← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 36567-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 07/11/2025
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is denied as no fundamental rights violation was proven; the technical report was a temporary non-regulatory measure to manage the emergency, without amending the drinking water quality decree.Se declara sin lugar el amparo por no acreditarse lesión a los derechos fundamentales; el oficio técnico fue una medida temporal no normativa para gestionar la emergencia, sin modificar el decreto de calidad del agua.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber dismisses an amparo petition against the technical report MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 issued by the Ministry of Health in response to the July 27, 2024, mancozeb fungicide spill in the Barranca River, Puntarenas. The petitioner argued the report unlawfully raised maximum contaminant limits in drinking water, violating the applicable decree, the Constitution, and environmental principles. The Court finds the report did not amend Executive Decree 38924-S; rather, it established temporary, non-regulatory guide values to manage the emergency using international risk assessment methodologies. The water service was suspended, alternative supply provided, and restored only after laboratory analysis showed no detectable contaminants. The ruling finds no fundamental rights violation; a concurring judge agrees on dismissal but considers the matter belongs in the ordinary contentious-administrative jurisdiction.La Sala Constitucional declara sin lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto contra el oficio técnico MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 emitido por el Ministerio de Salud en respuesta al derrame del fungicida mancozeb en el río Barranca, Puntarenas, el 27 de julio de 2024. La parte recurrente alegaba que dicho oficio había aumentado ilegalmente los valores máximos admisibles de contaminantes en agua potable, violando el reglamento respectivo, la Constitución y principios ambientales. La Sala determina que el oficio no modificó el Decreto Ejecutivo 38924-S, sino que estableció valores guía temporales y no normativos para gestionar la emergencia, empleando metodologías internacionales de evaluación de riesgo. Constató que el servicio fue suspendido, se abasteció con cisternas y se restableció tras verificar la ausencia de contaminantes, sin perjuicio a la salud pública ni al ambiente. El voto mayoritario rechaza las alegaciones por falta de lesión a derechos fundamentales; un magistrado disiente en cuanto al fondo, pero concuerda en declarar sin lugar al considerar que la materia correspondía a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In this manner, contrary to what the petitioner argues, the principles of precaution, prevention, progressivity, and environmental non-regression were observed; it is noted that the Ministry of Health applied safety criteria, using chronic exposure parameters and additional margins of protection, which increased the health safeguard against eventual exposure of vulnerable groups. Moreover, it maintained coordination with MINAE-DIGECA, which established ecotoxicological criteria to protect aquatic biota and supervised the monitoring and environmental remediation plan imposed on the responsible companies, as shown by the evidence provided. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the contested act had no regulatory effects nor did it imply any modification of Executive Decree No. 38924-S; rather, it constituted a temporary technical measure issued in the legitimate exercise of health authority to manage a specific environmental emergency. Thus, no violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution, nor any infringement of the invoked environmental principles, is found.De esta manera, contrario a lo sostenido por la parte recurrente, los principios de precaución, prevención, progresividad y no regresión ambiental fueron observados, se aprecia que, el Ministerio de Salud aplicó criterios de seguridad, utilizando parámetros crónicos de exposición y márgenes adicionales de protección, lo que incrementó la garantía sanitaria frente a la eventual exposición de grupos vulnerables. Además, mantuvo la coordinación con el MINAE-DIGECA, que estableció criterios ecotoxicológicos para proteger la biota acuática y supervisó el plan de monitoreo y remediación ambiental impuesto a las empresas responsables, tal como se puede apreciar en las pruebas aportadas. De lo anterior se concluye que el acto impugnado no tuvo efectos normativos ni implicó modificación alguna del Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, sino que constituyó una medida técnica temporal, emitida en ejercicio legítimo de la competencia sanitaria, para gestionar una emergencia ambiental concreta. De esta manera, no se advierte lesión a los derechos consagrados en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, ni infracción a los principios ambientales invocados.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"La protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes..."
"The protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Costa Rican legal system is safeguarded not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution but also in a series of laws and executive decrees in force..."
Considerando VII, razones diferentes del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado
"La protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes..."
Considerando VII, razones diferentes del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado
"El oficio no estableció nuevos límites máximos permitidos para el Nombre46047 ni modificó el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S –cuyo parámetro general para plaguicidas y metabolitos en agua potable de 0,1 µg/L permaneció incólume–."
"The report did not establish new maximum permitted limits for Nombre46047 nor did it modify Executive Decree No. 38924-S – whose general parameter for pesticides and metabolites in drinking water of 0.1 µg/L remained intact."
Considerando VI, análisis del caso concreto
"El oficio no estableció nuevos límites máximos permitidos para el Nombre46047 ni modificó el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S –cuyo parámetro general para plaguicidas y metabolitos en agua potable de 0,1 µg/L permaneció incólume–."
Considerando VI, análisis del caso concreto
"Las medidas adoptadas materializan el principio de precaución, en cuanto se actuó con base en la mejor evidencia científico-técnica disponible, aplicando valores de referencia crónicos (ADI/RfD), supuestos conservadores y factores de protección adicionales, pese a tratarse de una exposición puntual y acotada en el tiempo."
"The measures adopted embody the precautionary principle, as they were based on the best available scientific-technical evidence, applying chronic reference values (ADI/RfD), conservative assumptions, and additional safety factors, even though it was a punctual and time-limited exposure."
Informe de la Dirección de Salud Ambiental, punto 5 Conclusiones
"Las medidas adoptadas materializan el principio de precaución, en cuanto se actuó con base en la mejor evidencia científico-técnica disponible, aplicando valores de referencia crónicos (ADI/RfD), supuestos conservadores y factores de protección adicionales, pese a tratarse de una exposición puntual y acotada en el tiempo."
Informe de la Dirección de Salud Ambiental, punto 5 Conclusiones
"En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente..."
"In this regard, it is the undersigned's opinion that this Chamber, via amparo, should only hear a matter alleging violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation is manifest and evident..."
Considerando VII, razones diferentes del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado
"En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente..."
Considerando VII, razones diferentes del Magistrado Salazar Alvarado
Full documentDocumento completo
Constitutional Chamber Date of Resolution: November 7, 2025 at 09:30 Case File: 24-025200-0007-CO Type of Matter: Amparo action File: 24-025200-0007-CO CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on November seventh, two thousand twenty-five.
Amparo action processed in case file number 24-025200-0007-CO filed by Nombre46046, identity card CED23246, against the MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
WHEREAS:
SECOND: The risk to human health and biodiversity was never quantified in the alleged analyses, which rather, as indicated by international sources (the WHO or FAO), should not be changed or increased, ONLY DECREASED. Therefore, the amparo must be declared with merit. Let it be clear that the current regulation on water quality states: "Article 8.- Water Quality Control Levels and Mandatory Analysis Parameters... e) Level Four (N4): Corresponds to occasional programs carried out due to special or emergency situations or because the sanitary inspection conducted by the Ministry of Health identifies an imminent risk of water contamination. The alert and maximum admissible values are indicated in table 5 of annex 1 of this decree. The frequency and number of samples to be collected for physical-chemical and microbiological analyses shall be established by the Ministry of Health." (Emphasis ours) That is to say, the EXPRESS obligations were set aside to create a threshold that rather induces the permitting of contamination at irrational levels, without a doubt.
