← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 16284-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 30/05/2025
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber dismisses the amparo petition, holding that review of the citizen participation mechanisms used in the EIA process falls under ordinary legality, not constitutional jurisdiction.La Sala Constitucional rechaza el recurso de amparo al considerar que la revisión de los mecanismos de participación ciudadana utilizados en el proceso de EIA es un asunto de legalidad ordinaria, no de competencia constitucional.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber dismisses an amparo petition filed by the Asociación Confraternidad Guanacasteca against the Ministry of Environment and Energy and SETENA, challenging the granting of environmental viability for the mega-tourism project "Bahía Papagayo," categorized as high environmental impact (Category A). The petitioner argued that no public hearing was held, only a local perception survey that revealed 88% of the community was unaware of the project, violating the right to citizen participation in environmental decisions. Following its own precedent (ruling 2025-007718), the Chamber holds that it lacks jurisdiction to review whether SETENA’s chosen participation mechanisms complied with secondary legislation; such review belongs to ordinary (administrative or contentious-administrative) courts. The Chamber notes that SETENA published the EIA in a national newspaper, received no opposition or hearing requests, and employed the local perception study regulated by Decree 32966-MINAE, a valid mechanism that did not require prior dissemination. The disagreement over which method should have been used is deemed a matter of ordinary legality.La Sala Constitucional rechaza un recurso de amparo interpuesto por la Asociación Confraternidad Guanacasteca contra el MINAE y SETENA, por la aprobación de la viabilidad ambiental del megaproyecto turístico "Bahía Papagayo", clasificado como Categoría A (alto impacto). La recurrente alegó que no se realizó audiencia pública, limitándose a una encuesta de percepción local que mostró un 88% de desconocimiento del proyecto en la comunidad, lo que violaría el derecho a la participación ciudadana en materia ambiental. La Sala, siguiendo su jurisprudencia (voto 2025-007718), determina que la competencia para revisar si los mecanismos de participación utilizados se ajustan a la normativa infraconstitucional corresponde a la justicia ordinaria, no a la constitucional. Constata que SETENA publicó el EsIA en prensa, no recibió oposición ni solicitudes de audiencia, y aplicó el estudio de percepción regulado por el Decreto 32966-MINAE, mecanismo válido que no exigía difusión previa. Considera que la inconformidad sobre cuál mecanismo debió emplearse es un asunto de legalidad ordinaria que debe plantearse en sede administrativa o contencioso-administrativa.
Key excerptExtracto clave
IV.- ON THE MERITS. ... it is not for this Court to determine, as the petitioner intends, whether in this particular case some type of consultation on the project should have been carried out, nor to establish which mechanism the respondent authorities must use to optimally guarantee citizen participation, since these are matters of ordinary legality that must be raised before the respondent authority or the competent judicial body, not before this constitutional court. Therefore, the petition must be dismissed, as it is hereby done. THEREFORE: The petition is dismissed.IV.- SOBRE EL FONDO. ... no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, o bien, establecer cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar de forma óptima la participación ciudadana, toda vez que, se trata de supuestos de legalidad ordinaria que deben ser planteados ante la autoridad recurrida o bien, ante la sede judicial competente y no ante esta sede constitucional. Ergo, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso, como en efecto se hace. POR TANTO: Se declara sin lugar el recurso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, o bien, establecer cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar de forma óptima la participación ciudadana, toda vez que, se trata de supuestos de legalidad ordinaria que deben ser planteados ante la autoridad recurrida o bien, ante la sede judicial competente y no ante esta sede constitucional."
"it is not for this Court to determine, as the petitioner intends, whether in this particular case some type of consultation on the project should have been carried out, nor to establish which mechanism the respondent authorities must use to optimally guarantee citizen participation, since these are matters of ordinary legality that must be raised before the respondent authority or the competent judicial body, not before this constitutional court."
Considerando IV
"no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, o bien, establecer cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar de forma óptima la participación ciudadana, toda vez que, se trata de supuestos de legalidad ordinaria que deben ser planteados ante la autoridad recurrida o bien, ante la sede judicial competente y no ante esta sede constitucional."
Considerando IV
"la sede natural para vigilar el cumplimiento del principio de participación ciudadana es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional."
"the natural venue to monitor compliance with the principle of citizen participation is the ordinary courts, not the constitutional jurisdiction."
Considerando III, citando precedente
"la sede natural para vigilar el cumplimiento del principio de participación ciudadana es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional."
Considerando III, citando precedente
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Type of matter: Amparo appeal Ruling with protected data, in accordance with current regulations CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on May thirtieth, two thousand twenty-five.
Amparo appeal processed in expediente No. 25-012448-0007-CO, filed by Nombre01, passport Identificacion01, on behalf of the ASOCIACIÓN CONFRATERNIDAD GUANACASTECA, against the MINISTERIO DEL AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA.
