyecto, sino que lo único que se registra es la respuesta de su órgano técnico.

Pese a que el dato de la población no proviene de la Comisión Nacional, lo cierto es que su órgano técnico hizo el estudio que llegó a la conclusión que la propuesta de cantón no cumple con el requisito de población exigida por la ley, datos que puede la Asamblea Legislativa corroborar con una solicitud de información al Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos.

A este respecto, la Ley N° 4366 es tajante respecto al cumplimiento del requisito de población no menor del 1 % de la población total del país o del cumplimiento de la excepción de la población cuando ese territorio se encuentre muy apartado y de difícil comunicación con su centro administrativo para que se crea un nuevo cantón, pero al haberse comprobado por parte del Comité Técnico de que no se cumple, deberá la Asamblea Legislativa proceder a no crear este nuevo cantón. Si bien es cierto, el criterio de la Comisión de División Territorial no es vinculante para la Asamblea Legislativa sino que únicamente su criterio es un requisito de ley cuya consulta es obligatoria, lo cierto es que el órgano técnico ha comprobado que no se cumple con el requisito de población y ni siquiera con el requisito de distancia señalado como la excepción, por lo que la Asamblea Legislativa estaría vedada para proceder a la aprobación de creación de este cantón, por lo que de hacerlo estaría violentando el principio de legalidad dispuesto en el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política por incumplir lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la Ley N° N°4366. Tal como lo ha señalado la Sala Constitucional no puede la Asamblea Legislativa desaplicar las normas que ella misma ha aprobado en este tema de la división territorial”. (Lo que se encuentra destacado no corresponde al original).

Al respecto, este Tribunal más adelante realizará su propia conclusión sobre la vinculatoriedad o no del dictamen de la CNDTA como órgano técnico designado por el propio legislador para asesorarlo en lo relativo a asuntos de división territorial administrativa. Sin embargo, baste indicar por el momento que el propio Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa destacó que en el presente caso no se cumplen con las condiciones de la ley en lo relativo a cantidad de población, pero tampoco con el requisito de distancia señalado como la excepción y, en atención a lo anterior y en virtud del principio de legalidad, concluyó que la Asamblea Legislativa estaría vedada para proceder a la aprobación de la creación de este cantón.

IX.- SOBRE LAS DISPOSICIONES QUE REGULAN EL TRÁMITE DE CONFORMACIÓN DE NUEVOS CANTONES Y LOS PRECEDENTES DE LA SALA CONSTITUCIONAL En términos generales, la construcción de la unidad territorial de nuestro país está regulada en primer lugar por el art. 168 de la Constitución Política:

“Art. 168.- Para los efectos de la Administración Pública, el territorio nacional se divide en provincias; éstas en cantones y los cantones en distritos. La ley podrá establecer distribuciones especiales.

La Asamblea Legislativa podrá decretar, observando los trámites de reforma parcial a esta Constitución, la creación de nuevas provincias, siempre que el proyecto respectivo fuera aprobado de previo en un plebiscito que la Asamblea ordenará celebrar en la provincia o provincias que soporten la desmembración.

La creación de nuevos cantones requiere ser aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa mediante votación no menor de los dos tercios del total de sus miembros”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

La norma constitucional dispone que la competencia constitucional de crear nuevos cantones está confiada a la Asamblea Legislativa y la única condición que se establece en la Constitución es que la votación se realice por una mayoría calificada de 38 votos ‒votación no menor de los dos tercios del total de los miembros del Poder Legislativo‒. Al respecto, como se detallará más adelante, esta Sala ha dicho que esa reserva de ley calificada –en excepción a la regla general del art. 119 de la Constitución Política– demuestra la marcada relevancia que el constituyente consideró que tenían las decisiones relacionadas con la materia de organización territorial del Estado, de las que se derivan grandes implicaciones, entre otras: electorales, de infraestructura y de distribución de recursos.

Además, fue el propio legislador el que dictó una norma de rango legal que vino a establecer condiciones o requisitos adicionales para la creación de nuevos cantones, fijando parámetros de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad en su decisión. Así, se dictó la LDTA n.°4366 del 5 de agosto de 1969 ‒que es una norma, fruto de la iniciativa de la Comisión de Gobierno y Administración de la Asamblea Legislativa y redactada por el entonces director del Instituto Geográfico Nacional que vino a remozar la Ley sobre División Territorial Municipal n.°56 del 04 de junio de 1909,‒ y es justamente el parámetro que los legisladores consideran transgredido.

Las normas de interés son las siguientes:

“Art. 1º.- Créase la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, cuya función será la de asesorar a los Poderes Públicos, en asuntos de división territorial administrativa.

La Comisión estará integrada por el Ministro de Gobernación, por el Director del Instituto Geográfico Nacional y el de la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, quienes podrán hacerse representar por funcionarios de sus respectivos organismos.

No se podrán crear provincias, cantones o distritos, sin antes conocer el criterio de la Comisión, a cuyo conocimiento serán sometidos los problemas de la división territorial administrativa.

(…)

Art. 9º.- En adelante no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no le quede al menos una población mínima del porcentaje expresado antes.

Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población, dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso.

Art. 13.- Los interesados en la creación de un nuevo cantón deberán presentar a la Asamblea Legislativa, prueba de que el territorio que ha de constituirlo, se ajusta a lo que indica el artículo 9º y que el resto del cantón por desmembrar, reúne también esas condiciones. Deberán indicar, además con toda precisión, el perímetro del cantón, acompañando el mapa respectivo.

La Asamblea Legislativa oirá al Poder Ejecutivo acerca de la conveniencia de la creación, el cual se pronunciará previo informe de la Comisión Nacional Territorial Administrativa.

(…)

Artículo 15.- Aunque el factor población, sea básico para la creación de provincias, cantones y distritos, la Comisión Nacional de División Administrativa podrá considerar otros factores de tipo geográfico, económico y sociológico, para la formación de la división territorial.

Cuando se introduzcan cambios en la división territorial, el Instituto Geográfico Nacional y la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos, deberán tomar nota de los cambios en valores de superficie, población, etc., publicando esos valores en sus memorias anuales.

El Instituto Geográfico Nacional preparará mapas provinciales y cantonales, los que deberán ser revisados cuando sea del caso. Las municipalidades del país podrán contribuir económicamente para la edición de ellos.

Los nombres de las nuevas unidades territoriales, serán acordados por la Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura.

El título de Ciudad lo concederá la Asamblea Legislativa a los poblados, oyendo previamente el criterio la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial”. (Lo resaltado no corresponde al original).

De las normas destacadas se tiene que en la referida ley no solo se crea la CNDTA, sino que también se establecen los requisitos para la creación de nuevos cantones.