The word used in rule 8 is very clear: what is established therein is MANDATORY. But according to the response to this amparo, they apparently have a very flexible and regressive idea of what should be mandatory, and therefore the amparo must be declared with merit, since this violates constitutional norms 21 and 50. 3- CONCERNING THE LACK OF PROTECTION OF BIODIVERSITY AND THE LACK OF INTERINSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION FIRST: It is very important to observe both the questioned act and the response given by the MinSa. For the Health officials, they were NOT required to do what was necessary to protect fluvial biodiversity, ecosystems, or the soil, since that was the task of DIGECA. It is clear that from the MinSa Nombre17340 collaborated with, nor informed, DIGECA about the situation at the time of issuing the opinion in act No. MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, and to that extent they are totally and directly responsible for the loss of fluvial biodiversity and the damages to wildlife, without a doubt, and all of this transgresses even the reiterated constitutional jurisprudence that has provided: "On the principle of administrative coordination.
This Tribunal has recognized that one of the guiding principles of the administrative organization is the coordination that must exist among all public entities and organs when exercising their competencies and providing the services that the legal system has assigned to them. Coordination, insofar as it ensures administrative efficiency and effectiveness, is a virtual or implicit constitutional principle that permeates the entire administrative legal system and obligates all public entities. Coordination may be inter-organ - between the various organs that make up a public entity not subject to a hierarchical relationship - or inter-subjective - that is, between public entities, each with its own legal personality, autonomy, and specific competencies." (votes 15218-2007 and 151-2012) Regarding interinstitutional coordination in environmental matters, you have indicated: "III.- The coordination among public agencies must guarantee the protection of the environment.
On various occasions, constitutional jurisprudence has indicated that the protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally, that is, there is an obligation for the State – as a whole – to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of those administered. In this task, by public institution, must be understood as including both the Central Administration – Ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which by reason of subject matter have broad participation and responsibility regarding the conservation and preservation of the environment; who act, most of the time, through their specialized agencies in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, and the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA); as well as decentralized institutions, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, the Servicio Nacional de Aguas Subterráneas, Riego y Avenamiento, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo or the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; a task in which, of course, the municipalities have great responsibility, regarding their territorial jurisdiction.
It is for this reason that one might think that this multiple responsibility would provoke chaos in administrative management, which is not true, since in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various agencies of the Executive Branch and decentralized institutions, and among these and the municipalities, in order to be able to carry out the functions that have been entrusted to them." (votes 4790-2008, 6922-2010) Based on the foregoing, it is clear that if the act spoke of the lack of environmental studies, it is manifest from what was stated in the ministerial response that they violated the DUTY of coordination, and this brought about environmental damages that will never be evaluated.
Of course, human life is fundamental, but from the MinSa they should have acted comprehensively. SECOND: You have protected biodiversity in various votes for its intrinsic value, and therefore you are asked to consider what I am now stating regarding the omission and the failure to do what was timely and necessary that obligated the MinSa, by reason of constitutional numeral 50. There is no excuse in saying that if other offices or institutions did not act, the MinSa had no responsibility whatsoever to coordinate, because that is false and constitutionally VERY irresponsible. The constitutional and conventional protection of various species, as well as the ecological systems upon which they depend to exist, prosper, and evolve, have been valued by you, as set forth below: a) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) In vote 1999-1250 of February 19, 1999, this Constitutional Tribunal declared unconstitutional executive decree number 14524-A of May 26, 1983, which permitted the capture of the green turtle - chelonia mydas - in the Caribbean Sea for commercial purposes.
On that occasion, this Chamber considered the challenged decree to violate articles 7, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution, by affecting the ecological balance, articles 5.1 and 8 of the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, articles 1, 2, 13, and 27 of the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity and Protection of Priority Wilderness Areas in Central America, articles II, III, and IV of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. To this effect, this Constitutional Tribunal provided: "IX.- All of the foregoing transcribed suggests that since the application of the challenged decree, the corresponding investigations for the purpose of protecting the species have not been carried out, nor are they even kept abreast of the Conventions and legislation that come to protect it, all of which demonstrates that articles 7, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution have been violated by failing to comply with the protection established in the International Conventions, thereby failing to protect the right to a healthy and, above all, ecologically balanced environment, for which preventive mechanisms must be established to avoid the extinction of species, which requires a certain and responsible attitude from the competent administrative authorities, which has not occurred presently, but rather a decree has been applied which, if the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and all other applicable legislation had been correctly interpreted, would be updated to the reality of the moment, since the number of turtles being captured actually exceeds the authorized amount, and if they are becoming extinct with only the authorized amount, with much more reason if it is increased.
Furthermore, hunting them is not allowing them to arrive in time to reproduce, and all this leads to the total extermination of this species on our coastlines, species that are not even ours, but rather arrive to spawn on these beaches, which, as already stated, violates the constitutional rights that protect the environment, because it is also a right for future generations to have the possibility of knowing them and enjoying the same ecosystem that we currently enjoy. Likewise, the violation of article 7 of the Constitution is undeniable, by contravening International Conventions, since this decree authorizes the hunting of the green turtle for consumption and its capture for trade without sufficient scientific basis to ascertain that this is possible and to what extent, irresponsibly failing to protect them with the mere existence of doubt surrounding their survival, which makes this regulation unconstitutional according to the principle 'in dubio pro natura,' where the mere doubt of harm that may be caused to the ecological balance is sufficient to protect it, and with much more reason when there are scientific studies that require its maximum protection.
It is not superfluous to mention that currently in the Legislative Assembly, under file No. 13.137, the ratification of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, which was signed by the representative of our country on January 31, 1997, is being processed and received a majority opinion on August 18, 1998, from the Permanent Commission on Agricultural Studies and Natural Resources. Today, it is not possible to admit the argument that hunting is permitted to protect the species, since the State, as could be verified, committed itself in different Treaties to its protection, which it is its duty to carry out through police power." Starting from this vote, this Chamber, through an evolutionary and pro natura interpretation, began a jurisprudential line of protection for threatened or endangered species, integrating the rights enshrined in constitutional articles 7, 50, and 89 with the obligations undertaken by Costa Rica through the signing of international environmental instruments that revolve around the protection of the ecological balance upon which those species depend.