Whereas:
1.- Through a document incorporated into the Online Management System of this Office on May 5, 2025, the appellant files an amparo appeal against the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía. He states that expediente No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA is being processed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, through which the project called "Bahía Papagayo" is being processed to understand and resolve its environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), a project to be developed in Playa Panamá, cantón of Carrillo, province of Guanacaste, on State territory under state concession pursuant to Law No. 6728, which regulates the Proyecto Turístico Golfo de Papagayo. He mentions that on April 7, 2021, the D1 Environmental Assessment document was registered, and by resolution No. 0591-2022-SETENA, the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the aforementioned project was granted. He points out that the "Bahía Papagayo" project was classified as category A, meaning it has a high environmental impact according to the provisions of Article 9 of Regulation No. 31849-MINAE.
He indicates that despite the classification assigned to the project and the fact that it would be carried out on public domain property, no public hearing was held prior to the granting of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental). He states that in the procedure, the company did not present a "Social Study," but instead applied a random survey to residents in the area of influence, and its result established that 88% of the people surveyed were unaware of the project's existence. He emphasizes that no other mechanism for open consultation, nor deliberative processes with the community, was documented regarding the development of the aforementioned project. He states that the study was limited to compiling secondary information from public sources and reports of results from the applied survey, without developing substantive participation mechanisms or dialogue with the social actors in the area.
He highlights that no social conflict analysis was conducted, nor were relevant community actors, social mitigation or compensation measures, or technical evaluations of the project's feasibility identified. He claims that the manner in which the survey was conducted limits the right to citizen participation in environmental decision-making, in accordance with the national legality framework and international law. Such a situation is not only an irregularity in the procedure, but also an injury to the rights of citizens in environmental processes, by preventing possibly affected persons from being informed and consulted in a timely and effective manner about the significant impact on the environment. He relates that the State must guarantee the protection of nature and the environment, as well as facilitate mechanisms for their participation and defense of their rights, allowing communities to be informed, deliberate, and express their positions on projects that may somehow alter their habitat and the environment.
He comments that by conducting a simple survey in place of a public hearing, the form, content, and standards for the exercise of the right to participation in environmental matters are not met. On the other hand, the survey in question was applied without guaranteeing a prior project dissemination process, without understandable technical information, and without deliberative mechanisms; furthermore, the survey result itself demonstrates that the community does not have the proper information about the project to even be able to express an opinion on its scope. Additionally, the remaining 12% of respondents obtained information about the project from family or friends, not from an official or institutional mechanism; no methodology allowing deliberative participation was used. He adds that the approval of viability without the analysis of differentiated social risks and impacts prevents the identification of impacts on access to and use of public coastal space; the risks of gentrification or economic displacement of the local population due to rising land values; the effect of increased demand for water and public services on surrounding communities; and specific prevention, mitigation, or social compensation mechanisms.
He emphasizes that the Environmental Impact Study was approached as if it were accessory, superficial, and functional, without complying with the legal provisions established in our legal system on the matter; as well as international regulations. He states that the omission of a comprehensive social evaluation and the substitution of citizen participation with a non-deliberative survey, permitted and endorsed by SETENA for a project that introduces a substantial transformation in the surrounding ecosystems, constitutes a substantive transgression of the right to the environment, particularly because the project in question involves tourism development in areas of high ecological and social fragility. He considers that the facts presented violate his fundamental rights.
• Indeed, among the most important results of the perception study, 88% of the population indicated they were unaware of the project. When the 12% who were previously aware of the project were asked about the medium through which they learned of it, they indicated it was primarily through friends or family (63%). Second, they stated they learned of it through television, radio, or social networks (25%), and third, through construction colleagues (12%). • When the population was asked about their position regarding the project, 94% were in favor of the project, 6% mentioned they were indifferent to the project, and no one was opposed. This does not appear to indicate a high degree of conflict regarding the project. • The annexes to this study include the instrument applied to the population and an informational poster that was placed in several locations in the community of the areas of influence.
The case file contains the Informational Poster for the dissemination of the previously mentioned project and a Photographic record of some points used for the dissemination of the project, in addition to the results of the analysis of local perception. This file is available for public consultation through the link: https://tramites.setena.go.cr/ConsultaPublica/ver_expediente?key=ZXhwZWRpZW50ZV9 maWxlOjoxMjUxNzYxNjU2NmUwN2IxOTQ0Y2U5NzA5NjA4OTA0Mw== • After analyzing this community perception study, SETENA, through resolution 1263-2021-SETENA, requested a single annex with additional information, specifically regarding the section of the EsIA called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), where the following was required: Point 14: “Available basic services: On pages 76 and 77 of the submitted EsIA, a series of observations are made regarding the concerns of neighboring localities concerning potable water supply; the text also indicates a series of recommendations on the topic of potable water and the concern about everything related to this service.