Esta Sala se ha pronunciado sobre el cumplimiento de estos requisitos para la creación de nuevos cantones y ha señalado el carácter vinculante de las normas auto impuestas por el legislador. Precisamente, esta Sala dictó la opinión consultiva n.°1995-2009, relacionada con la creación del cantón de Colorado como parte de la provincia de Guanacaste, en la que realizó las siguientes consideraciones:

“IV ).- NORMA CONSTITUCIONAL Y REGIMEN LEGAL PARA LA CREACION DE NUEVOS CANTONES.- El artículo 168 de la Constitución Política, en lo que interesa, señala que para los efectos de la Administración Pública el territorio nacional se divide en provincias, cantones y distritos; la creación de nuevos cantones requiere ser aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa mediante votación no menor de los dos tercios del total de sus miembros. Ninguna otra disposición contiene la Constitución Política sobre la creación de nuevos cantones. Como es principio general del Derecho de la Constitución que toda jurisdicción territorial existente al momento de surgir la norma suprema que la reconoce y la eleva a la categoría de institución descentralizada con rango constitucional, en este caso, los cantones, adquiere el derecho a su existencia plena e identidad, a su autonomía otorgada por norma de igual rango (art. 170 id.), a mantener su integridad y su condición de descentralización administrativa (esto último no implica, desde luego, que se trate de una forma de Estado o de gobierno que excluye toda otra forma de administración política, porque como toda descentralización, deja intacto el poder constituyente e incluso la potestad legislativa del Estado), la conclusión jurídico-constitucional necesaria nos lleva a determinar que corresponde al Poder Legislativo desarrollar o no la competencia contenida en el artículo 168 de la Constitución Política para la creación de cantones, estableciendo los requisitos y formalidades que le den contenido razonable y proporcionado a los principios que la propia norma superior haya concebido y en todo caso, a los complementarios que, sin estar en la norma originaria, sean apropiados para hacer posible el ejercicio de la competencia.

V.- LEY SOBRE DIVISION TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATIVA (No. 4366 de 19 de agosto de 1969).- Es esta ley, precisamente, la que ha emitido el Poder Legislativo para regular la creación de los nuevos cantones. Es necesario señalar que al fijar la Constitución Política en el párrafo final del artículo 168, que se requiere el voto afirmativo de por lo menos dos tercios de la totalidad de los miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa para la creación de un cantón, da una clara idea de la importancia que el constituyente originario le ha dado a la integridad territorial y a toda la materia relacionada con la subdivisión territorial de las Provincias. A juicio de la Sala, el principio general de Derecho que establece que las normas jurídicas obligan incluso a la autoridad que las ha dictado y, dentro de su competencia, a su superior, implica que la ley que disciplina el funcionamiento de la Asamblea Legislativa para el ejercicio de una competencia también constitucional, la vincula en los casos concretos en ó haya de ejercerla, lo cual no es más que aplicación del principio general de la inderogabilidad singular de la norma para el caso concreto; principio general de rango constitucional, como que es aplicable a la totalidad del ordenamiento jurídico, como derivación y a la vez condición del Estado de Derecho en su integridad. Todo lo cual significa, en relación con el presente asunto, que para la creación de un nuevo ente territorial municipal la Asamblea Legislativa debe observar la ley que ha dictado con tal propósito, desde luego, sin perjuicio de su potestad de derogarla o reformarla previamente a su ejercicio.

VI ).- LEY SOBRE DIVISION TERRITORIAL ADMINISTRATIVA BIS.- Dicho lo anterior, a juicio de la Sala no se puede crear un nuevo cantón, sin cumplir el procedimiento administrativo contenido en el Ley No. 4366, amén de que del examen del expediente se desprenden serios incumplimientos formales, que conducen todos a que la competencia constitucional de la Asamblea Legislativa sea sustituida por organismos y dependencias públicas o viciada por omisión de requisitos esenciales, lo tramitado resulta en violación del procedimiento legislativo y en consecuencia, contrario a la misma Constitución Política. En los Considerandos siguientes, se detallan esos incumplimientos.

VII ).- INCUMPLIMIENTOS DEL PROCEDIMIENTO PARA LA CREACION DEL CANTON.- A juicio de la Sala, en la tramitación del proyecto de ley no se han observado las normas que se transcriben :

"No se podrán crear provincias, cantones o distritos, sin antes conocer el criterio de la Comisión, a cuyo conocimiento serán sometidos los problemas de la división territorial administrativa".(párrafo 3°, artículo 1°).

"En adelante no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no le quede al menos una población mínima del porcentaje "Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso". (artículo 9°) "Al crearse un nuevo cantón deberán determinarse con toda minuciosidad, en la misma ley de creación, los límites que habrán de separarlo de los cantones confinantes..." (artículo 10°) "Los interesados en la creación de un nuevo cantón deberán presentar a la Asamblea Legislativa, prueba de que el territorio que ha de constituirlo, se ajusta a lo que indica el artículo 9° y que el resto del cantón por desmembrar, reune también esas condiciones. Deberán indicar, además, con toda precisión, el perímetro del cantón, acompañando el mapa respectivo.

La Asamblea Legislativa oirá al Poder Ejecutivo acerca de la conveniencia de la creación, el cual se pronunciará previo informe de la Comisión Nacional Territorial Administrativa". (artículo 13°) "Aunque el factor población sea básico para la creación de provincias, cantones y distritos, la Comisión Nacional de División Administrativa podrá considerar otros factores de tipo geográfico, económico y sociológico, para la formación de la División Territorial.

Los nombres de las nuevas unidades territoriales, serán acordados por la Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura". (párrafos 1° y 4°, artículo 15°).- En efecto, no consta en el expediente legislativo que se hubieran realizado los estudios y el informe de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa. El oficio No. 950118 del 27 de febrero de 1995, que está agregado a los folios 139, 140 y 141, firmado por el Viceministro de Gobernación y Policía, quien es, a la vez, Presidente de la Comisión, no puede tener la virtud de llenar el requisito : primero, porque la competencia para realizar los estudios y hacer recomendaciones, es de la Comisión como órgano y no de su Presidente; y segundo, porque la Ley 4366 exige los estudios y la consulta a la Comisión, lo que no puede suplirse con la frase "En vista de que nos hemos enterado que se encuentra en la corriente legislativa el proyecto de ley...", expresión que resulta incompatible con el objetivo que persigue la Ley 4366 al crear la Comisión, de la que se espera que intervenga formal y específicamente en todo trámite que tienda a la creación de un nuevo cantón. En consecuencia, no se puede llegar a otra conclusión, como no sea la de afirmar que en la tramitación de este proyecto de ley no ha tenido participación la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa y, consecuentemente, no se han cumplido requisitos y formalidades establecidos por el propio legislador en función de los fines y principios constitucionales implicados en la creación de nuevos cantones (…)

Se evacua la consulta en el sentido de que el proyecto de ley de creación del Cantón de Colorado, Duodécimo de la Provincia de Guanacaste, resulta inconstitucional, por violación del procedimiento legislativo y en consecuencia, esta opinión es vinculante. Los Magistrados Solano y Arguedas salvan el voto y evacuan la consulta en el sentido de que el proyecto es inconstitucional en cuanto viola los artículos 9 y 68 de la Constitución Política y es contrario a la sentencia No. 6000-94 de esta Sala”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

Del anterior precedente se puede concluir que esta Sala dejó establecida la premisa de que, en materia del ejercicio de una potestad legislativa de origen constitucional como lo es la creación de cantones, la Asamblea Legislativa está vinculada por la ley n.°4366. Bien puede decirse que la LDT contiene normas de procedimiento legislativo en lo referente al ejercicio de una competencia legislativa de origen constitucional. Por eso, la opinión consultiva citada justamente hizo referencia al principio de inderogabilidad singular de la norma, que según la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal tiene rango constitucional (ver también la sentencia n.°2020-023743 y la opinión consultiva n.°2021-009111).

Lo señalado por la mayoría en esa opinión consultiva fue retomado posteriormente por esta misma Sala en la opinión consultiva n.°2002-05801, relativa a la creación del cantón de Corralillo. En dicha resolución se plasmaron las siguientes consideraciones:

“III.- La organización territorial del Estado.

