← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 41926-2025 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 19/12/2025
OutcomeResultado
The amparo is denied as it was proven that the Municipality of Garabito and the CNE carried out concrete actions within their competencies to address the undermining of public road 611017.Se declara sin lugar el recurso de amparo al comprobarse que la Municipalidad de Garabito y la CNE realizaron actuaciones concretas dentro de sus competencias para atender el socavamiento de la vía pública 611017.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Court heard an amparo filed by residents of Playa Hermosa, Garabito, against the Municipality of Garabito, SINAC, and the CNE. Petitioners alleged violations of their rights to life, free transit, and a healthy environment, caused by progressive erosion of public road 611017 —the sole access to the Playa Hermosa-Punta Mala National Wildlife Refuge—, exacerbated by an illegal culvert draining the Laguna Pochotal wetland and authorities’ failure to carry out mitigation works. The Court found that, after damage from Tropical Wave #12 in July 2025, the Municipality and the CNE took concrete actions: inspections, technical reports, interagency coordination, and contracting of heavy machinery to stabilize the slope. It held there was no inaction, that actions were within ordinary competencies, and the CNE was not required to recommend a national emergency declaration. Regarding remaining repairs, it urged the Municipality to address them through ordinary channels within a reasonable time. The amparo was dismissed.La Sala Constitucional conoció un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos de Playa Hermosa de Garabito contra la Municipalidad de Garabito, el SINAC y la CNE. Los recurrentes alegaban la violación de sus derechos a la vida, al libre tránsito y a un ambiente sano, debido al socavamiento progresivo de la calle pública 611017 —único acceso al Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa-Punta Mala—, agravado por una alcantarilla ilegal que drena el humedal Laguna Pochotal y por la omisión de las autoridades de ejecutar obras de mitigación. La Sala constató que, tras el daño causado por la onda tropical #12 en julio de 2025, la Municipalidad y la CNE sí realizaron actuaciones concretas: inspecciones, informes técnicos, coordinación interinstitucional y contratación de maquinaria para estabilizar el talud. Determinó que no existió inacción, que las actuaciones se ajustaron a las competencias ordinarias y que la CNE no estaba obligada a recomendar una declaratoria de emergencia nacional. En cuanto al resto de reparaciones, conminó a la Municipalidad a atenderlas por los mecanismos ordinarios en un plazo razonable. El recurso se declaró sin lugar.
Key excerptExtracto clave
VI.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. After analyzing the evidence presented, this Court dismisses the alleged violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights. From the reports provided by the representatives of the respondent authorities —given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, set forth in Article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction— and the evidence submitted for the resolution of the matter, it has been duly proven that both the Municipality of Garabito and the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response did carry out concrete actions to address the reported situation, within the framework of their respective legal and regulatory competencies. In this regard, it was confirmed that the undermining of public road No. 611017 resulted from Tropical Wave No. 12 of July 2, 2025, a circumstance that was timely identified and reported by the Municipal Emergency Committee, which triggered the activation of response mechanisms, such as site inspection, preventive signage, and the preparation of the corresponding technical report. Furthermore, within reasonable timeframes, the necessary studies and diagnostics were prepared to define the required intervention, the formal request for undeclared emergency intervention was sent to the CNE, and the essential environmental permits were obtained from SINAC, given that the affected area is located within a specially protected zone. Consequently, and in accordance with this Court's reiterated case law, constitutional protection through amparo is not appropriate when it is verified that the administration has activated institutional mechanisms within the scope of its competence to address the matter, even if the results have not yet materialized, as an unreasonable period has not elapsed. Finally, regarding the remaining repairs of the road infrastructure in question, the respondent authorities of the Municipality of Garabito are reminded that these must be addressed through the ordinary mechanisms of local government and within a reasonable time, as an objective constitutional and legal obligation.VI.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados, este Tribunal desestima 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- y la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto ha sido debidamente acreditado que, tanto la Municipalidad de Garabito como la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias sí realizaron actuaciones concretas para atender la situación denunciada, en el marco de sus respectivas competencias legales y reglamentarias. Al respecto, se comprobó que el socavamiento en la vía pública No. 611017 fue consecuencia de la onda tropical No. 12 del 02 de julio de 2025, circunstancia que fue oportunamente identificada y reportada por el Comité Municipal de Emergencias, lo que generó la activación de los mecanismos de atención, tales como la inspección de sitio, señalización preventiva y la preparación del informe técnico correspondiente. Aunado a ello, dentro de los plazos razonables se elaboraron los estudios y diagnósticos necesarios para definir la intervención requerida, se remitió a la CNE la solicitud formal de intervención de emergencia no declarada y se gestionaron los permisos ambientales indispensables ante el SINAC, dado que el área afectada se ubica dentro de una zona de especial protección. En consecuencia, y conforme a lo indicado por esta Sala en jurisprudencia reiterada, no procede la tutela constitucional por la vía del amparo cuando se constata que la administración ha activado los mecanismos institucionales dentro del margen de su competencia para atender el asunto, aunque los resultados aún no se hayan materializado pues, además, no ha transcurrido un plazo desproporcionado. Por último, en relación con el resto de las reparaciones de la infraestructura vial en cuestión, tomen nota las autoridades accionadas de la Municipalidad de Garabito, que estas deberán ser atendidas mediante los mecanismos ordinarios del gobierno local y dentro de un plazo razonable, como obligación objetiva constitucional y legal.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"no procede la tutela constitucional por la vía del amparo cuando se constata que la administración ha activado los mecanismos institucionales dentro del margen de su competencia para atender el asunto, aunque los resultados aún no se hayan materializado pues, además, no ha transcurrido un plazo desproporcionado."
"Constitutional protection through amparo is not appropriate when it is verified that the administration has activated institutional mechanisms within the scope of its competence to address the matter, even if the results have not yet materialized, as an unreasonable period has not elapsed."