Therefore, the respective measures to be implemented must be included, in response to the concerns of the residents of the project's area of influence (communities adjacent to the project).” Point 20: “For the section on the Perception of the population, it is indicated that there is a lack of knowledge (desconocimiento) of the project of 88%; this reflects the needs regarding the lack of information in relation to the project; for this reason, the appropriate social dissemination (difusión social) procedures must be carried out; from which the possible social conflicts that may arise from the execution of the project can be identified and characterized. Therefore, the environmental measures to mitigate the perception of (lack of knowledge of the project) must be provided. As established by DE-32966-MINAE. Additionally, the potential impacts that the project, work, or activity may generate on available basic services must be considered.
Establish recommendations, mitigation and/or compensation measures for them, which must be incorporated into the PGA Table. As established by DE-32966-MINAE.” In response to this resolution, the developer attached a letter signed by the social sciences professional responsible for preparing the section of the EsIA called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), in which it is stated that there are no potential impacts to the services and commits to the participation and dissemination of project information. The letter stated the following: “In relation to the ‘Bahía Papagayo’ project, regarding available basic services, it is indicated on pages 76 and 77 of the submitted EsIA: a series of observations are made regarding the concerns of neighboring localities concerning potable water supply; the text also indicates a series of recommendations on the topic of potable water and the concern about everything related to this service.
Therefore, the respective measures to be implemented must be included, in response to the concerns of the residents of the project's area of influence (communities adjacent to the project).” Regarding the concerns expressed by the localities neighboring the project, it should be noted that in most projects developed within Guanacaste, the populations express the same concern, even when the development has adequate means or supplies from the various entities responsible for providing the service. In relation to the development of the ‘Bahía Papagayo’ project, as provided in the submission of the study, according to official letters SIGDD-2019-00040487-1-1-1, SIGDD-2019-00040488-1-1-1, SIGDD-2019-00040489-1-1-1, and SIGDD-2019-00040509-1-1-1 issued by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AYA), it is recorded that ‘There IS Availability of Potable Water at the Front of the Properties’ that make up the project.
Likewise, infrastructure installed by the same entity already exists within the project area. However, among the measures to be implemented to address the population's concerns, linked to an information issue, the following measures are proposed: • Local mass media outlets such as radio and television will be used. • Publications on web pages and social networks. • As well as holding participatory workshops with key actors from the area of influence and the general community. • And keeping the telephone line and email available during the project execution period as a means of personal information.” With this response, it is clear that the developer committed to expanding and maintaining the mechanisms for citizen participation and information during the project management stage; this commitment was subject to verification and monitoring by the Department of Environmental Auditing and Monitoring (Departamento de auditoría y seguimiento ambiental) of SETENA.
While it is true that in Decreto No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, "Manual de EIA IV Anexo 1 Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA)", section 9 called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), another participation mechanism called “Interactive participatory process (Proceso participativo interactivo)” is indicated, which would have provided greater possibilities for participation, this was not carried out because a high level of social conflict was not identified in the groups or communities of the AID. This is supported by the fact that no notes of opposition or formal appearance regarding the project were received, and the majority of the population consulted in the perception study agreed with the project's development. On this, the cited regulation states: “Interactive participatory process (Proceso participativo interactivo): The consulting team shall carry out an interactive participatory process in projects whose defined AREA OF INFLUENCE has an indigenous population or in projects likely to generate a high level of social conflict in the groups or communities of the AID (the level of conflict can be foreseen either through historical knowledge or direct expressions).
For the execution of this process, the CONSULTING TEAM must organize a participatory program of meetings and activities with community members. The project will be presented to them, and the scope and possible effects will be analyzed. As part of this interaction process, the team shall include in the impact analysis the specific topics or points that the communities consider relevant in relation to the project. The consulting team shall prepare a record or systematization report of all these meetings and activities, which shall be presented as part of the EIA.” It is true that the allegation exists that the perception study was applied without carrying out a prior dissemination process; however, the regulations did not require this, so, as public officials governed by the principle of legality, something not regulated could not have been required. Regarding the allegation of not carrying out an analysis of social risks or impacts, this was indeed considered by the consulting team that prepared the EsIA, and can be consulted on pages 104 to 158, where the following are identified: social factors that may be impacted, the assessment of the impacts, and the respective mitigation measures determined by the consulting team.
Conclusions 1. The possibility of holding a public hearing was not evaluated, first because this is optional based on requests or technical requirements. During the environmental assessment process, SETENA did not detect a high level of social conflict surrounding the project based on the studies provided, and second, it was not requested by any of the interested parties regarding the project, nor is a public hearing mandatory for all projects classified as Type A. 2. The participation mechanism applied was the quantitative social perception study; this was carried out in compliance with current regulations. 3. The implementation of other participation mechanisms, such as the so-called “Interactive participatory process (Proceso participativo interactivo)” which would have provided greater possibilities for participation, was not considered because a high level of social conflict was not identified in the groups or communities of the AID. 4.
It is true that the allegation exists that the perception study was applied without carrying out a prior dissemination process; however, the regulations did not require this, so, as public officials governed by the principle of legality, something not regulated could not have been required. 5. The possibility of participation has never been limited; SETENA keeps communication channels open with the spirit of being able to receive and analyze arguments from groups and communities that have expressed themselves for or against the project. This is always open from the moment the EsIA information is published in a national circulation medium, as was done for this case in the newspaper La Teja on Tuesday, June 8, 2021, and which is also recorded on folio 146 of the Project file (image attached). However, no actor expressed before SETENA a desire to receive more information about the project or oppose it. 6.