It is of utmost relevance to highlight the emphasis this Chamber placed on the specific constitutional and conventional obligation to protect the equilibrium of ecosystems, which is reflected in the phrase: "thereby failing to protect the right to a healthy and, above all, ecologically balanced environment, for which preventive mechanisms must be established to avoid the extinction of species." Currently, it would be possible to interpret in an evolutionary, progressive, and pro natura manner that the distinction made by the Constitutional Chamber between "healthy environment" and "ecologically balanced" reflects the two major philosophical visions of the right to the environment as an autonomous right, in accordance with both Advisory Opinion 23-17 (paragraph 62) and the judgment in the case of Indigenous Communities Members of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association vs. Argentina of February 6, 2020 (paragraph 203), both from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
On the one hand, "healthy environment" would be linked to an anthropocentric vision of the protection of nature for its utility to the human being or for the effects that its degradation could cause on other human rights. On the other hand, "ecologically balanced" entails recognizing its intrinsic importance, independent of its human valuation, for the other living organisms with whom the planet is shared, also deserving of protection in themselves (biocentric – geocentric vision). b) Olive Ridley Turtle (lepidochelys olivácea) In vote 2000-5348 of June 30, 2000, this Constitutional Chamber declared with merit a recurso de amparo filed against the director of the Tempisque Conservation Area of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, for having issued administrative resolution number 001-OR-2000 of January 4, 2000, whereby the Management Plan for Olive Ridley Turtle Eggs for the Ostional Wildlife Refuge was approved.
This Tribunal considered that the issued resolution, by permitting, without scientific or technical basis, the commercial exploitation of olive ridley turtle eggs, an endangered species, violated the rights protected in constitutional articles 7, 50, and 89, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, as well as the Wildlife Conservation Law and its Regulation, by gravely threatening the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. (…) As can be observed, in this judgment, the Constitutional Chamber maintained the jurisprudential line developed in vote 1999-1250 of February 19, 1999, regarding the constitutional and conventional obligation to grant special protection to species of wild fauna through the triad of constitutional articles 7, 50, and 89.
(…) protection granted by the cited international environmental instruments, the right to a healthy and, above all, ecologically balanced environment was left unprotected, for which preventive mechanisms must be established in order to avoid the extinction of species, which requires a certain and responsible attitude from the competent administrative authorities. c) Great Green Macaw (ara ambigua) and Mountain Almond Tree (dipteryx panamensis) The relationship of direct dependence of the great green macaw on the mountain almond tree, both endangered species, was the subject of study by this Constitutional Chamber in constitutional votes 2002-2486 of March 8, 2002, and 2008-13426 of September 2, 2008. The first of the cited votes dealt with a recurso de amparo declared with merit for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment against the Costa Rican State, for being negligent in the protection of the great green macaw, declaring the nullity of subsections 1, 2, 5, and 7 of article III of Executive Decree 25663-MINAE, which permitted the continued logging of the mountain almond tree, thereby destroying the habitat of the great green macaw.
In this regard, the Constitutional Chamber provided: (…) Based on what has been indicated, we ask that the environmental value and the ecosystem services of fluvial life in general that were affected by the contamination permitted in excess by the respondents, where fish and other life forms died due to the irresponsible conduct that was never evaluated and never coordinated, be rescued. PRETENSIONS Based on the foregoing, you are asked to: Accept my active joinder. I request that the amparo be declared with merit and that it be ordered that the MinSa did indeed create an unconstitutional threshold applicable to all of Costa Rica and not only to the particular case of the Barranca River. That it be stated that it is manifest that with what was provided in act MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 dated July 30, 2024, the maximum limits permitted for emergency cases established in the Reglamento para la calidad del Agua Potable were violated in an abusive and discretionary manner.
That it be indicated that the respondents' act violated the principle of objectivization, the principle of non-regression, the in dubio pro aqua, and the in dubio pro natura, and that it is clear that by not coordinating with DIGECA, the basic principle of coordination was also violated. That it be stated that ecosystems and fluvial life were put at risk, as well as the lives of people, by approving an irrational threshold."
The standard stipulates a maximum concentration of 0.1 micrograms of pesticide per liter of drinking water, whereas the report MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 allows up to 6.0 micrograms of pesticide per liter of water. This represents an increase of more than 600% in the amount of pesticide contamination in the quantity of drinking water. An action that is seriously endangering the population of Esparza and Puntarenas. The MinSa issued this report just three days after the incident that occurred on July 27, 2024, in which a tanker truck belonging to a private company that was transporting 17,000 liters of the fungicide Nombre46047 overturned and resulted in the spill of all the pesticide. This event occurred on the border between Esparza and San Ramón, at Cambronero, causing the spill into a stream that drains into the Barranca River, where there are water intakes that supply the AyA system, various media outlets reported.
It is estimated that some 90,000 people in Esparza and Puntarenas were affected first by the service cut, but after July 30, 2024, these people have been exposed to quantities of the fungicide in water for human consumption that the Ministry of Health and the AyA, without any technical criteria, made people believe posed no danger in its consumption. The current authorities of the Department of Radiation and Environmental Health of the Ministry of Health conducted this risk assessment with insufficient technical criteria and scientifically obsolete that has been questioned by environmental organizations and experts such as Dr. Elidier Vargas. This supposedly temporary modification allows contamination of 6 micrograms per liter, increasing by 60 times the Maximum Admissible Value of these pesticides in water for human consumption. This violates the Reglamento Para La Calidad del Agua Potable N° 38924-S, which stipulates 0.01 micrograms per liter as the Maximum Admissible Value, as well as the precautionary principle protected under the Constitución de la República.
It is thus that MINSA and AyA disregard the national legislation regarding maximum permitted limits of pesticides in drinking water and have put at risk the populations of Esparza and Puntarenas, affected by the spill of the fungicide that causes tumor predisposition, psychiatric disorders, Parkinson's disease, ataxia, tremors, thyroid and ovarian dysfunction. The fungicide Nombre46047 is the pesticide that reports the highest volume of imports, whose use mainly occurs in the banana agribusiness applied through aerial applications. It should be noted that aerial applications in banana plantations have increased excessively, reaching 60 applications per year, and exposing populations adjacent to banana plantations, as well as workers. Prenatal effects: according to the Regional Institute for Toxic Substances (Instituto Regional de Sustancias Tóxicas, IRET) of the Universidad Nacional, excess manganese (Mn) in early stages of life affects neurodevelopment, the information on the effects of mancozeb, a fungicide containing Mn, and its main metabolite Nombre46048 (ETU), on neurodevelopment."
Redacted by Judge Salazar Murillo; and,
Considering:
A coadyuvancia is a form of adhesive intervention that occurs when a person acts in a proceeding by adhering to the claims of one of the main parties; as a consequence, anyone who has a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal is legitimized to act as a coadjuvant, but not being a principal party, the coadjuvant will not be directly affected by the judgment, that is, the efficacy of the judgment may not reach them directly and immediately, nor are they affected by the res judicata status of the ruling, although in amparo matters the efficacy of what is resolved may benefit them, due to the 'erga omnes' character that the jurisprudence and precedents of the constitutional jurisdiction have (Article 13, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In this case, the Sala proceeds to admit the coadyuvancias filed (in terms of Article 34 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) because the coadjuvants present a legitimate interest.