Considerando VI
"no procede la tutela constitucional por la vía del amparo cuando se constata que la administración ha activado los mecanismos institucionales dentro del margen de su competencia para atender el asunto, aunque los resultados aún no se hayan materializado pues, además, no ha transcurrido un plazo desproporcionado."
Considerando VI
"la existencia objetiva de una obligación del Estado en lo referente a la protección del derecho a la vida no apareja, ineludiblemente, un derecho subjetivo de las personas a exigir, a través de los organismos judiciales, que se tome una medida determinada, pero sí a que se tomen las medidas idóneas en tutela de ese derecho, ante actitudes abiertamente negligentes de las autoridades públicas."
"The objective existence of a State obligation regarding the protection of the right to life does not necessarily entail a subjective right of individuals to demand, through judicial bodies, that a specific measure be taken, but it does entail that appropriate measures be taken to protect that right in the face of openly negligent attitudes of public authorities."
Considerando IV
"la existencia objetiva de una obligación del Estado en lo referente a la protección del derecho a la vida no apareja, ineludiblemente, un derecho subjetivo de las personas a exigir, a través de los organismos judiciales, que se tome una medida determinada, pero sí a que se tomen las medidas idóneas en tutela de ese derecho, ante actitudes abiertamente negligentes de las autoridades públicas."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
Case File: 25-025749-0007-CO Type of Matter: Amparo remedy Ruling with protected data, in accordance with current regulations SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on December nineteen, two thousand twenty-five.
Amparo remedy processed in case file number 25-025749-0007-CO filed by [Name 001], identity card [Value 001] AND [Name 002], identity card [Value 002], against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO, the SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN, and the COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS.
WHEREAS:
Those most harmed will be the sea turtles, as their nesting areas will be altered and their location upon arriving at the beach will be distorted by the effect of the lights to be installed in this tourist complex, by sonic pollution and by garbage and sewage that contaminate the marine-coastal zone, something similar occurring to what happened at Tamarindo beach with its tourist development regarding the spawning of sea turtles. There is a mandate given by the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, to which Costa Rica is a Party, specific to this type of development on nesting beaches. (Highlighting added). (the original wording and spelling are preserved, italics do not correspond to the original).
THIRTEENTH ALLEGED FACT: This fact is rejected. It does not fall within the competence of my represented entity, since the administration of local interests and services of the canton is the competence of the Local Government, in this specific case the Municipality of Garabito, as well as the Ministry of Environment, Energy and the National System of Conservation Areas, since it is a protected maritime-terrestrial zone and national park.
FOURTEENTH: The mayor of the Canton of Garabito has verbally expressed his refusal to carry out the necessary works for the repair of the public road, which constitutes a serious and unjustified omission that contravenes the legal and constitutional obligations of the local government. Such conduct directly violates the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Political Constitution (right to life and freedom of transit), exposing the inhabitants to imminent risk. In addition to the right to a healthy and balanced environment (Article 50, Political Constitution). The eventual collapse of the road would mean the total isolation of the communities, affecting school-age children, older adults, persons with disabilities, and other users who depend on this route for their essential activities. Likewise, this omission breaches Article 4 of the Municipal Code, which establishes the obligation of local governments to guarantee the safety, well-being, and accessibility of public roads within their jurisdiction. (See as evidence the official video of refusal issued by the mayor and published on the Facebook page of the Municipality of Garabito https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fcn2rkR19). (the original wording and spelling are preserved, italics do not correspond to the original).
FOURTEENTH ALLEGED FACT: This fact is rejected. It does not fall within the competence of my represented entity, since the administration of local interests and services of the canton is the competence of the Local Government, in this specific case the Municipality of Garabito, as well as the Ministry of Environment, Energy and the National System of Conservation Areas, since it is a protected maritime-terrestrial zone and national park.
FIFTEENTH: The collapse of the road or an eventual closure would also limit access to and enjoyment of the public zone of Playa Hermosa. (the original wording and spelling are preserved, italics do not correspond to the original).
FIFTEENTH ALLEGED FACT: This fact is rejected. It does not fall within the competence of my represented entity, since the administration of local interests and services of the canton is the competence of the Local Government, in this specific case the Municipality of Garabito, as well as the Ministry of Environment, Energy and the National System of Conservation Areas, since it is a protected maritime-terrestrial zone and national park. (…)
By means of official letter No. CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025 dated September 9, 2025, a response was given to Mrs. Xinia Espinoza Morales, Secretary of the Municipal Council of Garabito, regarding the "Request to declare a national state of emergency for the public road identified under number 611017, located in Playa Hermosa, in the canton of Garabito." Wherein she was informed as follows (original wording and spelling are preserved, bold and underlining added): "Having reviewed and analyzed what was agreed upon by the Honorable members of the Municipal Council of Garabito, regarding the request for a national emergency declaration for public road 611017, and in accordance with the factual and legal framework set forth, it can be deduced with clear certainty that we are not facing a situation that can and should be declared under the exceptional regime in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 8488 by the Executive Branch, but rather it corresponds to a situation that has been brewing over time (there is no causal link) which falls under the competence, stewardship, oversight, planning, construction, maintenance, and improvements of the cantonal road network, which is framed within the stewardship of the Municipal Corporation of Garabito, which has competence over the cantonal routes within its jurisdiction and the works carried out therein in public domain zones.
That is, it is part of attending to its ordinary competencies. The attention of ordinary situations by other government entities cannot and should not be provided by the CNE; since doing so would result in substituting the attention of their own competency-based activity with an exceptional regime, which is clearly improper. For greater abundance, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through its ruling No. 3410-92 of 2:45 p.m., on November 10, 1992, reiterated in ruling No. 1369-2001 of 2:30 p.m. on February 14, 2001, and where said jurisprudential line has been maintained, ratified, and strengthened to date, in countless further dimensionings, states the following: (…) Under this order of ideas, adequate communication and joint and duly coordinated action is recommended between the authorities of the Municipality of Garabito, the Ministry of Public Works, and CONAVI; since as the main actors in the case under study, they have the duty to bring their competencies together towards the same end, in a concerted and systemic manner, so that the situation presented on public road 611017 does not exceed their possibilities for action and thus they can find a prompt and complete solution to the alleged condition afflicting the canton of Garabito.