Finally, it is relevant to emphasize that the channels for communication and social participation of the project, at any stage of the environmental assessment process, are open, including the construction and operation stage thereof, which implies that there is currently no limitation regarding citizen participation. The developer also acquired environmental commitments to address the population's concerns, linked to an information issue, which are: • To use local mass media outlets such as radio and television. • Publications on web pages and social networks. • To hold participatory workshops with key actors from the area of influence and the general community. • And to keep the telephone line and email available during the project execution period as a means of personal information.
Drafted by Magistrate Hess Herrera; and,
Considering:
- The appellant states that Case File No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA for the project called "Bahía Papagayo" is being processed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, which was classified as Category A, meaning it has a high environmental impact pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of Reglamento No. 31849-MINAE. They question that, despite the classification assigned to the project and that it would be carried out on public domain property, no public hearing was held prior to the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental). They state that only a random survey was applied to people residing in the area of influence, and no other mechanism for open consultation, nor deliberative processes with the community, regarding the development of said project, was documented. They request the intervention of the Court.
Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated, either because they have been accredited or because the respondent omitted referring to them as provided in the initial order:
Therefore, the environmental measures to mitigate the perception of (lack of knowledge of the project) must be provided. As established by DE-32966-MINAE. Additionally, the potential impacts that the project, work, or activity may generate on available basic services must be considered. Establish recommendations, mitigation and/or compensation measures for them, which must be incorporated into the PGA Table. As established by DE-32966-MINAE.” (see report rendered and evidence provided).
- This Court, through judgment No. 2025007718 at 09:20 on March 14, 2025, heard a claim similar to the one presented here, resolving as relevant:
“V.- Finally, the appellant argues that the respondent authorities violated the principle of citizen participation by failing to communicate with the residents and potential affected parties about the project in question. However, on this point, the authorities of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental report that, as part of the EsIA, an analysis of local perception was conducted with some community leaders from adjacent communities such as Río Jesús de San Ramón and La Angostura de San Ramón; the community of Guadalupe de Esparza is located approximately 2 km in a straight line from the project's AP, and both La Angostura and Dulce Nombre are more than 3.5 km away; however, they will not be directly affected by the transportation and activities of the project's operation, since the routes or roads that cross these towns will not be used by the project. However, it is necessary to indicate that this Tribunal considered in judgment No. 6773-2014 at 11:41 on May 16, 2014 - a criterion that has been reiterated in judgments number 2022-25374 at 9:20 on October 28, 2022, 2024-33132 at 9:20 on November 8, 2024, among others - that the natural forum to monitor compliance with the principle of citizen participation is the ordinary courts and not the constitutional jurisdiction. In the referenced resolution, the following was considered:
“IV.- UPON BETTER CONSIDERATION. LEGALITY DISCUSSION. By amending Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the reforming constituent body sought to give positivity to the Principle of Participation and thus bring the administered closer to the process of state decision-making, as part of what the doctrine calls ‘correction mechanisms’ of representative democracy. Thus, the reforming Constituent body left the means, scope, and timing of citizen participation to infra-constitutional regulations, except in exceptional cases. In this sense, the natural forum to monitor its compliance is the ordinary courts and not the constitutional jurisdiction. For this reason, the issues raised in the specific case, namely, the alternative mechanism ordered by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental – as a result of the violence and intimidation situation generated in the hearings of November 9, 2013, and January 25, 2014 – in order to guarantee the comment phase for interested parties and the developer's replies in the environmental assessment procedure for the project of a new Container Terminal in Moín, on behalf of APM Terminals Moín S.A., are foreign and distant to the competence of this Tribunal.
In the specific case, precisely Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment does not define whether that participation is by voice, in writing, or in what manner the requirement for participation is satisfied, which requires analysis in a process that allows the breadth of evidence and adversarial proceedings that, from our point of view, does not fit within the amparo as a fast, simple, summary, and special process for the protection of fundamental human rights. Therefore, it corresponds to the legality review and not to this Constitutional Tribunal to determine whether the administrative actions and conducts deployed (active or omissive) by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental conform or not to the infra-constitutional legal system. For the reasons indicated, we consider that the issue raised is far from the specific competencies that this Constitutional Chamber is called upon to protect, without this meaning that it does not deserve analysis in the ordinary jurisdiction or the mere administrative contentious legality, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution.
(...)” Based on the foregoing, it is not for this Tribunal to determine, as the appellant intends, whether in this specific case some type of consultation on the project in question should have been carried out, nor is it for this Chamber to verify what mechanism the respondent authorities must use to optimally guarantee citizen participation. Thus, and in accordance with the cited precedent, it is not for this Constitutional Tribunal to determine whether the administrative actions and conducts deployed (active or omissive) by SETENA in the specific case conform or not to the infra-constitutional legal system, all of which must be questioned by the appellants in the respective ordinary legality channels.”