El Estado costarricense, a pesar de estar caracterizado por una forma unitaria, es decir, a pesar de que los territorios que lo conforman no gozan de verdadera autonomía política respecto del poder central, lo cierto es que sí se encuentra dividido en circunscripciones espaciales de diversos grados: provincias, cantones, distritos, poblados, etc. Dicha distribución del espacio es denominada por la Ley como "División Territorial Administrativa". (Cfr. Ley número 4366 de diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve) A pesar de que dicha denominación podría llevarnos a caer en el error de que se trata de una división para fines simplemente administrativos (por ejemplo, para la correcta planificación e implementación de los servicios públicos estatales y locales), lo cierto es que la organización territorial que el Estado adopte conlleva una serie de graves implicaciones, que trascienden sin duda la esfera de lo meramente administrativo. En ese sentido, la división adoptada tiene directa incidencia en la organización electoral, en la elección de los diputados a la Asamblea Legislativa (electos por provincias según el artículo 106 de la Constitución Política), en la designación de las autoridades locales (regidores, síndicos y alcaldes municipales), en la determinación de los diversos ámbitos de competencia jurisdiccional, etc. De ahí que el establecimiento, por parte del Estado, de una organización clara y precisa tiene directa incidencia en la buena marcha de todas las demás formas de actuación pública relacionadas con ésta. Es por lo anterior que la Constitución Política, en su artículo 168, establece que solamente la Asamblea Legislativa podrá modificar la organización territorial del Estado costarricense, en lo que atañe provincias y cantones. En el primer caso se requiere de un acto aprobado según los procedimientos de reforma parcial de la Constitución antecedido de una consulta popular en las provincias involucradas en el desmembramiento; en el segundo, exige la aprobación de una Ley por mayoría calificada de dos tercios del total de los diputados. La imposición de la mencionada reserva de Ley calificada (excepción a la regla general del artículo 119 constitucional) revela también ese carácter de marcada relevancia que el constituyente consideró cabía a las decisiones en materia de organización territorial del Estado, y que deriva de las profundas implicaciones que la materia en cuestión conlleva.

IV.- Procedimiento para la creación de nuevos cantones.

En Costa Rica, el constituyente no desarrollo el tema referente a los trámites necesarios para la creación de un cantón en forma prolija. De hecho, el artículo 168 de la Constitución Política establece apenas lo siguiente:

(…)

Es decir, que la Ley Fundamental apenas determinó que existe una reserva reforzada de Ley para la constitución de nuevos cantones, dejando al legislador ordinario el desarrollo de los mecanismos sobre División Territorial Administrativa, número 4366 de diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos sesenta y nueve, dispone acerca de los trámites concretos que las autoridades deben seguir para aprobar la creación de un nuevo cantón o distrito. (…)

Como corolario de todo lo dicho hasta este punto, es posible afirmar que el ordenamiento costarricense exige que para la creación de un cantón de la República, la Asamblea Legislativa (único órgano competente), apruebe un proyecto según los trámites de la Ley ordinaria, por mayoría calificada de dos terceras partes de la totalidad de sus miembros, incrementados estos requisitos por los previstos en la Ley número 4366. Según el razonamiento seguido por esta Sala en la sentencia 4009-95 parcialmente transcrita, se entiende que el legislador, al aprobar la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa se autolimitó, desarrollando los genéricos contenidos del numeral 168 constitucional a través de una más detallada y específica regulación de su propia actuación en esta materia. Al aprobar la ley 4366, la Asamblea Legislativa hizo uso de sus poderes de autorregulación, definiendo los trámites necesarios para garantizar que a la hora de aprobar nuevos cantones, el Parlamento actuará con pleno conocimiento acerca de los alcances de su decisión, en relación con aspectos de territorio y población de las nuevas circunscripciones. El procedimiento impuesto por la referida Ley es de observancia obligatoria para la Asamblea, y al tratar materia constitucional, su vulneración implica la violación refleja de la norma contenida en el artículo 168 constitucional. En ese contexto, es claro que para aprobar la creación de un nuevo cantón, la Asamblea debe tener certeza de que el mismo contará con una población igual o mayor al uno por ciento de la totalidad de los habitantes del país, o en su defecto, deberá atenerse al informe (técnico) rendido por la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, órgano que deberá evaluar si se dan condiciones de lejanía y difícil comunicación respecto de los centros administrativos municipales, que hagan procedente la creación de un nuevo cantón. La obtención de dicho criterio constituye un requisito indispensable en el procedimiento de constitución de tales entidades territoriales. (…)

Al no alcanzar el mínimo exigido por la Ley, y al no disponer del criterio de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, sin cuyo dictamen afirmativo le resultaba imposible a la Asamblea Legislativa aprobar la creación del cantón de Corralillo, al Parlamento le resultaba imposible la creación del nuevo cantón. No se puede justificar esta omisión por el hecho de que la Comisión Nacional no atendió la audiencia que por ocho días le confirió la Comisión Ordinaria Permanente de Gobierno y Administración (folio 52 del expediente legislativo). El artículo 157 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa regula expresamente lo concerniente a las consultas que deban ser efectuadas por la Asamblea Legislativa, a la Universidad de Costa Rica, el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, el Poder Judicial y las instituciones autónomas, disponiendo que si ocho días hábiles después de recibida la consulta la institución no se pronuncia, se entiende que no se opone a la iniciativa en cuestión. Esta norma claramente regula el ejercicio de una potestad de autodefensa institucional, que le permite a los órganos y entes mencionados, manifestar su opinión respecto de determinado proyecto que de alguna manera afecta sus intereses. La participación de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa que prevé el artículo 9° de la Ley 4366 constituye por el contrario un elemento necesario del procedimiento, pues la Comisión deberá basarse en criterios estrictamente técnicos para rendir su dictamen, sin que puedan darse, como en el caso de las otras instituciones mencionadas, meros argumentos de conveniencia y oportunidad a favor o contra el proyecto en discusión. Se trata de una limitación impuesta por el legislador en uso de sus ya descritos poderes de autorregulación, a fin de asegurar que la decisión que adopte esté respaldada en una completa certeza técnica acerca de su contenido y alcances. De no contar la Asamblea con toda la información necesaria para actuar en forma consciente, estaría dejando a otras instancias la decisión respecto de la organización territorial del Estado, en clara violación de la reserva que a su favor estableció la Constitución Política. Además de lo anterior, es claro que el numeral 9° de la Ley 4366 es norma especial respecto de la genérica regulación del artículo 157 del Reglamento de la Asamblea Legislativa. Todas estas razones llevan a esta Sala a concluir que la ausencia de un dictamen rendido por la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa en los términos dichos, constituye un vicio del procedimiento empleado en la discusión del expediente legislativo número 13.515, que provoca la nulidad del trámite seguido, por lo que de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 101 párrafo 2° de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, el procedimiento deberá ser retrotraído hasta antes de su aprobación en la Comisión Permanente Ordinaria de Gobierno y Administración.