Therefore, this Commission is inhibited from recommending the establishment of extraordinary measures to the Executive Branch, as this Honorable Council intends, since by constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential mandate, a national emergency situation (due to a state of necessity and urgency) is not accredited, but rather, on the contrary, the problem must be addressed through the normal and ordinary channels of the entities competent in that matter and through adequate and correct urban and tourism planning by the local government of the area." 8. ON THE REPORTS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR RISK PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE:
8.1 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT UNIT: According to an email sent by Mr. Carlos Picado Rojas, head of the Unit, to date there are no reports of the route in the current Emergency Plans, reported by the Municipality of Garabito: “Andrey reviewed our records and we found no reference to this road segment in the general plans” 8.2 FROM THE RISK RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS UNIT (UIAR): According to official letter No. CNE-UIAR-OF-195-2025 dated September 18, 2025, signed by Mr. Lidier Esquivel Valverde, Head of the Unit, he indicated (original wording and spelling are preserved, italics and underlining do not correspond to the original): “In relation to the request described through the Amparo Appeal described in the subject line, referring to a condition of roads in the Playa Hermosa de Garabito sector, our files also do not contain any technical report from the place indicated by the claimants [Name 001] and [Name 002].
By the nature of what is indicated in the document where the facts are developed, it seems to be more related to a request for first impact or investment project under the umbrella of an emergency declaration.” 8.3 RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS MANAGEMENT UNIT (UGPR). According to official letter No. CNE-UGPR-OF-2793-2025 dated September 18, 2025, it states, in what is of interest (original wording and spelling are preserved, italics and underlining do not correspond to the original): “(…) I consider it necessary to include the intervention modalities through which the law allows the CNE to intervene, as many people are unaware of the possibility of action that our institution possesses: a. Emergency contracting: Reconstruction works included in a General Emergency Plan covered by a valid decree: ➢ There must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the reported damage and the work to be executed (an unavoidable requirement of the Causal Link indicated by law). ➢ The damage to be repaired must be recorded in a General Emergency Plan of a valid decree. ➢ The Investment Plan must be presented by a state institution and/or a municipality, which will be named the Executing Unit of the project. ➢ The request must be accompanied by the Cost-Benefit ratio, budget estimate, commitment letter, among others; using the formats that the institutions are aware of and that were created for this purpose. ➢ There must be availability of resources in the National Emergency Fund, as these funds are very limited and in some cases are insufficient, so each request must be analyzed in detail. b. Contracting for an undeclared emergency (First Impact): consists of contracting machinery for a maximum of three hundred hours, for intervention during the Response Phase of an extraordinary event or for the attention of local emergencies, that is, urgent work necessary to eliminate landslides and restore passage, among others; that protect life and provide safety to the inhabitants and their property.
For this modality, the following must be complied with: ➢ There must be a cause-and-effect relationship between the reported damage and the generating event (local event) (Causal Link). ➢ Present a situation report from the Municipal Emergency Committee (CME), endorsed by the CNE Liaison Officer available at the time. ➢ Present a technical report according to the established format with the specific support requirement, endorsed by the highest-ranking official and by an engineering or architecture professional who must be an employee of the requesting entity. According to the document, the CNE is requested to make an emergency declaration; it is recalled that this is the absolute power of the Executive Branch of the Republic. According to our records, a contracting request was processed for 150 hours of a 30-ton excavator and 150 hours of a 12-cubic-meter-capacity dump truck, contract number 0062025201600256, procedure number 2025PX-000260-0006500001, CEL-Leasing of heavy machinery to address an emergency in the canton of Garabito, slope stabilization in Playa Hermosa.
Contract awarded to WSP CONSTRUCTORA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, award made since August 21, 2025. The indicated work began in the first days of September 2025 on the access road to Playa Hermosa. (…)” 8.4 OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT UNIT: According to report No. 611-2025-002 dated July 9, 2025, on the effects of tropical wave #12 in the country from Wednesday, July 2, 2025 (original wording and spelling are preserved, italics and underlining do not correspond to the original): (…)
As can be demonstrated, my represented entity has not violated any right of the residents of Playa Hermosa de Jaco, the foregoing, because the area under appeal is located within a protection zone, both maritime-terrestrial and the Punta Mala Wildlife Refuge, which do not fall within the competencies of my represented entity, since, as developed in the preceding sections, by constitutional mandate the administration of local interests and services of the canton is the competence of the Local Government, and for the specific case, the Municipality of Garabito, as a state legal entity, with its own assets and personality (Article 2 of the Municipal Code No. 7794), has full legal capacity to execute all types of acts and contracts necessary to fulfill its purposes and to protect the most important legal interest to be safeguarded by the Costa Rican State, which is human life and the physical integrity of the citizens of the canton, in coordination with both the National System of Conservation Areas of Costa Rica and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, who possess the competencies regarding permits, conservation, protection in environmental matters, sustainable management of wildlife, forest resources, and water resources, as well as matters concerning wetlands, as in the case at hand.
In line with the above, it is of vital importance to emphasize two important concepts, such as state of emergency and alerts, and how to identify each of them:
• Alert: An alert is an exceptional state or condition declared by the CNE, with the intention of developing operational actions aimed at guaranteeing effectiveness in the response due to the probable manifestation or occurrence of an event, which causes an emergency situation or if there is a probability that it will cause one. They are subdivided into 4 categories: Green (informational), Yellow (preparation), Orange (mobilization or containment), and Red (response).
• Emergency Declaration: Declaration by the Executive Branch, by executive decree, based on a state of necessity and urgency, caused by circumstances of war, internal commotion, or public calamity. In Costa Rica, the declaration of a state of emergency allows managing, by the exceptional route, the actions and allocation of necessary resources to attend to the emergency, in accordance with Article 180 of the Political Constitution.