- The appellant states that Case File No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA for the project called "Bahía Papagayo" is being processed before the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, which was classified as Category A, meaning it has a high environmental impact pursuant to Article 9 of Reglamento No. 31849-MINAE. They question that, despite the classification assigned to the project and that it would be carried out on public domain property, no public hearing was held prior to the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental). They state that only a random survey was applied to people residing in the area of influence, and no other mechanism for open consultation, nor deliberative processes with the community, regarding the development of said project, was documented. They request the intervention of the Court.
In this regard, and in accordance with the reports considered given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction, it is considered proven that, on April 7, 2021, SETENA received the Initial Environmental Assessment Document (Documento de Evaluación Ambiental Inicial) for the Project: Proyecto Bahía Papagayo, which is processed under Case File No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA. Likewise, it is established that, on May 6, 2021, the respondent authority notified the project developer of Resolution No. 0677-2021-SETENA, which requested that, within a period of one year, counted from the notification of said resolution, an environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA) be submitted under the terms of reference for the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA), given that, in accordance with Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, this project is classified with a Potential Environmental Impact (Impacto Ambiental Potencial, IAP) of Category A, classified as ISIC 5510, and consequently, the most rigorous Assessment instrument was required.
Similarly, it is established that, on June 8, 2021, SETENA published in a national circulation medium, specifically in the newspaper La Teja, the information of the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA) for the Proyecto Bahía Papagayo for appropriate purposes. Continuing with the processing of the matter, it is established that on July 14, 2021, SETENA conducted a field inspection of the project area in the company of representatives of the consulting and development company; the findings were recorded in Inspection Report DEA-ACT INS-017-2021. Now, regarding the appellant's claim, it is established that, as reported by SETENA, during the evaluation process, no formal appearance or opposition to the project was received prior to the granting of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental), nor was a request to hold a public hearing made by any third party, in accordance with the established regulations.
In this sense, it is verified that the citizen participation mechanism applied in the environmental assessment process was the local perception study (estudio de percepción local), which was conducted based on the regulations established in Decreto 32966-MINAE. "Manual de EIA IV Anexo 1 Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA)", section 9 called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), subsection 9.7 Local perception of the Project and its possible impacts (Qualitative study); a mechanism that did not require prior dissemination. Consequently, it is established that after analyzing the community perception study, SETENA, through resolution 1263-2021-SETENA, requested from the developer a single annex with additional information, specifically regarding the section of the EsIA called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), where the following was required: “Point 14: “Available basic services: On pages 76 and 77 of the submitted EsIA, a series of observations are made regarding the concerns of neighboring localities concerning potable water supply; the text also indicates a series of recommendations on the topic of potable water and the concern about everything related to this service.
Therefore, the respective measures to be implemented must be included, in response to the concerns of the residents of the project's area of influence (communities adjacent to the project).” Point 20: “For the section on the Perception of the population, it is indicated that there is a lack of knowledge of the project of 88%; this reflects the needs regarding the lack of information in relation to the project; for this reason, the appropriate social dissemination procedures must be carried out; from which the possible social conflicts that may arise from the execution of the project can be identified and characterized. Therefore, the environmental measures to mitigate the perception of (lack of knowledge of the project) must be provided. As established by DE-32966-MINAE. Additionally, the potential impacts that the project, work, or activity may generate on available basic services must be considered.
Establish recommendations, mitigation and/or compensation measures for them, which must be incorporated into the PGA Table. As established by DE-32966-MINAE.” Therefore, on an unspecified date, the developer attached a letter signed by the social sciences professional responsible for preparing the section of the EsIA called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), in which it is stated that there are no potential impacts to the services and commits to the participation and dissemination of project information. On the other hand, it is established that, as reported by SETENA, the Manual de EIA IV Anexo 1 Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA), section 9 called DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO), indicates another participation mechanism called “Interactive participatory process (Proceso participativo interactivo)”; however, this was not carried out because a high level of social conflict was not identified in the groups or communities of the AID, no notes of opposition or formal appearance regarding the project were received, and the majority of the population consulted in the perception study agreed with the project's development.
Finally, it must be noted that, as reported by the respondent authority, citizen participation within an Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA) is carried out through duly regulated local perception instruments, and participation may take place throughout the entire Environmental Assessment process, including the construction and operational stages, which implies that there is currently no limitation on citizen participation.
With the foregoing clear, it is determined that what the petitioner has set forth is a disagreement with the mechanism used by the project developer for the granting of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) and the decision of SETENA to approve it. In that regard, note that, as has been demonstrated, the respondent authority published the information of the Environmental Impact Study for the Bahía Papagayo Project in a national circulation newspaper for whatever purposes were appropriate, and no appearance in person or opposition to the project was received prior to the granting of environmental viability, nor was any request made to hold a public hearing by a third party, in accordance with the established regulations. In addition to the foregoing, as reported under oath, the public hearing is not mandatory for all projects classified as type A, since its holding depends on the requests received for such purposes or upon a technical requirement, circumstances that did not occur in the project in question; hence, the local perception study was used as the citizen participation mechanism applied in the environmental assessment process, which did not require prior dissemination and which was also regulated as a valid procedure within the regulations for such purposes.