The appellant party files an amparo appeal and states that, following the contamination of the Barranca River by a truck loaded with agrochemicals, the Ministry of Health issued official communication No. MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 of July 30, 2024, a technical report on the fungicide Nombre46047 and its metabolite Nombre46048 (ETU). It indicates that through this administrative act—with general and external effects—the parameters set in the Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable (Decreto No. 38924-S) were modified, increasing the permitted levels of contaminants in water intended for human consumption. It alleges that this decision lacks scientific support, did not assess the impacts on health, biodiversity, or ecosystems, and was issued to the detriment of environmental human rights. It further argues that an administrative act cannot modify an executive decree and that the directive violates principles of environmental law such as the preventive principle, the precautionary principle, the principle of progressivity, and in dubio pro aqua. Therefore, it requests the annulment of the contested official communication, considering it violative of the Constitution and environmental principles.
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 authority has omitted to refer to them, according to what was provided in the initial order:
1. On July 27, 2024, a fungicide spill occurred in a stream located in the Esparza-Puntarenas area, which generated an impact on the water catchment sources that supplied the population of the cantons of Esparza and Puntarenas (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
2. On July 30, 2024, the Ministry of Health prepared Informe Técnico N° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, which established provisional maximum admissible values for the fungicide Nombre46047 and its metabolite Nombre46048 (ETU), applicable only as a temporary emergency measure in cases of accidental contamination (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
Comparative table of values:
o Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S: sets general Maximum Admissible Values (VMA), applicable permanently, without including specific parameters for Nombre46047 or ETU.
o Technical Report N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024: established provisional values of 6 µg/L for Nombre46047 and 0.16 µg/L for ETU, only during the emergency.
These values were calculated following WHO and EPA methodologies, with the objective of immediately protecting public health, without permanently modifying the decree's limits.
3. On September 20, 2024, Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas, Acting Director of the Directorate of Radiological Protection and Environmental Health, issued Official Communication N° MS-DPRSA-0947-2024, clarifying that the directive did not imply a permanent increase of the maximum admissible values established in Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S, but rather constituted recommendable provisional parameters applicable in emergencies, of a temporary nature (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
4. On September 23, 2024, Dr. Jimmy Méndez Vargas, Director of the Área Rectora de Salud of Barranca, issued Official Communication N° MS-DRRSPC-DARSB-277-2024, in which he reported that the actions of that Area during the emergency focused on the inspection of cleaning of vehicles transporting drinking water, on the supervision of drinking water use in public food establishments, and on participation in the supply of drinking water to the affected communities of Barranca and El Roble, without having any technical or legal involvement in the preparation of the main report (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
5. On September 26, 2024, the Acting Minister of Health, Mariela de los Ángeles Marín Mena, rendered a report under oath before the Sala Constitucional, confirming the issuance of the aforementioned official communications, specifying the temporary and emergency nature of Informe Técnico N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, and reaffirming that the competence in water quality surveillance corresponds to the Ministry of Health in accordance with the Ley General de Salud and Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
6. Official communication MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 was issued in the context of the referred environmental emergency, with the purpose of establishing provisional sanitary reference values that would allow assessment of the risk to human health and immediate decision-making to restore the supply of drinking water under safe conditions, without modifying the Maximum Admissible Values (VMA) established in Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
7. It was indicated that the methodology used in that communication corresponded to the international approach of Human Health Risk Assessment, in accordance with the guidelines of the WHO, the US EPA, and EFSA, and included the stages of hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure estimation, and risk characterization (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
8. Based on international reference values, provisional guideline values of 0.006 mg/L (6 µg/L) for Nombre46047 and 0.16 µg/L for its metabolite ETU were adopted, applying additional precautionary factors to increase the safety margin during the immediate risk management phase, thus ensuring the protection of the population, especially vulnerable groups (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
9. The provisional guideline values were issued within the framework of the sanitary competence of the Ministry of Health, in compliance with the Ley General de Salud and Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, and their use was limited to an emergency situation, without altering the current regulatory framework (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
10. Official communication MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 and the subsequent technical report MS-DPRSA-USA-1537-2024 had an exclusively technical and guiding nature, without regulatory effects, and their purpose was to guide immediate risk management decisions while compliance with the water quality regulation was restored (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
From the onset of the emergency, inter-institutional coordination was developed between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), through the Directorate of Environmental Quality Management (Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental, DIGECA), which issued the ecotoxicological profile of Nombre46047 and established environmental reference criteria (0.73 µg/L acute and 0.0057 µg/L chronic) to protect aquatic biota (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
12. The companies responsible for the spill were ordered to submit and execute an environmental monitoring and remediation plan, through official communication MS-DPRSA-USA-1719-2024, which included water, soil, and sediment sampling, application of bioindicators (BMWP-CR), and site cleanup and control actions, in accordance with Executive Decree No. 37757-S, Regulation on guideline values in soils for decontamination of sites affected by environmental emergencies and spills (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
First, it must be stated that the supply of drinking water constitutes an essential and onerous public service. The jurisprudence of this Chamber, in matters of drinking water supply, has been fundamentally directed at the protection of the right to life and health of natural persons. These rights imply the possibility of demanding certain services from the State, an area in which the State is obliged to provide certain public services, especially those that are essential for maintaining sanitary conditions favorable to the preservation of the life and health of persons. Thus, guaranteeing the purity of the liquid for human consumption, as well as the continuity of its supply, are part of a due and efficient service to the subscriber, and in turn guarantee their most basic fundamental rights.
The Political Constitution implicitly embodies the fundamental right of those administered to the proper and efficient functioning of public services, that is, that they be provided with high quality standards, which has as a necessary corollary the obligation of public administrations to provide them continuously, regularly, swiftly, effectively, and efficiently. This latter obligation is derived from the systematic relationship of several constitutional precepts, such as Article 140, subsection 8, which imposes on the Executive Branch the duty to "Oversee the proper functioning of administrative services and dependencies," Article 139, subsection 4), insofar as it incorporates the concept of "sound conduct of Government," and Article 191, to the extent that it incorporates the principle of "efficiency of the administration." This atypical or unnamed individual guarantee is accentuated in the case of essential public services such as the supply of drinking water (see in this regard, Judgment No. 2003-11222, of 17:48 hours on September 30, 2003, reiterated in No. 2019-005626, of 09:45 hours on March 29, 2019).
After analyzing the evidentiary elements provided, this Court dismisses the violation of the fundamental rights of the protected party. From the reports rendered by the representatives of the respondent authorities—which are considered given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction—the evidence provided for the resolution of the matter, and what was officially stated by the Ministry of Health in its public communication of September 4, 2024 (https://www.ministeriodesalud.go.cr/index.php/prensa/61-noticias-2024/1939-aclaracion-sobre-el-informe-tecnico-ms-dprsa-usa-1536-2024), it was accredited: first, that Technical Report No. MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 did not establish new maximum permissible limits for Nombre46047 nor did it modify Executive Decree No. 38924-S—whose general parameter for pesticides and metabolites in drinking water of 0.1 µg/L remained intact.