Additionally, Dr. Ernesto Jinesta Lobo, in Tratado de Derecho Administrativo, volume I, page 252 and 253, cites: “(…) The constitutional court makes an important distinction between mere urgency and a state of necessity and urgency, understanding that only in the second case may the principle of legality be displaced and the order of competencies disrupted. In this regard, it points out that 'VII.-Article 180 of the Political Constitution refers to true 'states of necessity and urgency' and not to mere urgency, which is nothing more than the execution or remedy of a given situation, which has originated from the effects of how it has been managed itself, and, under this basic premise (…) the only acceptable thing is that an exceptional treatment is allowed against the budgetary rigidity, so that the Executive Branch can agilely obtain sufficient economic, material, or other resources, to come to the aid of people and property in imminent danger (…)'".
Having clear the difference between both concepts, we proceed to indicate what an Emergency Declaration is, according to the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law No. 8488, in its Article 29, which reads: “The Executive Branch may declare, by decree, the state of emergency in any part of the national territory. The reasons for making the emergency declaration must be clearly specified in the administrative resolutions of the Commission and in the respective decrees, which will be subject to the control of constitutionality, discretion, and legality prescribed in the legal system.” (The original wording and spelling are preserved, the font, underlining, and italics do not correspond to the original) Said state of emergency, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, is a declaration by the Executive Branch, via decree, based on a state of necessity and urgency, as typified in Article 180 of the Political Constitution, caused by circumstances of war, internal commotion, and public calamity. However, it must be mentioned that not all urgencies necessarily constitute a state of emergency, to apply the exceptional regime contained in Law No. 8488.
In line with the above and in adherence to the aforementioned law, regarding the causal link, to recommend to the Executive Branch the possibility of an emergency declaration, it must be mentioned that it must comply with at least two basic aspects, which are reviewed in the analysis processes of the information provided by the Institutions, namely: 1) Coverage of the event, this corresponds to the scope of the affectation, because if it results of a local scope, it does not meet the necessary elements to be submitted for analysis and be covered by a national declaration, especially since the affectations, although they are important for the communities, do not reach the necessary scope of a causal link that can be addressed by the exceptional regime, and 2) Magnitude of the event and the damages caused by it, which in most cases respond to situations that in principle should be addressed by other institutions or entities with the competence to do so, which have mechanisms to face this type of damage through the ordinary route.
Therefore, as indicated by MSc. Carlos Picado Rojas, in the pamphlet La Declaración del Estado de Emergencia en Costa Rica, on page 7: “(…) close to the constitutional limit of emergency declarations, leads to the understanding that the act of declaration that the Executive Branch can make is necessarily preceded by a generating event, a foreseeable or unforeseeable natural or human event or one that, although foreseeable, was inevitable; that is, a tangible and consummated phenomenon that can and should be confirmed through scientific evidence or empirical evidence and that from the point of view of a causal relationship, by its magnitude, intensity, and coverage, it can be demonstrated that it is the generator of the damages and losses, and therefore of the event that can be classified as an emergency (…)” (The original wording and spelling are preserved, the font, underlining, and italics do not correspond to the original) In other words, for the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response to be able to participate in the described problem, the State of Emergency Declaration must exist, decreed by the Executive Branch, as determined by Law 8488 and its regulations.
As indicated by the Constitutional Chamber in its ruling No. 1396-2001, where it considered the following: “IX.- …In accordance with Article 180 paragraph 3 of the Political Constitution, the only body empowered to decree the state of necessity and urgency is the Executive Branch; any other body or entity that acts in the exercise of this power to make the declaration arrogates competencies that constitutionally are not its own. For this reason, the agreement taken by the Board of Directors of the National Emergency Commission in which it declared a 'national emergency' for the repair of several national highways violates the Right of the Constitution, therefore its unconstitutionality must be declared” (The font, italics, underlining, and bold do not correspond to the original).
Now then, according to what was indicated by the Operations Management Unit and the Reconstruction Process Management Unit, by the CNE; there is an intervention to address the emergency in the canton of Garabito, slope stabilization in Playa Hermosa, as a result of the effects of tropical wave #12 in the country on July 2, 2025, which consists of 300 hours according to contract No. 2025PX-000260-0006500001, CEL-Leasing of heavy machinery to address an emergency in the canton of Garabito, slope stabilization in Playa Hermosa, which is recorded in SICOP, and began in the first days of September 2025 on the access road to Playa Hermosa. But, in the case of the zone under appeal, it is not within the competence of my represented entity to intervene, since there is no causal link between the problem and any emergency declaration, nor is there any executive decree issued by the Executive Branch through the President of the Republic, because the presented problem does not meet the assumptions for an emergency declaration to exist, as extensively developed above. Being a protection zone, the competence falls directly on the National System of Conservation Areas of Costa Rica as well as the Ministry of Environment and Energy, which play fundamental roles in protecting the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources.
Therefore, as indicated in official letter No. CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025, to the members of the Municipal Council of Garabito: “this Commission is inhibited from recommending the establishment of extraordinary measures to the Executive Branch, as this Honorable Council intends, since by constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential mandate, a national emergency situation (due to a state of necessity and urgency) is not accredited, but rather, on the contrary, the problem must be addressed through the normal and ordinary channels of the entities competent in that matter and through adequate and correct urban and tourism planning by the local government of the area.” In line with the above, according to the provisions of Article 46 bis of Law No. 8488, the Municipalities must use 3% of the surplus that is not transferred to the CNE for the attention of the emergency situation within their canton, since each local government has said budget for the attention of local incidents.
Therefore, consequently, it is requested that this amparo appeal be dismissed in all its aspects against the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (CNE), since it has acted in accordance with our competencies, both ordinary and extraordinary; otherwise, regarding the Municipality of Garabito, which has not made the corresponding coordination with other involved institutions such as CONAVI, SINA, and MINAE, so that according to the competencies of each institution they can intervene in the affected problem, and recalling again that by constitutional mandate, the administration of local interests and services of the canton is the responsibility of the Local Government."