Thus, and in accordance with the cited precedent, it is not for this Tribunal to determine, as the petitioner seeks, whether in the particular case some type of consultation should have been carried out regarding the project in question, or to establish which mechanism the respondent authorities must use to optimally guarantee citizen participation, given that these are matters of ordinary legality that must be raised before the respondent authority or before the competent judicial venue, and not before this constitutional venue. Therefore, the appropriate course is to dismiss the appeal, as is hereby done.
This Chamber must warn the petitioner that if any paper documents have been provided, as well as objects or evidence supported by any additional device, or by electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic means or produced by new technologies, these must be removed from the office within a period of 30 business days after receiving notification of this judgment; otherwise, all of it will be destroyed in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic Case File before the Judiciary" (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
The appeal is dismissed.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ronald Salazar Murillo Jose Roberto Garita N.
Telephones: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección02, Dirección03, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).
Is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 10:16:30.
Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del treinta de mayo de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente No. 25-012448- 0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre01, pasaporte Identificacion01 a favor de la ASOCIACIÓN CONFRATERNIDAD GUANACASTECA, contra el MINISTERIO DEL AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA
Resultando:
Redacta la Magistrada Hess Herrera; y,
Considerando:
- Manifiesta el recurrente que ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental se tramita el expediente No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA proyecto denominado "Bahía Papagayo", el cual, se clasificó como categoría A, sea que tiene un impacto ambiental alto conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 del Reglamento No. 31849-MINAE. Cuestiona que pese a la clasificación asignada al proyecto y que éste se llevaría a cabo en bienes de dominio público, no se llevó a cabo ninguna audiencia pública, previo al otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental. Refiere que, únicamente se aplicó una encuesta aleatoria a personas residentes en el área de influencia y no se documentó ningún otro mecanismo para la consulta abierta, ni procesos deliberativos con la comunidad, respecto del desarrollo del citado proyecto. Solicita la intervención de la Sala.
De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque la recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
Por tanto, se deberán de aportarse las medidas ambientales para mitigar la percepción del (desconocimiento del proyecto). Tal como lo establece el DE-32966-MINAE. Adicionalmente se debe de considerar los potenciales impactos que puede generar el proyecto, obra o actividad sobre los servicios básicos disponibles. Establecer recomendaciones, medidas de mitigación y/o compensación para los mismos, los cuales deben ser incorporados en el Cuadro PGA. Tal como lo establece el DE-32966- MINAE”. (ver informe rendido y prueba aportada).
- Esta Sala mediante sentencia N° 2025007718 de las 09:20 horas del 14 de marzo de 2025, conoció un reclamo similar al aquí expuesto, resolviendo en lo que interesa:
“V.- Finalmente, el recurrente aduce que las autoridades recurridas violentaron el principio de participación ciudadana, al no comunicar a los vecinos y posibles afectados sobre el proyecto en cuestión. Ahora bien, sobre dicho punto, las autoridades de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental informan que como parte del EsIA se realizó un análisis de la percepción local de algunos líderes comunales de comunidades aledañas como Río Jesús de San Ramón y La Angostura de San Ramón, la comunidad de Guadalupe de Esparza se ubica aproximadamente a 2km de distancia en línea recta al AP del proyecto, y tanto La Angostura como Dulce Nombre a más de 3.5km de distancia; sin embargo, no serán afectados directamente por el transporte y actividades de la operación del proyecto, ya que las rutas o carreteras que atraviesan estos poblados no será utilizadas por el proyecto. Sin embargo, es preciso indicar que este Tribunal, estimó en la sentencia No. 6773-2014 de las 11:41 horas de 16 de mayo de 2014 -criterio que ha sido reiterado en las sentencias número 2022-25374 de las 9:20 horas de 28 de octubre de 2022, 2024-33132 de las 9:20 horas de 8 de noviembre de 2024, entre otras-, que la sede natural para vigilar el cumplimiento del principio de participación ciudadana es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional. En la referida resolución, se consideró lo siguiente:
“IV.- BAJO UNA MEJOR PONDERACIÓN. DISCUSIÓN DE LEGALIDAD. Al modificar el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, el órgano constituyente reformador quiso dar positividad al Principio de Participación y así acercar a los administrados al proceso de toma de decisiones estatales, como parte de lo que la doctrina llama “mecanismos de corrección” de la democracia representativa. Así, el Constituyente reformador dejó los medios, alcance y oportunidad de la participación ciudadana a la normativa infra-constitucional, salvo en casos excepcionales. En ese sentido, la sede natural para vigilar su cumplimiento, es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional. Por esa razón, son ajenas y lejanas a la competencia de este Tribunal, las cuestiones que se plantean en el caso concreto, a saber, el mecanismo alternativo ordenado por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental –a raíz de la violencia y la situación de intimidación generada en las audiencias de 9 de noviembre de 2013 y 25 de enero de 2014– a fin de garantizar la fase de comentarios de los interesados y réplicas del desarrollador en el procedimiento de evaluación ambiental del proyecto de una nueva Terminal de Contenedores en Moín, a nombre de APM Terminals Moín S.A En el caso específico, precisamente el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, no define si esa participación es a viva voz, por escrito o de qué manera se satisface la exigencia de la participación, lo cual requiere ser analizado en un proceso que permita la amplitud de prueba y contradictorio que, desde nuestro punto de vista, no encuadra en el amparo como proceso rápido, sencillo, sumario y especial de protección de derechos humanos fundamentales.