Se evacua la consulta en el sentido de que, respecto del trámite seguido para la aprobación del proyecto de "Creación del Cantón IX de la Provincia de Cartago, Corralillo", expediente legislativo número 13.515, la Sala Constitucional advierte vicios invalidantes del procedimiento legislativo” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

De la atenta lectura de esa opinión consultiva se aprecia que la Sala destacó, en primer lugar, que –al aprobarse la LDTA– el mismo legislador estableció sus propias reglas para el ejercicio de la competencia otorgada en el art. 168 de la Constitución Política. Se trata de una normativa especial relativa a los trámites para dicho ejercicio, que ella misma debe respetar. Así, desde esa resolución se dejó establecido que “el procedimiento impuesto por la referida Ley es de observancia obligatoria para la Asamblea, y al tratar materia constitucional, su vulneración implica la violación refleja de la norma contenida en el artículo 168 constitucional”. En segundo lugar, y de especial relevancia para el caso concreto, la Sala subrayó que de previo a la creación de un nuevo cantón debe conocerse el criterio CNDTA, que constatará que el territorio tiene una población igual o mayor al 1% (uno por ciento) de la totalidad de la población en nuestro país. Ante la ausencia de este requisito, la Asamblea Legislativa sólo podrá crearlo si la CNDTA lo recomienda. En efecto, así lo dispone el art. 9 de la LDT que conviene transcribir de nuevo:

Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población, dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso.

De manera que le corresponde a este órgano técnico evaluar si se dan las condiciones de lejanía y difícil comunicación respecto de los centros administrativos municipales a los cuales están adscritos, que justifiquen la creación de un nuevo cantón. La Sala indicó expresamente que la obtención de dicho criterio es un requisito indispensable en el procedimiento de creación de nuevas entidades cantonales. Ha de entenderse que debe tratarse de un dictamen favorable, pues la ley claramente dice “siempre que lo recomiende”. Entonces, para crear un cantón cuyo territorio no cumple con el requisito poblacional, la Asamblea Legislativa debe necesariamente contar con el dictamen positivo ‒la recomendación‒ de la CNDTA.

Lo dicho en los precedentes ‒respecto del cumplimiento de trámites legales auto impuestos por la Asamblea Legislativa para el ejercicio de sus competencias‒ se puede comparar, por contener la misma lógica, con el supuesto de la desafectación de las áreas silvestres protegidas de nuestro país. Este Tribunal ha afirmado que, si para la creación de estas zonas se requiere de elementos técnicos, ha de entenderse que también los necesita para su desafectación total o parcial y la ausencia de tal requisito o fundamento técnico provoca que se invalide la decisión legislativa. Por ejemplo, esta Sala en la sentencia n.°1998-7294 ‒aludiendo expresamente al voto n.°2009-1995 supra citado‒ concluyó lo siguiente:

“De acuerdo con lo citado, mutatis mutandi, si para la creación de un área silvestre protectora la Asamblea Legislativa, por medio de una ley, estableció el cumplimiento de unos requisitos específicos, a fin de determinar si la afectación en cuestión es justificada, lo lógico es que, para su desafectación parcial o total, también se deban cumplir determinados requisitos -como la realización de estudios técnicos ambientales- para determinar que con la desafectación no se transgrede el contenido del artículo 50 constitucional” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En dicha resolución esta Sala afirmó que “la no observancia de determinados requisitos tiene como efecto la transgresión de normas o principios sustanciales de rango constitucional” y, por tanto, se sostuvo que la Asamblea Legislativa no puede aprobar válidamente la reducción de una superficie de una zona protectora, sin contar antes con un estudio técnico que justifique su decisión, pues, de lo contrario, su actuación deviene contraria a la Constitución Política por violación del principio de razonabilidad constitucional en relación con los arts. 121 inciso 1) y 129 de la Carta Política.

Posteriormente, haciendo alusión a estas mismas consideraciones y al principio de inderogabilidad singular de las normas, la Sala dictó la opinión consultiva n.°2012-013367, en la que manifestó lo siguiente:

“Este principio es una conquista del Estado de Derecho surgido de la Revolución francesa, toda vez que era característico del antiguo régimen absolutista que el rey cambiara de criterio según sus intereses. Así que si el legislador desarrollando las garantías constitucionales a favor del ambiente, establece como requisito y garantía del derecho, que para la reducción de las áreas protegidas se requiere de ley y de un estudio técnico suficiente y completo que la justifique, tal disposición vincula, en virtud del principio, al propio órgano legislativo que la dictó”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original. Consideraciones que luego fueron reiteradas íntegramente en la sentencia n.°2017-002375).

Este es otro buen ejemplo que muestra que la Asamblea Legislativa está sujeta a la normativa que ella misma haya dictado con el propósito de regular el ejercicio sus potestades constitucionales. En ambos casos, por sus implicaciones, se trata de la sujeción a criterios técnicos que justifiquen la decisión parlamentaria.

Al respecto, es preciso destacar que no se trata de que la norma legal sea en sí misma un parámetro de constitucionalidad para evaluar la conducta del Poder Legislativo, sino que dicha norma recoge unas reglas previamente establecidas para el ejercicio de una competencia legislativa de origen constitucional, por lo que incumplirlas supondría lesionar el principio de inderogabilidad singular de la norma, que es de orden constitucional. También podríamos agregar que el desconocimiento y la desaplicación de dichas reglas implicaría una transgresión a los principios de regularidad y de seguridad jurídica que deben informar el quehacer del Parlamento.

Finalmente, es pertinente señalar que en la sentencia n.°2023-06227, mediante la que la Sala analizó la constitucionalidad de la creación del distrito de Birrisito, arribó a varias conclusiones, entre otras las siguientes:

“En orden al desarrollo de este análisis, se puede adelantar una primera conclusión importante según la cual, para este Tribunal, es claro entonces que la Asamblea Legislativa -además de poder crear provincias y cantones- cuenta también con competencia para la creación de distritos, debiendo recordarse la máxima aquella que dispone “el que puede lo más, puede lo menos” toda vez que si ese Poder de la República cuenta con la atribución constitucional otorgada por el artículo 168, Constitucional, para crear aquéllos, con mucha mayor razón lo puede hacer para el caso de los distritos. Además, el artículo 14, de la Ley N° 4366, contiene una delegación que no es permanente ni excluyente, de manera tal que la Asamblea Legislativa puede, por sí misma, crear distritos, o bien, modificar o derogar lo ahí establecido, sin que una cosa sea requisito para la otra, o lo que es lo mismo, puede crear distritos sin necesidad de modificar o derogar lo dispuesto en la Ley sobre la División Territorial Administrativa N° 4366. Interpretarlo de otra manera implicaría la renuncia a la competencia que le ha sido asignada por el Constituyente, lo cual no se desprende por el hecho de haberla delegado y regulado en un procedimiento en la mencionada ley, que contempla la creación de distritos por parte del Poder Ejecutivo. La potestad constitucional genérica, de acordar la distribución administrativa del territorio nacional ha sido directamente atribuida a la Asamblea Legislativa como órgano constitucional, por lo que debe incluir también la de los distritos. Si bien, el Constituyente no definió concretamente ese tratamiento específico en el artículo 168, Constitucional, al no hacerlo, dejó abierta la posibilidad al legislador de asumir esa competencia de conformidad con los principios de oportunidad y conveniencia, lo que evidentemente no le estaría prohibido. En este sentido, como se verá más adelante, esta Sala se decanta por la retención de esa competencia, también, a favor de la Asamblea Legislativa, a pesar de haberse regulado en la ley para el Poder Ejecutivo.