Drafted by Magistrate Cruz Castro; and,
Considering:
Before analyzing the merits of the matter—regarding the alleged violation of the right to a prompt and fulfilled procedure—it must be clarified that, since Judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008, this Chamber has referred to the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction—with some exceptions—those matters in which it is disputed whether the Public Administration has complied or not with the deadlines set by the General Law of Public Administration (articles 261 and 325) or sectoral laws for special administrative procedures, to resolve by final act an administrative procedure—initiated ex officio or at the request of a party—or to hear the pertinent administrative appeals. Precisely, this case raises an exception scenario, since it concerns the alleged failure to address a complaint, by the Municipality of Garabito, regarding the poor condition of public street 611017, located in Playa Hermosa, which, allegedly, has not been resolved within a reasonable timeframe, thus placing the physical integrity of the area's inhabitants at risk. Having clarified this point, we proceed to resolve the specific situation raised in this amparo.
The appealing party files an amparo appeal and states that public street 611017, located in Playa Hermosa de Garabito, is a route officially declared and inventoried by the municipality, and constitutes the sole access for hundreds of families, residents, tourists, and for entering the Playa Hermosa–Punta Mala National Wildlife Refuge, as well as hotels and tourism developments in the area. Currently, this route presents a severe process of scouring (socavamiento) and erosion that keeps it on the verge of collapse, with one lane closed and progressive deterioration that increases the risk to the lives of those who travel on it and threatens to completely isolate the local communities. Despite multiple community efforts, including meetings with the Municipal Council, requests for intervention, and communications to the Municipal Emergency Committee and the CNE, the Municipality of Garabito has not submitted the technical report required by the Commission for over two months, which prevents the formal activation of emergency mechanisms.
Although on July 10, 2025, the municipality requested an emergency declaration from the CNE, this has not progressed in the process; simultaneously, the local government has also not executed minimal mitigation works, even though the Municipal Council declared the road in cantonal emergency. The municipal omission daily aggravates the deterioration and compromises the fundamental rights to life, transit, and a healthy environment. The situation also entails significant environmental risks over approximately seven kilometers of beach that form part of the protected area of the refuge, a critical zone for the nesting of the olive ridley sea turtle (tortuga lora). Such risks originate, in part, from the illegal construction of a culvert (alcantarilla) and artificial channels that for years have diverted and drained waters from the Pochotal wetland, altering its ecological balance and causing the scouring of the route.
Official reports since 2002 document the environmental damage caused by these interventions, including extensive channelizations (canalizaciones), diversion of watercourses, and direct impact on the wetland and the maritime-terrestrial zone of the refuge, with potential impact on conservation programs for protected species. SINAC has not adopted preventive measures to avoid the impact on the Punta Mala Wildlife Refuge, and the municipality, despite having knowledge of formal complaints since 2024 about the illegal drainage, and despite technical reports from 2021 and 2022 confirming alterations in the wetland's water dynamics, has not executed corrective actions. Recent studies, including DIG-GGM-INF-048-2025, corroborate the existence of channelizations and lagoons associated with real estate developments in the area. Finally, it argues that the mayor's verbal refusal to carry out the necessary works constitutes an omission that violates the local government's constitutional and legal duties, compromising the safety of the road's user population, their access to the public area of Playa Hermosa, and the protection of the environment, in accordance with articles 21, 22, and 50 of the Political Constitution and article 4 of the Municipal Code.
Of importance for the decision on this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated, either because they have been thus accredited or because the respondent authority has failed to refer to them, as provided in the initial order:
Regarding the facts related to the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias:
On July 2, 2025, tropical wave No. 12 affected the national territory, causing, among other effects, damage in the canton of Garabito and in the sector of Playa Hermosa (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On July 9, 2025, the Operations Management Unit of the CNE issued report No. 611-2025-002 on the effects of tropical wave No. 12, which recorded the impact on the access road to Playa Hermosa, canton of Garabito (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On July 10, 2025, the Municipality of Garabito submitted a request for an emergency declaration to the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias regarding public road 611017, located in Playa Hermosa (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On August 21, 2025, contract No. 0062025201600256, procedure No. 2025PX-000260-0006500001, was awarded to WSP Constructora S.A., for the rental of 150 hours of a 30-ton excavator and 150 hours of a 12-cubic-meter dump truck, for the purpose of stabilizing the slope (talud) in Playa Hermosa, canton of Garabito (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
On August 26, 2025, the Municipality of Garabito sent official letter No. S.G.434-2025 to the CNE, by which it formally requested the declaration of a national state of emergency regarding public road 611017, a proceeding that was received by the CNE on August 29, 2025 (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). In the first days of September 2025, the slope stabilization works on the access road to Playa Hermosa began, in execution of the heavy machinery contract awarded to address the emergency in the canton of Garabito (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On September 9, 2025, the CNE issued official letter No. CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025 addressed to the Municipal Council of Garabito, in which it concluded that the situation of public road 611017 did not meet the requirements to recommend a national emergency declaration and that the problem should be addressed by the competent authorities through ordinary channels; said official letter was communicated by email on September 18, 2025, at ten hours and fifty-two minutes (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
On September 18, 2025, the Risk Investigation and Analysis Unit of the CNE, by official letter No. CNE-UIAR-OF-195-2025, reported that its archives contained no technical report relating to the site indicated by the appellants or to route 611017 (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On September 18, 2025, the Reconstruction Process Management Unit of the CNE, by official letter No. CNE-UGPR-OF-2793-2025, detailed the intervention modalities permitted by Law 8488, confirmed the contracting of heavy machinery for the stabilization of the slope in Playa Hermosa, and reiterated that the emergency declaration is a power of the Executive Branch, subject to compliance with the requirements of causal nexus, coverage, and magnitude of the event (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
Regarding the facts related to the Municipality of Garabito:
On July 2, 2025, tropical wave No. 12 affected the national territory, generating scouring on public road No. 611017 in Playa Hermosa, specifically 300 meters from its intersection with Route 34, due to wave impact and the existing culvert crossing (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On July 10, 2025, the Municipality of Garabito prepared the technical report, the intervention proposal, the description of the materials, and the equipment required to address the scouring, and sent the request for undeclared emergency intervention to the CNE (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On August 28, 2025, the Municipality of Garabito met with the community residents and informed them about the proceedings already carried out before the CNE, as well as those pending to execute the repair of the affected road (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). On August 29, 2025, contract No. 2025PX-000260-0006500001 was formalized, by which the start order was issued for the repair and stabilization works on the affected sector of road 611017 (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
On September 24, 2025, the Road Infrastructure Office sent report SIOP-525-2025 with a summary of the actions taken up to that moment regarding the intervention process for the affected public road (see report rendered by the respondent authorities). File 21-008119-1027-CA is being processed in the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, related to the drainage of a wetland in Playa Hermosa, La Laguna Pochotal, and the Municipality of Garabito is not a party to the process (see report rendered by the respondent authorities).