Le corresponde entonces, al control de legalidad y no a este Tribunal Constitucional, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas desplegadas (activas u omisas), por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, se ajustan o no, al ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional. Por las razones indicadas, estimamos que el tema planteado está lejos de las competencias específicas, que la Sala Constitucional está llamada a proteger, sin que ello signifique que no merezca análisis en la jurisdicción ordinaria o de mera legalidad contenciosa administrativa, conforme al artículo 49 constitucional. (…)” A partir de lo expuesto, no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, así como tampoco le compete a esta Sala verificar cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar de forma óptima la participación ciudadana.
De este modo y, conforme con el precedente de cita, no le corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas desplegadas (activas u omisas) por la SETENA en el caso concreto se ajustan o no al ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional, todo lo cual, deberá ser cuestionado por los recurrentes en las vías de legalidad ordinaria respectivas.”
- Manifiesta el recurrente que ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental se tramita el expediente No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA proyecto denominado "Bahía Papagayo", el cual, se clasificó como categoría A, sea que tiene un impacto ambiental alto conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 del Reglamento No. 31849-MINAE. Cuestiona que pese a la clasificación asignada al proyecto y que éste se llevaría a cabo en bienes de dominio público, no se llevó a cabo ninguna audiencia pública, previo al otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental. Refiere que, únicamente se aplicó una encuesta aleatoria a personas residentes en el área de influencia y no se documentó ningún otro mecanismo para la consulta abierta, ni procesos deliberativos con la comunidad, respecto del desarrollo del citado proyecto. Solicita la intervención de la Sala.
Al respecto, de conformidad con los informes que se consideran dados bajo fe de juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción, se tiene por demostrado que, el 07 de abril del 2021, SETENA recibió el Documento de Evaluación Ambiental Inicial del Proyecto: Proyecto Bahía Papagayo, el cual, se tramita bajo el expediente No. D1-0170-2021-SETENA. Asimismo, se tiene que, el 06 de mayo de 2021 la autoridad recurrida notificó al desarrollador del proyecto, la resolución N° 0677-2021- SETENA, en el cual se solicitó que en el plazo de un año, contados a partir de la notificación de dicha resolución, se presentara un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental bajo los términos de referencia para el Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA), toda vez que, de conformidad con el Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, este proyecto se clasifica con un Impacto Ambiental Potencial (IAP) de Categoría A, clasificada como CIIU 5510 y en consecuencia, se exigió el instrumento de Evaluación más riguroso.
De igual forma, se tiene que, el 08 de junio de 2021 la SETENA publicó en un medio de circulación nacional, específicamente en el periódico La Teja, la información del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Bahía Papagayo para lo que correspondiera. Continuando con la tramitación del asunto, se tiene que el 14 de julio de 2021, SETENA realizó inspección de campo al área del proyecto en compañía de representantes de la empresa consultora y desarrolladora; siendo que, los hallazgos encontrados quedaron consignados en el Acta de Inspección DEA-ACT INS-017- 2021. Ahora bien, respecto al reclamo del recurrente, se tiene que, según informa SETENA, durante el proceso de evaluación no se recibió ningún apersonamiento u oposición al proyecto previo al otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental y tampoco una solicitud para realizar alguna audiencia pública por parte de un tercero, de acuerdo con la normativa establecida.
En ese sentido, se comprueba que, el mecanismo de participación ciudadana aplicado en el proceso de evaluación ambiental fue el estudio de percepción local, el cual se realizó con base en la normativa establecida en el decreto 32966-MINAE. "Manual de EIA IV Anexo 1 Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA), apartado 9 llamado. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO, apartado 9.7 Percepción local sobre el Proyecto y sus posibles impactos, (Estudio cualitativo); mecanismo que, no exigía difusión previa. Por lo anterior, se tiene que, una vez analizado el Estudio de percepción en la comunidad, la SETENA mediante resolución 1263-2021-SETENA, solicitó al desarrollador un anexo único con información adicional, específicamente sobre el apartado del EsIA llamado DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO donde se requirió lo siguiente: “Punto 14: “Servicios básicos disponibles: En las páginas 76 y 77 del EsIA presentado, se realizan una serie de observaciones en cuanto a la inquietud de las localidades vecinas; en lo que se refiere al abastecimiento del agua potable; en el texto además se indican una serie de recomendaciones al tema del agua potable y a la preocupación de todo lo relacionado con este servicio.