VI.- Continuación. A partir de los anteriores ítems, se pueden sentar varias conclusiones para tener por demostrado que no lleva razón el accionante en cuanto a este extremo:

• a)En primer lugar, como ya lo señaló este Tribunal, la discusión sobre la mejor división territorial administrativa de Costa Rica, es propia de los Poderes Políticos del Estado, particularmente de la Asamblea Legislativa. El artículo 168, Constitucional, es muy claro al señalar que este Poder puede crear provincias y cantones. Y, de acuerdo con la teoría de los poderes implícitos, es admisible también que sea la Asamblea Legislativa la que pueda crear distritos, pues la delegación que se hizo en el artículo 14, de la Ley N° 4366, no es permanente ni es excluyente, de modo tal que la Asamblea Legislativa podría crear distritos o modificar o derogar lo establecido en dicha norma.
• b)No es función de la Sala resolver sobre la conveniencia o no de variar la distribución del territorio nacional para la mejor asignación de los recursos públicos, para la correcta administración de los intereses comunales, ni para los efectos electorales o de planificación administrativa, por lo que este Tribunal no tiene ninguna competencia para pronunciarse sobre la conveniencia u oportunidad de haberse creado el distrito de Birrisito.
• c)No es cierto que la Asamblea Legislativa debía modificar la Ley N° 4366 para poder crear el distrito de Birrisito. Obsérvese que este mismo Tribunal, en Sentencia N° 2013-012802 de las 14:45 horas de 25 de setiembre de 2013, indicó expresamente que la delegación que se le otorgó al Poder Ejecutivo en el artículo 14, de esa Ley N° 4366, de División Territorial Administrativa para crear distritos, no es permanente, o sea, que acepta variaciones por decisión del legislador, pero además que no es excluyente, lo cual es muy importante en términos del reclamo del accionante pues ello implica que perfectamente puede coexistir la potestad para el Poder Ejecutivo otorgada en ese numeral 14, en conjunto con la potestad natural de la Asamblea Legislativa para crear distritos. Debe tomarse en cuenta que este Tribunal Constitucional, en ningún momento, ha manifestado que debía modificarse ese artículo 14, de la Ley N° 4366, o esta Ley en su totalidad, para que la Asamblea Legislativa pudiera crear distritos. Lo que ha dicho este Tribunal, es que la Asamblea Legislativa podría modificar o derogar lo establecido en esa norma -artículo 14 de cita-, o bien crear ella misma, por su cuenta, nuevos distritos. De ahí que la interpretación que hace la parte accionante, en tal sentido, es improcedente.
• d)Entonces, es más que evidente que la Asamblea Legislativa tenía competencia para crear ese distrito conforme lo hizo, y aunque ello sea un tema de legalidad que no le corresponde valorar a este Tribunal, consta en autos que se cumplió con el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 14; de la Ley N° 4366; a saber:
• 1)La Comisión Nacional de División Territorial y específicamente su Comité Técnico, hicieron el análisis de la gestión para crear el distrito de Birrisito, solicitándose además al Instituto Geográfico Nacional, el correspondiente levantamiento de los límites de ese nuevo distrito del cantón de Paraíso.
• 2)Se hizo la consulta obligatoria a la Municipalidad de Paraíso, contándose con su visto bueno, pero además se consultó a la Comisión Nacional de Nomenclatura, al Instituto de Estadística y Censos, a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Birrisito y al Instituto Geográfico Nacional.
• 3)Se establecieron los límites del distrito así como adónde se ubicaría su cabecera y los poblados que lo integrarían, así como lo relativo a la población mínima que integraría a ese nuevo distrito 4) El Concejo Municipal de Paraíso, en sesión ordinaria N° 16 de 07 de julio de 2020, Artículo II, inciso 11, emitió acuerdo mediante el cual se creó el distrito de Birrisito, contando para ello con aval de la Municipalidad de Paraíso. Se establecieron los límites del nuevo distrito, los caseríos que lo integrarían; acuerdo que se adoptó en firme, disponiendo además comunicarlo a la Comisión Especial de los siete diputados de la provincia de Cartago.
• e)Con la creación del distrito de Birrisito por parte de la Asamblea Legislativa, no se ha vulnerado el principio de inderogabilidad singular de la normativa que sirve de parámetro de constitucionalidad como lo reclama el accionante porque aquél Poder de la República tenía plena competencia para ello, no hizo ninguna desaplicación de normas para el caso concreto, simplemente hizo uso de una potestad con que cuenta y que se deriva de la propia Constitución Política. Por otra parte, no se vulneró el principio de separación de poderes porque tampoco usurpó competencias del Poder Ejecutivo ya que, como se ha reiterado supra, la potestad para crear distritos otorgada en el artículo 14, de la Ley N° 4366, no es permanente para ese Poder ni tampoco excluyente para el Legislativo. En consecuencia, en cuanto a este extremo, la acción debe ser desestimada porque no se ha dado ninguna vulneración al Derecho de la Constitución en los términos en que se alega en cuanto a este extremo. (…)”.

Luego de revisar este precedente es posible afirmar que la premisa de esta Sala ‒al igual que en la sentencia n.°2013-012802‒ es que, en lo relativo a la creación de distritos, la Asamblea Legislativa diseñó un procedimiento administrativo y delegó esa competencia en el Poder Ejecutivo, pero se advirtió que no se trata de una delegación permanente o excluyente, pues, según se afirmó en ambos precedentes, la Asamblea Legislativa podría ella misma crear distritos. Ello fue justamente lo sucedido y resuelto en Birrisito y fue el fundamento para descartar una lesión al principio de inderogabilidad singular de la normativa que sirve de parámetro de constitucionalidad. En dicho asunto, por lo demás, no se acreditó que hubiera un dictamen negativo para la creación del referido distrito. La sentencia señala lo siguiente:

“La Comisión Nacional de División Territorial y específicamente su Comité Técnico, hicieron el análisis de la gestión para crear el distrito de Birrisito, solicitándose además al Instituto Geográfico Nacional, el correspondiente levantamiento de los límites de ese nuevo distrito del cantón de Paraíso”.

Es decir, allí no hubo controversia sobre la oposición de la CNDTA. Este no es un aspecto menor de cara al análisis del caso concreto sometido ahora a consulta, en el que, como se consignó supra, el territorio no cumple las condiciones poblacionales del art. 9, pero tampoco reúne las circunstancias de distancia y por eso la iniciativa no está avalada por un dictamen favorable de la CNDTA.

Del examen de los precedentes de esta Sala y de la revisión de otros expedientes legislativos en que se ha aprobado la creación de nuevos cantones se concluye que, por la suma de circunstancias indicadas, el caso analizado en la presente consulta es un supuesto nuevo y excepcional.

En efecto, este Tribunal se dio a la tarea de revisar otros antecedentes legislativos y constató que la Asamblea ha contado con el dictamen favorable de la CNDTA para la reciente creación de otros cantones. Por ejemplo, en el expediente legislativo 20.787 respecto de la creación del cantón de Río Cuarto, ley n.°9440, se acreditó la existencia de un dictamen de la comisión que indicó lo siguiente:

“Mediante oficio DVG-CMMQ-272-2016, Carmen Muñoz Quesada, en su condición de Presidenta de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa: emite un visto bueno al proyecto. Reconoce que el caso de Río Cuarto constituye una excepción, pues la lejanía y la difícil comunicación son evidentes y eso podría flexibilizar así el criterio poblacional del 1% mínimo, contenido en la Ley de División Territorial Administrativa”.

Por otra parte, del análisis del expediente legislativo n.°21618, relativo a la creación del cantón de Monteverde, ley n.°10.019, se constató que en el dictamen de la comisión encargada de dictaminar el proyecto de ley se consignó lo siguiente:

“El proyecto cuenta con los criterios favorables de las instituciones consultadas y la representación de sus habitantes por medio de las firmas que originaron el expediente, el apoyo de las diferentes asociaciones y órganos del gobierno local. No se emitió ningún criterio desfavorable.