This Constitutional Tribunal has recognized the objective obligation of the State to protect human life and has ruled on administrative omissions that threaten road safety and the physical integrity of individuals. On this matter, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of judgment No. 2008-18443 of 6:01 p.m. on December 11, 2008, where it was stated:
"Prior to analyzing the specific case, it is appropriate to indicate what this Chamber has said regarding the objective obligation of the State to protect human life, in the sense that the right to life, frequently analyzed together with the right to physical integrity, has usually been understood as a right of negative content, that is, that its purpose was limited to the claim against the State that it refrain from carrying out actions aimed at eliminating the physical existence of individuals, for example, torture or the death penalty, or that it punish individuals, both public and private, who threaten the life and integrity of others, through the criminal system. However, the current trend is to impose various positive conducts on the State, in the sense that it must not disturb the physical existence of individuals and, furthermore, must act to protect them from the multiple dangers that beset them, whether these arise from the actions of the State itself or from other persons, and even from nature itself.
Hence, for example, environmental issues have become, at least in our country, a matter of constitutional significance, since the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment was elevated to the rank of a fundamental right. That said, it is necessary to clarify that the objective existence of a State obligation regarding the protection of the right to life does not entail, inevitably, a subjective right for individuals to demand, through judicial bodies, that a specific measure be taken, but it does entail the right to have suitable measures taken in protection of that right, in the face of openly negligent attitudes by public authorities. Consequently, the State acquires the obligation to regulate areas of social life from which dangers to the physical existence of the inhabitants of its territory may arise, whether through law, regulations, agreements, or other measures related to administrative organization and procedures, and the subjective right of individuals to have this carried out diligently.
Thus, the possibility of judicially demanding, through amparo, a specific type of welfare activity from the State in fulfillment of its duty to protect the life and physical integrity of its inhabitants is restricted to the clear verification of an imminent danger against those rights of individuals, such that if, for example, a certain community deemed it necessary to have a hospital for the care of its residents (or any other public work), it is not through amparo that this should be demanded, but through the previously established mechanisms and before the competent bodies and entities, who must address the petition and resolve its technical appropriateness, which does not necessarily imply a positive response. From the foregoing, it follows that the interference of the constitutional jurisdiction is only viable in the face of proven inertia by the State, through its competent bodies, in addressing the demands that the country's inhabitants make in the exercise of their rights (see in this regard judgment number 2003-11519 of ten hours and thirty minutes on October tenth, two thousand three)".
The actions of public institutions must be swift and efficient, especially when it comes to providing the services for which they are responsible. In the case of municipalities, being assigned the generic task of attending to local interests and services encompasses a broad set of activities. In judgment No. 2011-012886, of 12:44 p.m. on September 23, 2011, this matter was addressed, and on that occasion, the Chamber indicated:
"…As established by article 169 of the Political Constitution and the Municipal Code, municipalities are responsible for the administration of local services and interests, in order to promote the integral development of the cantons in harmony with national development. Consequently, the Municipality must establish a comprehensive urban planning policy in accordance with the respective law, which pursues the efficient and harmonious development of urban centers and guarantees -at least- efficient electrification and communication services; good systems for providing potable water and evacuating wastewater, adequate aqueduct and sewer systems, lighting and city beautification systems; construction, repair, and cleaning services for streets and other public roads; in general, concrete and practical plans to make the life of the population comfortable and safe. In the specific case, the respondent Mayor states that the roads mentioned by the appellant were not included in the annual strategic plan that public institutions must submit, and therefore public funds cannot be committed without being budgeted.
That they will be conducting a field visit to manage the repair of the roads claimed by the appellants. Furthermore, the report rendered under oath says nothing about the process given to the request for information regarding the lack of maintenance of public roads of social interest, nor does it indicate that a response had been given, even though the request was submitted since May of two thousand eleven. Thus, this Chamber considers that there is a clear omission in the protection of the appellants' fundamental rights attributable to the local government, since the omission of the full exercise of the powers granted by law to this entity has allowed the problems denounced by the appellants to arise and persist, especially those caused by the lack of maintenance of public roads, which, being damaged, leave the residents of the community of Nueve Millas, Moín Limón, isolated. Furthermore, the file does not demonstrate that the municipal authorities had responded to the note submitted on May 16, 2011, to the Technical Unit of the Road Board of the Municipality of the Canton, by which information was requested regarding the lack of maintenance of public roads of interest to them.
Consequently, in the judgment of this Tribunal, by its omission, the Municipality has endangered the free transit of the appellants and residents of the community in question, as well as the right to enjoy a healthy and balanced environment, recognized in articles 27 and 50 of the Political Constitution, and therefore, with respect to this entity, this appeal must be declared with merit…".