Por tanto, se deberán de incluir las respectivas medidas a implementar, como respuesta a las inquietudes de los vecinos del área de influencia del proyecto (comunidades aledañas al proyecto)” Punto 20: “Para el apartado de la Percepción de la población se indica que existe un desconocimiento del proyecto es del 88%; por lo cual se refleja las necesidades de la falta de información en relación al proyecto; por tal razón deberá de realizarse los procedimientos adecuados de difusión social; a partir de los cuales se logre identificar y caracterizar los posibles conflictos sociales que puedan derivarse de la ejecución del proyecto. Por tanto, se deberán de aportarse las medidas ambientales para mitigar la percepción del (desconocimiento del proyecto). Tal como lo establece el DE-32966-MINAE. Adicionalmente se debe de considerar los potenciales impactos que puede generar el proyecto, obra o actividad sobre los servicios básicos disponibles.
Establecer recomendaciones, medidas de mitigación y/o compensación para los mismos, los cuales deben ser incorporados en el Cuadro PGA. Tal como lo establece el DE-32966- MINAE”, por lo que, en fecha indeterminada, el desarrollador adjuntó un oficio firmado por la profesional en ciencias sociales responsable de la realización del apartado del EsIA llamado DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO, en la cual se declara que no existen potenciales impactos a los servicios y adquiere compromisos en torno la participación y divulgación de información del proyecto. Por otra parte, se tiene que, según informa SETENA, el Manual de EIA IV Anexo 1 Guía general para la elaboración de instrumentos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (Guía de EIA), apartado 9 llamado DESCRIPCIÓN DEL AMBIENTE SOCIOECONÓMICO, señala otro mecanismo de participación llamado “Proceso participativo interactivo”; sin embargo, este no fue realizado, ya que no se identificó un alto nivel de conflicto social en los grupos o comunidades del AID, no se recibieron notas de oposición o apersonamiento al proyecto, y la mayoría de la población consultada en el estudio de percepción dijo estar de acuerdo con el desarrollo del proyecto.
Finalmente, se tiene que, según informa la autoridad recurrida, la participación ciudadana dentro de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA) se lleva a cabo por medio de instrumentos de percepción local debidamente regulados y la participación se puede llevar a cabo durante todo el proceso de Evaluación Ambiental, incluyendo la etapa constructiva y operativa, lo cual implica que no existe actualmente una limitación en cuanto a la participación ciudadana.
Teniendo claro lo anterior, se determina que lo expuesto por el recurrente es una inconformidad con el mecanismo utilizado por el desarrollador del proyecto para el otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental y la decisión de SETENA de aprobar la misma. En ese sentido, véase que según se tiene por demostrado, la autoridad recurrida publicó en un medio de circulación nacional, la información del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental del Proyecto Bahía Papagayo para lo que correspondiera, siendo que, no se recibió ningún apersonamiento u oposición al proyecto previo al otorgamiento de la viabilidad ambiental y tampoco una solicitud para realizar alguna audiencia pública por parte de un tercero, de acuerdo con la normativa establecida. Aunado a lo anterior, según se informa bajo juramento, la audiencia pública no es obligatoria para todos los proyectos clasificados tipo A, pues su realización depende de las solicitudes que reciban para tales efectos o bien por requerimiento técnico, supuestos que no acontecieron en el proyecto en cuestión, de ahí que, se utilizara como mecanismo de participación ciudadana aplicado en el proceso de evaluación ambiental, el estudio de percepción local el cual no requería difusión previa y cual, también se encontraba regulado como un procedimiento válido dentro de la normativa para tales efectos.
Así las cosas y conforme con el precedente de cita, no le corresponde a este Tribunal determinar, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente, si en el caso particular debió realizarse algún tipo de consulta sobre el proyecto en cuestión, o bien, establecer cuál es el mecanismo que deben utilizar las autoridades recurridas, para garantizar de forma óptima la participación ciudadana, toda vez que, se trata de supuestos de legalidad ordinaria que deben ser planteados ante la autoridad recurrida o bien, ante la sede judicial competente y no ante esta sede constitucional. Ergo, lo procedente es declarar sin lugar el recurso, como en efecto se hace.
Debe prevenir esta Sala a la parte recurrente que de haber aportado algún documentos en papel, así como objetos o pruebas respaldadas por medio de cualquier dispositivo adicional, o por medio de soporte electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho, en un plazo de 30 días hábiles, después de recibida la notificación de esta sentencia, de lo contrario todo ello será destruido de conformidad con lo establecido en el “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial”, aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión No. 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión No. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
Se declara sin lugar el recurso.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ronald Salazar Murillo Jose Roberto Garita N.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.