- El distrito de Monteverde se encuentra en un lugar muy apartado y de difícil comunicación con su centro administrativo, por lo cual consideramos de suma importancia la creación de este nuevo cantón, que representa una iniciativa necesaria para el distrito, de beneficio para los pobladores de Monteverde que fueron los que promovieron esta iniciativa.

- Esta propuesta de ley vendría a solucionar el problema con la dependencia de la Municipalidad madre respecto a la tramitación presupuestaria.

En ese sentido, en el expediente legislativo consta el informe favorable de la Comisión de Nomenclatura y el dictamen positivo de la CNDTA por el factor distancia:

“Considerando la audiencia realizada en la sesión 03-2020 y los nuevos elementos solicitados por este órgano, la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, reconsidera la decisión tomada anteriormente y avala la creación del cantón de Monteverde, según consta en el Acuerdo 01 de la Sesión 04-2020, al considerar, a la luz del estudio remitido, que el caso es sujeto de la excepción mencionada en el artículo 9 de la ley 4366”.

Finalmente, en el expediente legislativo n.°22.749, relativo a la aprobación del cantón de Puerto Jiménez, ley n.°10.195, consta que la comisión dictaminadora del proyecto de ley consignó lo siguiente:

“En el Oficio MGP-CNDT-001-2022 de fecha 2 de febrero de 2022, el Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía y la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial, avalan en todos sus extremos la iniciativa de ley”.

Con lo cual se concluye que en estos tres antecedentes examinados sí hubo un dictamen favorable de la correspondiente CNDTA. El caso bajo análisis es un supuesto diferente, debido a lo siguiente: se pretende aplicar la excepcionalidad, sí hay dictamen, pero este es negativo y desaconseja la creación del cantón de Colorado.

X.- SOBRE LA ADUCIDA LESIÓN A LOS PRINCIPIOS DE LEGALIDAD, RAZONABILIDAD Y PROPORCIONALIDAD. LESIÓN DEL PRINCIPIO DE INDEROGABILIDAD SINGULAR DE LA NORMATIVA Como se detalló supra, los legisladores consultantes cuestionan la lesión a los citados principios, porque la iniciativa parlamentaria no respeta el requisito poblacional para crear nuevos cantones según lo dispuesto en el art. 9 de la LDTA. Consideran que crear un nuevo cantón sin respetar dicha condición es irrazonable y desproporcionado.

En el caso objeto bajo estudio, conforme a la valoración del expediente legislativo, se tiene que ‒como ya se advirtió supra‒ la iniciativa no cumple con el requisito poblacional. Sin embargo, luego de una atenta revisión de la normativa aplicable, se puede afirmar que el incumplimiento de ese único requisito no es por sí mismo lesivo del trámite legislativo, pues la misma ley admite la excepción. La CNDTA debe analizar si se dan las condiciones para que esta se configure (arts. 9 párrafo segundo y 15 de la LDTA).

De hecho, al revisar las actas legislativas de la aprobación de esa ley, expediente legislativo n.°3552, ley 4366, LDTA, se pudo verificar que los propios legisladores promovieron la iniciativa con el fin de cambiar un monto poblacional fijo establecido en la legislación anterior, para introducir porcentajes que pudieran evolucionar respecto de la realidad nacional. Sin embargo, en la comisión dictaminadora ‒Comisión Permanente de Asuntos de Gobierno y Administración‒ se advirtió que el requisito poblacional no era rígido y absoluto. Al respecto, el presidente la comisión, don Carlos José Gutiérrez afirmó lo siguiente:

“Yo quería agregar a lo que dice el Diputado Barrantes Elizondo que en el art. 15, párrafo 1) también dice: ‘Aunque el factor población sea básico para la creación de provincias, cantones y distritos la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial deberá considerar otros factores de tipo geográfico, económico y sociológico que inspiren la formación de la división territorial”. De modo que el principio del porcentaje no es un principio rígido y absoluto”. (Ver acta de la sesión ordinaria celebrada por la Comisión Permanente de Gobierno y Administración del 11 de abril de 1968, visible a folio 33 del expediente digital).

Por lo tanto, en el presente caso, la ausencia del cumplimiento del requisito poblacional no lesiona per se los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, puesto que la propia ley admite la excepción.

En síntesis, la competencia de crear cantones es de origen constitucional (art. 168) y atribuida de manera exclusiva y excluyente en la Asamblea Legislativa. Esta ley ‒LDTA‒ recoge el mecanismo creado por la propia Asamblea para el ejercicio de esa competencia. Por lo tanto, el respeto de dicho mecanismo adquiere relevancia constitucional. Del repaso jurisprudencial aquí realizado se puede concluir que este Tribunal Constitucional ha señalado que la Asamblea Legislativa debe observar los requisitos y trámites que se auto impuso a efecto de ejercer su potestad constitucional de crear nuevos cantones, pues de lo contrario se incurre en una lesión a los principios de inderogabilidad singular de la norma legal, regularidad y seguridad jurídica que, como ya se advirtió, son de raigambre constitucional.

En el caso bajo examen, al no cumplirse el requisito poblacional, la Asamblea Legislativa podía aprobar la creación del cantón de Colorado siempre y cuando hubiese habido un dictamen positivo de la CNDTA que, luego de constatar que se configurara la excepción prevista en el art. 9 párrafo segundo, recomendara esa creación. Para llegar a tal conclusión es preciso hacer alusión nuevamente a la norma aplicable, la cual dice lo siguiente:

“Art. 9. (…)

Por excepción podrán crearse cantones nuevos que no lleguen a la población, dicha, en lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previos los estudios del caso”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

Entonces, la CNDTA siempre debe dar su dictamen. Cuando se cumple el requisito poblacional, es indiferente si recomienda o no su creación, pues lo que diga no es vinculante para la Asamblea. Si el requisito poblacional no se cumple, podrá crearse el cantón siempre que se configure la excepción relativa a la distancia o lejanía. En tal caso, no bastará que esta se constate, sino que se deberá contar con el dictamen positivo de la CNDTA. Es más esa excepción debe constar en ese dictamen y este debe ser positivo. En ese sentido, se puede afirmar que este es vinculante. Es decir, para crear un cantón cuyo territorio no cumple con el requisito poblacional, la Asamblea Legislativa debe necesariamente contar con el dictamen positivo ‒la recomendación‒ de la CNDTA. Claro, esto no significa que, si se da ese criterio positivo, la Asamblea deba crear el cantón, sino que si la CNDTA no recomienda la creación de este, bajo el entendido de que se configura la excepción del art. 9 párrafo segundo, la Asamblea no podrá aprobar la iniciativa.

En este punto se llega a una conclusión diversa a la planteada por el Departamento de Servicios Técnicos de la Asamblea Legislativa, pues esa dependencia ‒pese a que llamó la atención sobre la inconstitucionalidad de la iniciativa‒ afirmó que el dictamen no era vinculante. Al respecto, esta Sala estima que en atención a una cuidadosa lectura y aplicación de la norma debe afirmarse que el dictamen se torna vinculante cuando no se cumpla con el requisito poblacional del art. 9 párrafo primero, pues la norma advierte que la excepción establecida en el art. 9 párrafo segundo se aplicará siempre y cuando la CNDTA así lo recomiende.