Second, the values indicated in the report were strictly provisional and emergency in nature, designed to manage the contingency of the spill in the Barranca River basin, and did not replace the administrative actions required when non-compliance with the Decree is detected. Third, in the face of the emergency, the temporary suspension of supply and provisioning by means of tanker trucks was ordered, while laboratory analyses were performed. Fourth, the analytical results of July 31, 2024 (received on August 2) did not detect Nombre46047 or ETU at the final points of the basin or in wells for human consumption, for which reason the enabling of the service was recommended, all in inter-institutional coordination with MAG, AyA, and MINAE (technical roundtable of August 1, 2024). Thus, it is held that the challenged act did not alter the Maximum Admissible Values (Valores Máximos Admisibles, VMA) of Decree 38924-S, since its nature is technical-instrumental and transitory, typical of emergency risk management, aimed at restoring full compliance with the Decree once the event is controlled.
Hence, neither a singular derogation nor a material reform of the Regulation by way of fact occurred, and the principle of legality nor that of regulatory reserve was harmed. In that sense, it is not true that permanent thresholds were "raised," since the authority interrupted the service, supplied by tanker trucks, subjected the decision to risk analysis with protection factors and independent analytical verification (National Water Laboratory), and recommended restoring the service when the measurements did not detect the presence of the contaminants. This course of action is compatible with the precautionary standard and with non-regression: the measures were provisional, restrictive, and oriented toward minimizing exposure during the contingency, without relaxing the permanent framework of the Decree.
The following table presents the comparison between the Maximum Admissible Values (VMA) established in Executive Decree No. 38924-S, Regulation for the Quality of Drinking Water, and the provisional guideline values adopted by the Ministry of Health during the environmental emergency that occurred in the Barranca River, Puntarenas, in 2024, resulting from the spill of the fungicide Vondozeb 62 OD (mancozeb and its metabolite Nombre46048 -ETU-).
Substance VMA according to Executive Decree No. 38924-S (µg/L) Value Adopted during the Emergency (µg/L) Observations Nombre46047 0.1 6.0 Provisional guideline value of a non-normative nature, adopted to manage the emergency with a precautionary approach and international methodologies (WHO, US EPA, EFSA).
Nombre46048 (ETU) 0.1 0.16 Metabolite of mancozeb. Value derived based on chronic reference dose (RfD) from the US EPA, used with additional protection factors to broaden the safety margin.
Application Permanent and mandatory values according to Executive Decree.
Transitory and technical values, applicable only during the emergency.
They do not replace the VMA of the regulation; they were used to guide immediate decisions until full compliance is restored.
From the comprehensive examination of the arguments presented by the Directorate of Environmental Health and the Environmental Health Unit of the Ministry of Health, no violation of fundamental rights is evident. In this regard, it is recorded that, following the environmental emergency that occurred in the Barranca River, Puntarenas, resulting from the spill of the fungicide Vondozeb 62 OD, whose active ingredient is Nombre46047 and its main metabolite is Nombre46048 (ETU), the Ministry of Health issued official communication MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, dated July 30, 2024, for the purpose of establishing provisional guideline values to allow immediate sanitary risk management. Said document was prepared within the framework of an exceptional contamination situation, and its purpose was to determine provisional health reference concentrations for water for human consumption, in order to restore safe supply to the affected population.
From the technical report rendered by the health authorities, it is accredited that the administrative act in question did not modify or replace the Maximum Admissible Values (VMA) established in Executive Decree No. 38924-S, "Regulation for the Quality of Drinking Water." On the contrary, it was a technical-scientific and precautionary instrument, of a non-normative and non-general nature, issued within the framework of an environmental emergency, whose objective was to temporarily guide sanitary and environmental risk management until full compliance with the cited regulation is restored.
The report itself clarifies that the adopted values—0.006 mg/L (6 µg/L) for Nombre46047 and 0.16 µg/L for ETU—were calculated using internationally recognized methodologies, under the Human Health Risk Assessment approach (WHO, US EPA, EFSA), applying additional protection factors and conservative assumptions. These values were transitory, for exclusive use during the emergency, and had no regulatory character, such that they did not replace or modify the current normative framework.
Thus, the Ministry of Health acted within the powers conferred by the General Health Law, which imposes on it the duty to protect the health of the population and to dictate immediate measures in the face of any health threat. In this case, the adopted measures responded to a situation of real and imminent danger derived from a chemical spill, for which reason it was indispensable to issue technical guidelines to guide urgent decisions to protect human health and the environment, without this implying an alteration of the regulatory framework.
In this way, contrary to what was maintained by the appellant, the principles of precaution, prevention, progressivity, and environmental non-regression were observed; it is noted that the Ministry of Health applied safety criteria, using chronic exposure parameters and additional protection margins, which increased the health guarantee against the eventual exposure of vulnerable groups. Furthermore, it maintained coordination with MINAE-DIGECA, which established ecotoxicological criteria to protect aquatic biota and supervised the environmental monitoring and remediation plan imposed on the responsible companies, as can be seen in the evidence provided.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that the challenged act had no normative effects nor implied any modification of Executive Decree No. 38924-S, but rather constituted a temporary technical measure, issued in legitimate exercise of sanitary competence, to manage a specific environmental emergency. Thus, no violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution is observed, nor any infringement of the invoked environmental principles.
Finally, it is recorded that the health response was reasonable and proportionate to the emergency, considering that the challenged technical report did not modify the current legal regime nor reduce the level of protection of Decree 38924-S, to which is added that the actions demonstrate prevention, precaution, and coordination, for which reason a violation of constitutional Articles 21 and 50, nor of the principles of in dubio pro aqua, precautionary, preventive, progressivity, or non-regression, was not accredited. Consequently, this proceeding is dismissed, and the same fate befalls the coadjuvancies filed. The foregoing as indicated in the operative part of this judgment.
With due respect, I concur with the majority vote declaring the appeal without merit; however, I base it on the following reasons:
The protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the Costa Rican Legal System, is protected not only in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, but also in a series of laws and executive decrees (regulations) in force, such as the Organic Environmental Law, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Biodiversity Law, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Executive Decree No. 31849 of May 24, 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, to cite only a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to separate constitutional review from legality review. In this sense, it is this judge's criterion that this Chamber, by way of amparo, should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged, if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community.
Otherwise, the matter must be raised and discussed in the legality venue. Thus, the simple non-compliance with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is properly heard in the legality venue—administrative or jurisdictional—where, with much greater scope, the alleged non-compliances or omissions may be scrutinized. It must be borne in mind that the amparo appeal is a summary, informal, simple, and rapid process, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its powers, and substantiates a proceeding, with the issuance of administrative acts, its cognizance is alien to the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. Therefore, the review of administrative actions carried out regarding an environmental matter that requires, for its proper assessment, a full-knowledge proceeding, is only possible in the ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo proceeding is incompatible with the contrasting or review of technical or legal criteria elaborated under the shelter of current legal or regulatory norms, or with the evacuation of new and greater elements of conviction necessary for the contrasting or review of the criteria already on file in the administrative record of the case.