After analyzing the evidentiary elements provided, this Tribunal dismisses the injury to the fundamental rights of the protected party. From the reports rendered by the representatives of the respondent authorities—which are deemed given under oath with the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in article 44 of the Law governing this Jurisdiction—and the evidence provided for the resolution of the matter, it has been duly accredited that both the Municipality of Garabito and the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias did carry out specific actions to address the denounced situation, within the framework of their respective legal and regulatory competencies.
In this regard, it was verified that the scouring on public road No. 611017 was a consequence of tropical wave No. 12 of July 2, 2025, a circumstance that was timely identified and reported by the Municipal Emergency Committee, which led to the activation of response mechanisms, such as site inspection, preventive signage, and the preparation of the corresponding technical report. In addition, within reasonable timeframes, the necessary studies and diagnostics were prepared to define the required intervention, the formal request for undeclared emergency intervention was sent to the CNE, and the indispensable environmental permits were processed before SINAC, given that the affected area is located within a special protection zone.
Likewise, it was confirmed that the Municipality of Garabito engaged in active coordination with the CNE to seek the procurement of resources and technical assistance, which resulted in the contracting of heavy machinery, awarded on August 21, 2025, and the start of slope stabilization works during the first days of September 2025. The foregoing allows the alleged municipal inaction to be ruled out, as a continuous process of management, planning, and execution is evident, adjusted to ordinary procedures and the technical requirements for intervening in road infrastructure.
Regarding the CNE, it was also demonstrated that it acted within the regulatory framework governing its competence. As stated in official letter CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025, the Commission analyzed the request for a national emergency declaration and concluded, in accordance with Law 8488 and the jurisprudence of this Chamber, that the situation did not constitute a state of necessity and urgency that would enable the Executive Branch to decree an exceptional regime. On the contrary, the CNE determined that it was a problem of a local nature whose attention corresponded to the municipal government through ordinary mechanisms, a criterion that this jurisdiction has repeatedly upheld when the causal nexus required to activate the extraordinary emergency regime is not proven. This did not prevent, however, the CNE from providing support within its ordinary competencies, particularly in relation to undeclared emergency contracting.
Nor was it proven that the Municipality had unjustifiably refused to intervene on the road or that it had neglected the denounced situation. Rather, the reports rendered account for several actions carried out between July and September 2025, including meetings with residents, topographical surveys, processing of permits before SINAC, preparation of technical files, and coordination with the CNE to advance the intervention, which demonstrates reasonable action. Additionally, it was confirmed that, in the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, the matter related to the drainage of a wetland in Playa Hermosa, La Laguna Pochotal, is already being heard in file 21-008119-1027-CA, and the Municipality of Garabito is not a party to the process.
Consequently, and in accordance with what this Chamber has indicated in reiterated jurisprudence, constitutional protection through amparo is not appropriate when it is verified that the administration has activated institutional mechanisms within the scope of its competence to address the matter, even if the results have not yet materialized, since, additionally, a disproportionate amount of time has not elapsed. Lastly, in relation to the remaining repairs to the road infrastructure in question, let the respondent authorities of the Municipality of Garabito take note that these must be addressed through the ordinary mechanisms of the local government and within a reasonable timeframe, as an objective constitutional and legal obligation. Consequently, the present process is dismissed in accordance with what is indicated in the operative part of this judgment.
I have supported the thesis of this Tribunal, that when the claimant alleges a violation of the right to prompt and fulfilled justice in administrative proceedings, the legal dispute should be heard by the Contentious-Administrative Courts and not by this Chamber. That said, with the recent enactment of Law No. 9097, Law Regulating the Right of Petition, it has been established that this right is susceptible to judicial protection through the amparo appeal established by article 32 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, in relation to article 27 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in those cases where the petitioner considers that the material actions of the Administration, its administrative acts, or its response are affecting their fundamental rights. In my view, the recently enacted regulation does not imply that this Tribunal must modify its jurisprudential line, as, based on numeral 7 of its Law, it is exclusively responsible for defining its own competence.
Therefore, except for those legal-constitutional disputes that have been recognized by this same Chamber as exceptional cases, which are appropriate to be heard in this jurisdiction through the constitutional guarantee process of amparo, in other cases, and for the reasons given by this Tribunal (judgment No. 2008-02545 of 8:55 a.m. on February 22, 2008), the competent parties are the Judges of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, all of which is in accordance with numeral 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Law of the Constitution (values, principles, and norms), and the corresponding legal norms based on a logical, systemic, and teleological interpretation of the legal system.
As a matter of principle, I consider that cases related to the activity or inactivity of the Public Administration in the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure work must be dismissed, as that omission constitutes a matter of legality, whose discussion corresponds to the ordinary jurisdiction, before which the interested party can debate, with greater breadth, their disagreements. However, when that administrative conduct (omissive or otherwise) results in a violation of other fundamental rights protected in this constitutional jurisdiction, or affects groups considered vulnerable, I do proceed to hear the merits of the matter, as this situation constitutes an exception to my position on this subject, as is the case here, where the appealing party indicates that they reported the scouring of the public street that provides access to Playa Hermosa de Garabito, which affects the residents and tourists of the area who travel on this road; and it has not yet been repaired.
The parties are warned that, if they have provided any paper document, 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, any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the "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 the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
THEREFORE:
The appeal is declared WITHOUT MERIT. Let the respondent authorities of the Municipality of Garabito take note of what is indicated in considerando VI of this judgment. Magistrate Castillo makes a note. Magistrate Salazar Alvarado makes a note. Notify.- Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
FILE No. 25-025749-0007-CO Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church).
It is a faithful copy of the original - Taken from Nexus.PJ on: 08-05-2026 11:59:47.
Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del diecinueve de diciembre de dos mil veinticinco .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en el expediente número 25-025749-0007-CO interpuesto por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001] Y [Nombre 002], cédula de identidad [Valor 002], contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE GARABITO, EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN Y LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS.
RESULTANDO:
SEGUNDO: Es cierto la vía publica 611017, constituye una via publica Que es el único acceso a la zona publica de la Playa Hermosa, Jaco, Garabito, en el tramo descrito por los recurrentes.