Si se dan las condiciones de población y existe un dictamen afirmativo de la CNDTA, como se ha dicho, la Asamblea no queda sujeta a ese criterio. Será esta en último término la que decidirá, mediante una votación agravada, si considera oportuna la creación de un nuevo cantón. Lo mismo ocurriría si se respetan las condiciones poblacionales, pero la CNDTA desaprueba la creación de un nuevo cantón. No obstante, se reitera, en lo relativo a la aplicación de la excepción prevista en el art. 9 párrafo segundo, por decisión de la propia Asamblea, el criterio positivo de la CNDTA es requisito para poder crear un nuevo cantón. Recuérdese lo dicho por esta Sala:

“La participación de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa que prevé el artículo 9° de la Ley 4366 constituye por el contrario un elemento necesario del procedimiento, pues la Comisión deberá basarse en criterios estrictamente técnicos para rendir su dictamen, sin que puedan darse, como en el caso de las otras instituciones mencionadas, meros argumentos de conveniencia y oportunidad a favor o contra el proyecto en discusión. Se trata de una limitación impuesta por el legislador en uso de sus ya descritos poderes de autorregulación, a fin de asegurar que la decisión que adopte esté respaldada en una completa certeza técnica acerca de su contenido y alcances”.

Es preciso aclarar que esta vinculatoriedad no se da porque la potestad legislativa se haya delegado en la CNDTA, sino que es consecuencia de que el legislador haya querido agravar de este modo específico el procedimiento de creación de cantones.

En el caso concreto, al revisar la iniciativa y el dictamen de la Comisión dictaminadora de la Asamblea Legislativa, tal como se comentó, ambos se basan en la excepcionalidad del art. 15 de la LDTA, interpretado como si este estableciera una posibilidad subsidiaria; sin embargo, esta Sala observa que tal interpretación se aparta de la letra y espíritu de la norma auto impuesta por el legislador, cuyo cumplimiento es requisito procedimental para el ejercicio de la competencia constitucional de creación de cantones. En efecto, en realidad, el art. 15 señala los otros elementos que la CNDTA puede valorar para la aplicación de la excepción prevista en el art. 9. Entonces, ese art. 15 no es un supuesto adicional a los dos que están contemplados en el art. 9 –el que es la regla (relativo al requisito poblacional) y el que es la excepción (relativo a la distancia)–, sino que refiere cuáles aspectos podrá sopesar la CNDTA siempre, especialmente cuando se trate de sustentar un dictamen positivo, en caso de que no se cumpla el requisito poblacional.

En síntesis, en el trámite de aprobación de nuevos cantones siempre debe realizarse la consulta a la CNDTA, que debe valorar el requisito poblacional y, en su defecto, distancia o lejanía, a lo que podrá sumar el análisis sobre los aspectos mencionados en el art. 15 para sustentar que se configura la excepción del art. 9 párrafo segundo. Además, según este, si no se cumple el requisito poblacional, es preciso el pronunciamiento positivo de la CNDTA para que la Asamblea pueda válidamente crear un cantón. En ese sentido se puede decir que ese dictamen es vinculante. Mejor es afirmar que tal dictamen positivo es condición obligatoria para crear el cantón cuyo territorio no cumpla con el requisito poblacional. Es evidente que, aun emitiéndose ese dictamen positivo, la Asamblea puede declinar y no aprobar finalmente la iniciativa propuesta.

En los precedentes examinados supra ‒relativos concretamente a la aprobación de nuevos cantones‒ se declaró la inconstitucionalidad del trámite porque el procedimiento legislativo carecía de los insumos y dictámenes técnicos de la CNDTA. En el asunto bajo examen, se llega a la conclusión de que se incurrió en un vicio esencial del procedimiento legislativo porque no se cumplió con la condición auto impuesta por la propia Asamblea Legislativa, en el sentido de que hubiese un dictamen afirmativo de la CNDTA que justificara la excepcionalidad (art. 9 párrafo segundo).

Cabe mencionar que este tipo de advertencias han sido realizadas por la PGR en el trámite de diversas iniciativas legislativas. Ese órgano consultivo ha hecho énfasis justamente en la necesidad de la estricta observancia de los requisitos señalados en la ley n.°4366. Por ejemplo, en la opinión jurídica OJ-69-2019 de 25 de junio de 2019 se afirmó lo siguiente:

“Tal y como hemos señalado en otras oportunidades (OJ-058-2007 de 27 de junio de 2007, OJ-002-2011 de 21 de enero de 2011, OJ-101-2012 de 5 de diciembre, 2012, entre otros), el artículo 168 de la Constitución Política dispone que la creación de nuevos cantones requiere ser aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa mediante votación no menor de los dos tercios del total de sus miembros, y, a esos requisitos, deben añadirse los dispuestos por la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa (No. 4366 de 19 de agosto de 1969), pues, del cumplimiento de esas exigencias, depende la validez constitucional de aquellas iniciativas legales que pretendan la creación de nuevos cantones. (…)

En ese entendido, debe tomarse en consideración que el artículo 9° de la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa indica que no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no queda al menos una población mínima del porcentaje expresado.

En caso de no reunir el porcentaje de población indicado, el artículo dispone que, excepcionalmente, podría crearse un cantón nuevo, cuando se trate de lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos, siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previo los estudios del caso. (…)

En consecuencia, debe advertirse que en el texto del proyecto de ley no se indica la cantidad de población que tendría el cantón de Cariari que se pretende crear, y, por ello, no es posible determinar si cumpliría con las exigencias del artículo 9° de la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa.

En caso de que la población del nuevo cantón no alcance el 1% de la población actual del país, debe constatarse la existencia de la recomendación de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial que exige la Ley, para justificar la creación del cantón por la lejanía del lugar con los centros administrativos y por la dificultad de comunicación”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original. Consideraciones que fueron reiteradas y dirigidas a la Asamblea Legislativa en la opinión jurídica OJ-112-2021 del 8 de julio de 2021).

Más recientemente en la opinión jurídica PGR-OJ-033-2023 de 24 de marzo de 2023, la PGR nuevamente rindió una opinión respecto de un proyecto de ley relacionado con la creación del Cantón de Tucurrique. En dicho informe no vinculante se dirigieron las siguientes reflexiones ante la Asamblea Legislativa:

“Ahora bien, tal y como se ha sostenido esta Procuraduría (véase por ejemplo OJ-058-2007 de 27 de junio de 2007), el artículo 168 de la Constitución Política dispone que la creación de nuevos cantones requiere ser aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa mediante votación no menor de los dos tercios del total de sus miembros, lo cual impone la votación calificada en este tipo de iniciativas.