The contrary would imply transforming the amparo into an ordinary full-knowledge proceeding, thereby denaturing it and rendering nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, thus losing its condition as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, I consider that when a public entity or body has intervened, in various forms, or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, its cognizance and oversight correspond to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. It is, precisely, the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls under the competence of the legality venue. Consequently, this appeal should have been rejected outright, since its object is a matter properly to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved in the legality venue. However, as it was not done so, what is appropriate is to declare it without merit, without making any pronouncement regarding the merits of the question raised, as it corresponds to the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the accused administrative actions and conduct conform or not, in substance, to what is prescribed in the legal system of statutory rank, regarding the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
The parties are warned that, if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on Electronic Court Files before the Judicial Branch," 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 the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
THEREFORE:
The appeal is declared WITHOUT MERIT. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado sets forth different reasons, considering that it is for the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, to determine whether the accused administrative actions and conduct conform or not, in substance, to what is prescribed in the legal system of statutory rank, regarding the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
Fernando Cruz C.
Nombre211 a.i Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ronald Salazar Murillo Ileana Sánchez N.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del siete de noviembre de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente número 24-025200-0007-CO interpuesto por Nombre46046, cédula de identidad CED23246, contra el MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
RESULTANDO:
Redacta el Magistrado Salazar Murillo; y,
Considerando:
La coadyuvancia es una forma de intervención adhesiva que se da cuando una persona actúa en un proceso adhiriéndose a las pretensiones de alguna de las partes principales, como consecuencia está legitimado para actuar como coadyuvante quien ostente un interés directo en el resultado del recurso, pero al no ser actor principal, el coadyuvante no resultará directamente afectado por la sentencia, es decir, la eficacia de esta no podrá alcanzarle de manera directa e inmediata, ni le afecta la condición de cosa juzgada del pronunciamiento, aunque en materia de amparo pueda favorecerle la eficacia de lo resuelto, debido al carácter de "erga omnes" que tiene la jurisprudencia y precedentes de la jurisdicción constitucional (artículo 13, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). En este caso, la Sala procede a admitir las coadyuvancias presentadas (en los términos del artículo 34 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) por cuanto los coadyuvantes presentan un interés legítimo.
La parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo y expone que, luego de la contaminación del río Barranca por un camión cargado de agroquímicos, el Ministerio de Salud emitió el oficio N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 del 30 de julio de 2024, un informe técnico sobre el fungicida Nombre46047 y su metabolito Nombre46048 (ETU). Señala que mediante dicho acto administrativo —con efectos generales y externos— se modificaron los parámetros fijados en el Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable (decreto N.° 38924-S), aumentando los niveles permitidos de contaminantes en agua destinada al consumo humano. Alega que esta decisión carece de sustento científico, no valoró los impactos en la salud, la biodiversidad ni en los ecosistemas, y se dictó en perjuicio de derechos humanos ambientales. Argumenta además que un acto administrativo no puede modificar un decreto ejecutivo y que la directriz vulnera principios del derecho ambiental como el preventivo, precautorio, de progresividad y el in dubio pro aqua. Por ello, solicita la anulación del oficio impugnado por considerarlo violatorio de la Constitución y de los principios ambientales.
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 autoridad recurrida haya omitido referirse a ellos, según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
1. El 27 de julio de 2024 ocurrió un derrame de fungicida en una quebrada ubicada en la zona de Esparza-Puntarenas, lo que generó afectación en las fuentes de captación de agua que abastecían a la población de los cantones de Esparza y Puntarenas (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
2. El 30 de julio de 2024 el Ministerio de Salud elaboró el Informe Técnico N° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, en el cual se establecieron valores máximos admisibles provisionales para el fungicida Nombre46047 y su metabolito Nombre46048 (ETU), aplicables únicamente como medida temporal de emergencia en casos de contaminación accidental (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Comparativa de valores:
o Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S: fija Valores Máximos Admisibles (VMA) generales, aplicables de forma permanente, sin incluir parámetros específicos para Nombre46047 ni ETU.
o Informe Técnico N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024: estableció valores provisionales de 6 µg/L para Nombre46047 y 0.16 µg/L para ETU, únicamente durante la emergencia.
Estos valores fueron calculados siguiendo metodologías de la OMS y la EPA, con el objetivo de proteger la salud pública de manera inmediata, sin modificar de forma permanente los límites del decreto.
3. El 20 de septiembre de 2024 el Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas, Director a. i. de la Dirección de Protección Radiológica y Salud Ambiental, emitió el Oficio N° MS-DPRSA-0947-2024, en el que aclaró que la directriz no implicaba un aumento permanente de los valores máximos admisibles establecidos en el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S, sino que se trataba de parámetros provisionales recomendables aplicables en emergencias, con carácter temporal (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
4. El 23 de septiembre de 2024, el Dr. Jimmy Méndez Vargas, Director del Área Rectora de Salud de Barranca, emitió el Oficio N° MS-DRRSPC-DARSB-277-2024, en el cual informó que las acciones de esa Área durante la emergencia se enfocaron en la fiscalización de limpieza de vehículos transportadores de agua potable, en la supervisión del uso de agua potable en establecimientos de alimentación pública y en la participación en el suministro de agua potable a las comunidades afectadas de Barranca y El Roble, sin tener injerencia técnica o legal en la elaboración del informe central (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
5. El 26 de septiembre de 2024 la Ministra a. i. de Salud, Mariela de los Ángeles Marín Mena, rindió informe bajo juramento ante la Sala Constitucional, confirmando la emisión de los oficios antes indicados, precisando el carácter temporal y de emergencia del Informe Técnico N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 y reafirmando que la competencia en la vigilancia de la calidad del agua corresponde al Ministerio de Salud conforme a la Ley General de Salud y el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
6. El oficio MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 fue emitido en el contexto de la referida emergencia ambiental, con el fin de establecer valores provisionales de referencia sanitaria que permitieran evaluar el riesgo a la salud humana y tomar decisiones inmediatas para restablecer el abastecimiento de agua potable en condiciones seguras, sin modificar los Valores Máximos Admisibles (VMA) establecidos en el Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
7. Se indicó que la metodología utilizada en dicho oficio correspondió al enfoque internacional de Evaluación de Riesgo para la Salud Humana (Human Health Risk Assessment), conforme a los lineamientos de la OMS, la US EPA y la EFSA, e incluyó las etapas de identificación del peligro, evaluación dosis-respuesta, estimación de exposición y caracterización del riesgo (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
8. Con base en valores de referencia internacionales, se adoptaron valores guía provisionales de 0,006 mg/L (6 µg/L) para Nombre46047 y 0,16 µg/L para su metabolito ETU, aplicando factores precautorios adicionales para incrementar el margen de seguridad durante la fase de gestión inmediata del riesgo, asegurando así la protección de la población, especialmente de grupos vulnerables (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
9. Los valores guía provisionales se emitieron en el marco de la competencia sanitaria del Ministerio de Salud, en cumplimiento de la Ley General de Salud y del Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, y que su utilización se limitó a una situación de emergencia, sin alterar el marco regulatorio vigente (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
10. El oficio MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 y el informe técnico posterior MS-DPRSA-USA-1537-2024 tuvieron un carácter exclusivamente técnico y orientador, sin efectos regulatorios, que su propósito fue guiar decisiones inmediatas de gestión del riesgo, mientras se restablecía el cumplimiento del reglamento de calidad del agua (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
11. Desde el inicio de la emergencia, se desarrolló coordinación interinstitucional entre el Ministerio de Salud y el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), a través de la Dirección de Gestión de Calidad Ambiental (DIGECA), la cual emitió el perfil ecotoxicológico del Nombre46047 y estableció criterios de referencia ambiental (0,73 µg/L agudo y 0,0057 µg/L crónico) para proteger la biota acuática (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
12. Se ordenó a las empresas responsables del derrame la presentación y ejecución de un plan de monitoreo y remediación ambiental, mediante el oficio MS-DPRSA-USA-1719-2024, que incluyó muestreos de agua, suelo y sedimentos, aplicación de bioindicadores (BMWP-CR) y acciones de limpieza y control del sitio, conforme al Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 37757-S, Reglamento sobre valores guía en suelos para descontaminación de sitios afectados por emergencias ambientales y derrames (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
En primer término, debe indicarse que el suministro de agua potable constituye un servicio público esencial y oneroso. La jurisprudencia de la Sala, en materia de suministro de agua potable, se ha dirigido fundamentalmente a la protección del derecho a la vida y a la salud de las personas físicas. Esos derechos implican la posibilidad de exigir ciertas prestaciones del Estado, ámbito en el cual el Estado se ve obligado a proporcionar algunos servicios públicos, sobre todo los que resultan esenciales para mantener condiciones sanitarias favorables a la preservación de la vida y la salud de las personas. De este modo, garantizar la pureza del líquido para consumo humano, así como la continuidad en el suministro de éste, forman parte de un debido y eficiente servicio al abonado, y a su vez garantiza sus derechos fundamentales más elementales.