No podemos pasar por alto que la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, dispone una serie de requisitos para poder válidamente constituir un nuevo cantón, mismos que deberán de ser de observancia obligatoria para quienes propongan la creación de un nuevo cantón. (…)

Así las cosas, un aspecto de suma importancia a considerar dentro de la presente iniciativa es lo relativo a lo dispuesto en el artículo 9° de la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, el cual indica que no se erigirá en cantón ningún territorio que no cuente al menos con el uno por ciento de la población total del país, ni se desmembrará cantón alguno de los existentes, si hecha la desmembración no queda al menos una población mínima del porcentaje Nótese que la norma señala que -excepcionalmente-, podría crearse un cantón nuevo, cuando se trate de lugares muy apartados y de difícil comunicación con sus centros administrativos (cantón de Jiménez), siempre que la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial lo recomiende, previo los estudios del caso. En ese sentido el artículo 13 de la Ley sobre División Territorial Administrativa, establece que los interesados en la creación de un nuevo cantón deben presentar a la Asamblea Legislativa prueba de que el territorio que ha de constituirse se ajusta a lo que indica el artículo 9º y que el resto del cantón por desmembrar, reúne también esas condiciones, y exige, además, la indicación precisa del perímetro del cantón y la presentación del mapa respectivo”. (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

A la luz de las consideraciones realizadas y aplicándolas al caso concreto se concluye que el procedimiento legislativo tiene un vicio de inconstitucionalidad que lo invalida. En el presente asunto se verificó el incumplimiento de una norma que regula el ejercicio de una competencia atribuida por la Constitución a la Asamblea Legislativa. Ese incumplimiento, tal y como se consultó, lesiona los principios constitucionales de inderogabilidad singular de la norma legal ‒procedimiento establecido en la LDTA‒, de regularidad y de seguridad jurídica, que deben respetarse en la labor legislativa. Si para la creación de un cantón cuyo territorio no cumple con el requisito poblacional el legislador estableció como regla insoslayable la necesidad de que se configurara la excepción relativa a la lejanía y el concomitante dictamen positivo de la CNDTA, la inobservancia de este requisito en el caso bajo examen lesiona los principios mencionados y por eso corresponde declarar la inconstitucionalidad del procedimiento.

XI.- SOBRE UN SUPUESTO PROCESO PLEBISCITARIO EN CURSO Y LA LESIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DEMOCRÁTICO Los legisladores consultantes cuestionaron que el 7 de octubre del 2022 se publicó en el diario Oficial La Gaceta el proyecto de reglamento para la consulta plebiscitaria a los pobladores del Cantón de Abangares, para definir ‒a tenor del principio constitucional democrático‒ si los pobladores estaban o no de acuerdo con la división de su propio cantón. Indican que el proceso del plebiscito estaba en trámite, con una segunda publicación del reglamento de fecha 24 de octubre del 2022, por lo que el presente proyecto en consulta estaría violando además el principio constitucional democrático. En similar sentido, pusieron de manifiesto la importancia de dar valor y escuchar el criterio de la entidad municipal afectada.

Al respecto, en lo relativo a la realización de una consulta popular, es preciso enfatizar que dicho requisito no está contemplado en la Constitución Política para la creación de cantones, sino únicamente para la creación de provincias, según se desprende de la literalidad del art. 168 constitucional.

Esa discusión incluso quedó zanjada en las actas de aprobación de la ley n.°4366 cuando se estaba valorando la aprobación del art. 3 y ante la consulta del legislador Vicente Castro respecto de si la realización de los plebiscitos era para ambos supuestos, el presidente de la comisión aclaró lo siguiente:

“En cantones se ha hecho cuando ha existido duda, por ejemplo en el caso de La Fortuna, antes de desaparecer la población cantonal por motivos ya conocidos, había un cierto acuerdo de las partes en que esto se debería resolver mediante un plebiscito, pero en realidad la Constitución únicamente lo dice respecto a las provincias”. (Ver folio 48 del expediente legislativo digital).

Por otra parte, recuérdese que en la sentencia n.°2013-012802 esta Sala expresamente advirtió que no existía un deber constitucional ni legal de realizar consultas populares para la creación de un distrito. Idénticas consideraciones caben ser reiteradas para la aprobación de los cantones:

“Nótese que no existe un deber constitucional ni legal de realizar una consulta popular como requisito o presupuesto para crear válidamente un distrito.

(…)

Así entonces, no se encuentra inconstitucionalidad alguna, ni en el artículo 14 de la Ley impugnada, ni en el Acuerdo Ejecutivo impugnado que creó el distrito de Labrador en el cantón de San Mateo, por el hecho de que tal creación haya provenido del Poder Ejecutivo. Ahora bien propiamente sobre las omisiones que apunta el accionante, en el sentido de que para la creación del distrito Labrador no se siguió consulta popular alguna ni se tomó el criterio de la Municipalidad de San Mateo, en primer lugar, del procedimiento de creación de distritos únicamente procede esta Sala a examinar estas dos omisiones alegadas, no correspondiendo la revisión del resto de requisitos, pasos o procedimientos que la Ley establece para la creación de distritos, no sólo porque no fue alegado ni fundamentado en la acción, sino porque hacerlo equivaldría a un examen de legalidad que escapa de la competencia de esta jurisdicción constitucional. En segundo lugar, debe quedar claro que para que exista una omisión inconstitucional debe haber una obligación constitucional incumplida, en este caso, no se deriva de nuestro Derecho de la Constitución Política la obligación de que para crear un distrito deba haber consulta popular. Ni siquiera de la norma legal se puede derivar tal obligación” (Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En todo caso, esta Sala observa que de las manifestaciones realizadas por los legisladores consultantes lo que consta es que se dictó un reglamento para realizar consultas plebiscitarias por parte de la Municipalidad de Abangares (https://www.imprentanacional.go.cr/pub/2022/10/07/COMP_07_10_2022.html. Pero no se acredita que formalmente se haya iniciado un procedimiento para consultar concretamente sobre la creación o no del Cantón de Colorado. De modo que sobre el particular no se acredita ningún vicio.

En segundo lugar, los consultantes hacen una reflexión sobre la autonomía municipal y se refieren a la importancia de escuchar el criterio de la municipalidad que se desmembraría, en este caso, la Municipalidad de Abangares. Al respecto, este Tribunal no tiene ninguna duda de que a la corporación municipal se le confirió formal audiencia durante el procedimiento legislativo. Incluso, las disconformidades planteadas fueron oportunamente valoradas y desechadas por la comisión legislativa dictaminadora, que hizo referencia a las manifestaciones y pruebas remitidas por el Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Colorado. De otra parte, revisada la normativa aplicable, se descarta que exista una obligación constitucional o legal auto impuesta de que la Asamblea Legislativa se ciña al criterio municipal del cantón del que se segrega el territorio para crear otro cantón. Por lo tanto, en este particular tampoco se acredita ningún vicio.

En consecuencia, en lo atinente a estos aspectos, se descartan los vicios invocados.

XII.- CONCLUSIÓN A partir de los argumentos contenidos en los párrafos que anteceden, esta Sala considera que la iniciativa consultada, proyecto de ley “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el porque se pretende la aprobación del cantón sin el dictamen positivo de la CNDTA, que es necesario cuando el territorio no cumple el requisito poblacional establecido en la ley.

En los demás aspectos consultados no se encontraron vicios de inconstitucionalidad.

POR TANTO:

Se evacua la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad en el sentido de que, respecto del trámite seguido para la aprobación del proyecto de ley “Creación del cantón Colorado, cantón duodécimo de la provincia de Guanacaste”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo n.°22.643, se constata vicios invalidantes del procedimiento legislativo. Concretamente porque se pretende la aprobación del cantón sin el dictamen positivo de la Comisión Nacional de División Territorial Administrativa, que es necesario cuando el territorio no cumple el requisito poblacional establecido en la ley. En los demás aspectos consultados no se encontraron vicios de inconstitucionalidad.

Notifíquese esta resolución al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Anamari Garro V. Ingrid Hess H.

Alejandro Delgado F. Hubert Fernández A.

CONSULTA LEGISLATIVA SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las trece horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del tres de setiembre de dos mil veinticuatro.

Tomando en cuenta que el magistrado Fernando Cruz Castro se encuentra incapacitado, y con el fin de no retrasar la tramitación del recurso, notifíquese la sentencia dictada en el presente asunto sin su firma, la cual será consignada una vez que se reincorpore a sus labores.

Fernando Castillo V.