La Constitución Política recoge, implícitamente, el derecho fundamental de los administrados al buen y eficiente funcionamiento de los servicios públicos, esto es, que sean prestados con elevados estándares de calidad, el cual tiene como correlato necesario la obligación de las administraciones públicas de prestarlos de forma continua, regular, célere, eficaz y eficiente. Esta última obligación se desprende de la relación sistemática de varios preceptos constitucionales, tales como el 140, inciso 8, el cual le impone al Poder Ejecutivo el deber de “Vigilar el buen funcionamiento de los servicios y dependencias administrativas”, el 139, inciso 4), en cuanto incorpora el concepto de “buena marcha del Gobierno” y el 191, en la medida que incorpora el principio de “eficiencia de la administración”. Esa garantía individual atípica o innominada se acentúa en tratándose de servicios públicos esenciales como el abastecimiento de agua potable (ver en este sentido, la Sentencia N° 2003-11222, de las 17:48 horas del 30 de septiembre de 2003, reiterada en la N°2019-005626, de las 09:45 horas del 29 de marzo de 2019).
Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados, este Tribunal descarta la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de la parte amparada. De los informes rendidos por los representantes de las autoridades recurridas -que se tienen dados bajo juramento con las consecuencias, incluso penales, previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción-, la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto y de lo expuesto oficialmente por el Ministerio de Salud en su comunicación pública de 4 de setiembre de 2024 (https://www.ministeriodesalud.go.cr/index.php/prensa/61-noticias-2024/1939-aclaracion-sobre-el-informe-tecnico-ms-dprsa-usa-1536-2024), se acreditó: en primer lugar, que el Informe Técnico N.° MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024 no estableció nuevos límites máximos permitidos para el Nombre46047 ni modificó el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 38924-S –cuyo parámetro general para plaguicidas y metabolitos en agua potable de 0,1 µg/L permaneció incólume–.
En segundo lugar, los valores indicados en el informe tuvieron carácter estrictamente provisional y de emergencia, diseñados para gestionar la contingencia del derrame en la cuenca del río Barranca, y no sustituyeron las acciones administrativas exigibles cuando se detectan incumplimientos del Decreto. En tercer lugar, ante la emergencia se dispuso la suspensión temporal del suministro y el abastecimiento mediante camiones cisterna, mientras se realizaban análisis de laboratorio. En cuarto lugar, los resultados analíticos del 31 de julio de 2024 (recibidos el 2 de agosto) no detectaron Nombre46047 ni ETU en los puntos finales de la cuenca ni en pozos de consumo humano, por lo que se recomendó la habilitación del servicio, todo ello en coordinación interinstitucional con MAG, AyA y MINAE (mesa técnica del 1.º de agosto de 2024). Así las cosas, se tiene que el acto impugnado no alteró los VMA del Decreto 38924-S, pues su naturaleza es técnico-instrumental y transitoria, propia de la gestión del riesgo en emergencia, sujeta a restablecer el pleno cumplimiento del Decreto una vez controlado el evento.
De ahí que no se configuró una derogatoria singular ni una reforma material del Reglamento por vía de hecho, y no se lesionó el principio de legalidad ni el de reserva reglamentaria. En ese sentido, no es cierto que se “elevaran” umbrales permanentes, pues la autoridad interrumpió el servicio, abasteció por cisternas, sometió la decisión a análisis de riesgo con factores de protección y a verificación analítica independiente (Laboratorio Nacional de Aguas), y recomendó reponer el servicio cuando las mediciones no detectaron la presencia de los contaminantes. Ese proceder resulta compatible con el estándar precautorio y con la no regresión: las medidas fueron provisionales, restrictivas y orientadas a minimizar exposición durante la contingencia, sin relajar el marco permanente del Decreto.
El siguiente cuadro presenta la comparación entre los Valores Máximos Admisibles (VMA) establecidos en el Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable, y los valores guía provisionales adoptados por el Ministerio de Salud durante la emergencia ambiental ocurrida en el río Barranca, Puntarenas, en 2024, producto del derrame del fungicida Vondozeb 62 OD (mancozeb y su metabolito Nombre46048 -ETU-).
Sustancia VMA según Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S (µg/L) Valor Adoptado durante la Emergencia (µg/L) Observaciones Nombre46047 0.1 6.0 Valor guía provisional de carácter no normativo, adoptado para gestionar la emergencia con enfoque precautorio y metodologías internacionales (OMS, US EPA, EFSA).
Nombre46048 (ETU) 0.1 0.16 Metabolito del mancozeb. Valor derivado con base en dosis de referencia crónica (RfD) de la US EPA, empleado con factores de protección adicionales para ampliar el margen de seguridad.
Aplicación Valores permanentes y obligatorios según Decreto Ejecutivo.
Valores transitorios y técnicos, aplicables solo durante la emergencia.
No sustituyen los VMA del reglamento; se usaron para orientar decisiones inmediatas hasta restablecer el cumplimiento pleno.
Del examen integral de los argumentos expuestos por la Dirección de Salud Ambiental y la Unidad de Salud Ambiental del Ministerio de Salud, no se desprende la existencia de lesión alguna a derechos fundamentales. En ese sentido, consta que, tras la emergencia ambiental ocurrida en el río Barranca, Puntarenas, producto del derrame del fungicida Vondozeb 62 OD, cuyo ingrediente activo es el Nombre46047 y su metabolito principal la Nombre46048 (ETU), el Ministerio de Salud emitió el oficio MS-DPRSA-USA-1536-2024, de fecha 30 de julio de 2024, con el propósito de establecer valores guía provisionales que permitieran una gestión sanitaria inmediata del riesgo. Dicho documento se elaboró en el marco de una situación excepcional de contaminación, y su finalidad fue determinar concentraciones provisionales de referencia sanitaria para el agua de consumo humano, con el fin de restablecer el abastecimiento seguro a la población afectada.
Del informe técnico rendido por las autoridades sanitarias se acredita que el acto administrativo en cuestión no modificó ni sustituyó los Valores Máximos Admisibles (VMA) establecidos en el Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, “Reglamento para la Calidad del Agua Potable”. Por el contrario, se trató de un instrumento técnico-científico y precautorio, de naturaleza no normativa ni general, emitido en el marco de una emergencia ambiental, cuyo objetivo fue orientar temporalmente la gestión del riesgo sanitario y ambiental hasta restablecer el cumplimiento íntegro del citado reglamento.
El propio informe aclara que los valores adoptados —0,006 mg/L (6 µg/L) para Nombre46047 y 0,16 µg/L para ETU— fueron calculados mediante metodologías internacionalmente reconocidas, bajo el enfoque de Evaluación de Riesgo para la Salud Humana (OMS, US EPA, EFSA), aplicando factores de protección adicionales y supuestos conservadores. Estos valores fueron transitorios, de uso exclusivo durante la emergencia, y no tuvieron carácter regulatorio, de modo que no sustituyeron ni modificaron el marco normativo vigente.
Así las cosas, el Ministerio de Salud actuó dentro de las atribuciones que le confiere la Ley General de Salud, la cual le impone el deber de tutelar la salud de la población y dictar medidas inmediatas frente a cualquier amenaza sanitaria. En este caso, las medidas adoptadas respondieron a una situación de peligro real e inminente derivada de un derrame químico, por lo que resultaba indispensable emitir lineamientos técnicos que orientaran las decisiones urgentes para proteger la salud humana y el ambiente, sin que ello implicara una alteración del marco reglamentario.
De esta manera, contrario a lo sostenido por la parte recurrente, los principios de precaución, prevención, progresividad y no regresión ambiental fueron observados, se aprecia que, el Ministerio de Salud aplicó criterios de seguridad, utilizando parámetros crónicos de exposición y márgenes adicionales de protección, lo que incrementó la garantía sanitaria frente a la eventual exposición de grupos vulnerables. Además, mantuvo la coordinación con el MINAE-DIGECA, que estableció criterios ecotoxicológicos para proteger la biota acuática y supervisó el plan de monitoreo y remediación ambiental impuesto a las empresas responsables, tal como se puede apreciar en las pruebas aportadas.
De lo anterior se concluye que el acto impugnado no tuvo efectos normativos ni implicó modificación alguna del Decreto Ejecutivo N.º 38924-S, sino que constituyó una medida técnica temporal, emitida en ejercicio legítimo de la competencia sanitaria, para gestionar una emergencia ambiental concreta. De esta manera, no se advierte lesión a los derechos consagrados en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, ni infracción a los principios ambientales invocados.
Finalmente, consta que la respuesta sanitaria fue razonable y proporcionada a la emergencia, teniendo en consideración que, el informe técnico impugnado no modificó el régimen jurídico vigente ni redujo el nivel de protección del Decreto 38924-S, a lo que se suma que las actuaciones evidencian prevención, precaución y coordinación, por lo que no se acreditó vulneración a los artículos 21 y 50 constitucionales ni a los principios in dubio pro aqua, precautorio, preventivo, progresividad o no regresión. Consecuentemente, se desestima el presente proceso, y la misma suerte corren las coadyuvancias presentadas. Lo anterior tal como se indica en la parte dispositiva de la presente sentencia.
Con el debido respeto, concuerdo con el voto de mayoría que declara sin lugar el recurso; sin embargo, lo fundamento con las siguientes razones:
La protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes, tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; la Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), para citar solo algunos. Esto hace necesario, en materia ambiental, separar el control de constitucionalidad del control de legalidad. En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente, de fácil constatación, de cierta importancia o gravedad y que afecte, de forma directa, a alguna persona o comunidad en concreto.
De lo contrario, el tema debe plantearse y discutirse en la vía de legalidad. Por ello, el simple incumplimiento de obligaciones y deberes impuestos legalmente a las diversas administraciones públicas en materia ambiental es propio de ser conocido en la vía de legalidad –administrativa o jurisdiccional-, donde, con mucha mayor amplitud, podrán fiscalizarse los incumplimientos u omisiones que se acusen. Debe tenerse presente que el recurso de amparo es un proceso sumario, informal, sencillo y rápido, de manera tal, que desde el momento mismo en que la Administración interviene en un asunto ambiental, en ejercicio de sus competencias, y sustancia un procedimiento, con el dictado de actos administrativos, su conocimiento resulta ajeno al ámbito de acción de esta jurisdicción especializada. Por ello, la revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria, toda vez que el diseño del proceso de amparo es incompatible con la contrastación o revisión de criterios técnicos o jurídicos elaborados al amparo de las normas legales o reglamentarias vigentes o con la evacuación de nuevos y mayores elementos de convicción necesarios para la contrastación o revisión de los criterios que ya consten en el expediente administrativo del caso.
Lo contrario implicaría transformar el amparo en un proceso ordinario de pleno conocimiento, con lo cual se desnaturalizaría y se tornarían nugatorios los fines para los cuales ha sido diseñado, con lo cual, perdería su condición de instrumento para la tutela eficaz de los derechos fundamentales. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, estimo que cuando un ente u órgano público ha intervenido, en diversas formas, o ha dictado actos administrativos en relación con un asunto ambiental, su conocimiento y fiscalización corresponde a la jurisdicción de lo contencioso administrativo. Es, precisamente, la verificación de la existencia de esa intervención administrativa lo que determina que el asunto sea competencia de la vía legalidad. En consecuencia, este recurso debió haberse rechazado de plano, ya que su objeto es una cuestión propia de ser discutida, analizada y resuelta en la vía de legalidad. Empero, como no se hizo así, lo procedente es declararlo sin lugar, sin hacer pronunciamiento alguno con respecto al fondo de la cuestión planteada por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el 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 N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.
POR TANTO:
Se declara SIN LUGAR el recurso. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado consigna razones diferentes, al estimar que corresponde a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.
Fernando Cruz C.
Nombre211 a.i Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Ingrid Hess H.
Ronald Salazar Murillo Ileana Sánchez N.
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.