TERCERO: Es cierto, lodos los lugares descritos y hoteles se encuentran sobre frente a dicha vía publica.
CUARTO: Es cierto, la vía publica ha presentado socavamiento y erosión y desde la Municipalidad se han emitido oficios a SINAC para el aval de intervención de la vía descrita, que se encuentra en la ZMT, dicho aval fue positivo y la Municipalidad se encuentra trabajando en la vía mencionada y adicionalmente la Comisión Nacional de emergencia también.
QUINTO: Que el Concejo Municipal ha declarado mediante acuerdo municipal estado de emergencia la intervención de la vía en mención, para salvaguardar la vida de los Que transitan por la vía mencionada, indicándole al alcalde a interceder dicha vía publica.”
Redacta el Magistrado Cruz Castro; y,
Considerando:
De previo a analizar el fondo del asunto -por la presunta violación del derecho a un procedimiento pronto y cumplido- debe aclararse que, a partir de la Sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008, esta Sala ha remitido a la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa -con algunas excepciones-, aquellos asuntos en los que se discute si la Administración Pública ha cumplido o no los plazos pautados por la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículos 261 y 325) o las leyes sectoriales para los procedimientos administrativos especiales, para resolver por acto final un procedimiento administrativo -instruido de oficio o a instancia de parte- o conocer de los recursos administrativos procedentes. Precisamente, en este caso se plantea un supuesto de excepción, pues se está ante la supuesta falta de atención de una denuncia, por parte de la Municipalidad de Garabito, por el mal estado de la calle pública 611017, ubicada en Playa Hermosa la cual, presuntamente, no ha sido resueltas dentro de un plazo razonable, lo que coloca en riesgo la integridad física de las personas habitantes de la zona. Aclarado el punto, se entra a resolver la situación concreta planteada en este amparo.
La parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo y expone que, la calle pública 611017, ubicada en Playa Hermosa de Garabito, es una vía oficialmente declarada e inventariada por la municipalidad, y constituye el único acceso para cientos de familias, residentes, turistas y para ingresar al Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Playa Hermosa–Punta Mala, así como a hoteles y desarrollos turísticos de la zona. Actualmente, esta ruta presenta un grave proceso de socavamiento y erosión que la mantiene al borde del colapso, con un carril cerrado y un deterioro progresivo que incrementa el riesgo para la vida de quienes transitan por ella y amenaza con aislar completamente a las comunidades locales. Pese a múltiples gestiones comunitarias, incluidas reuniones con el Concejo Municipal, solicitudes de intervención y comunicaciones al Comité Municipal de Emergencias y a la CNE, la Municipalidad de Garabito no ha remitido el informe técnico requerido por la Comisión desde hace más de dos meses, lo cual impide activar formalmente los mecanismos de emergencia.
Aunque el 10 de julio de 2025 la municipalidad solicitó a la CNE una declaratoria de emergencia, esta no ha avanzado en el trámite; simultáneamente, el gobierno local tampoco ha ejecutado obras mínimas de mitigación, aun cuando el Concejo Municipal declaró la vía en emergencia cantonal. La omisión municipal agrava diariamente el deterioro y compromete los derechos fundamentales a la vida, al tránsito y al ambiente sano. La situación también entraña riesgos ambientales significativos sobre aproximadamente siete kilómetros de playa que forman parte del área protegida del refugio, zona crítica para el anidamiento de la tortuga lora. Tales riesgos se originan, en parte, en la construcción ilegal de una alcantarilla y canales artificiales que desde años atrás desvían y drenan aguas del humedal Pochotal, alterando su equilibrio ecológico y provocando el socavamiento de la ruta. Informes oficiales desde 2002 documentan el daño ambiental causado por estas intervenciones, incluyendo canalizaciones extensas, desvío de cauces y afectación directa al humedal y a la zona marítimo-terrestre del refugio, con potencial impacto sobre programas de conservación de especies protegidas.
El SINAC no ha adoptado medidas preventivas para evitar la afectación al Refugio de Vida Silvestre Punta Mala, y la municipalidad, pese a conocer denuncias formales desde 2024 sobre el drenaje ilegal, y pese a informes técnicos de 2021 y 2022 que confirman alteraciones en la dinámica hídrica del humedal, no ha ejecutado acciones correctivas. Estudios recientes, incluido el DIG-GGM-INF-048-2025, corroboran la existencia de canalizaciones y lagunas asociadas a desarrollos inmobiliarios en la zona. Finalmente, aduce que la negativa verbal del alcalde a realizar las obras necesarias configura una omisión que vulnera deberes constitucionales y legales del gobierno local, comprometiendo la seguridad de la población usuaria de la vía, su acceso a la zona pública de Playa Hermosa y la protección del ambiente, conforme a los artículos 21, 22 y 50 de la Constitución Política y el artículo 4 del Código Municipal.
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:
Sobre los hechos relacionados con la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias:
El 02 de julio de 2025, la onda tropical n.° 12 afectó el territorio nacional, produciendo, entre otros efectos, daños en el cantón de Garabito y en el sector de Playa Hermosa (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 09 de julio de 2025, la Unidad de Gestión de Operaciones de la CNE emitió el informe n.° 611-2025-002 sobre los efectos de la onda tropical n.° 12, en el que se registró la afectación en el camino de acceso a Playa Hermosa, cantón de Garabito (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 10 de julio de 2025, la Municipalidad de Garabito presentó ante la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias una solicitud de declaratoria de emergencia relativa a la vía pública 611017, ubicada en Playa Hermosa (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 21 de agosto de 2025, se adjudicó la contratación n.° 0062025201600256, procedimiento n.° 2025PX-000260-0006500001, a favor de WSP Constructora S.A., para el alquiler de 150 horas de pala excavadora de 30 toneladas y 150 horas de vagoneta de 12 metros cúbicos, con el propósito de estabilizar el talud en Playa Hermosa, cantón de Garabito (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 26 de agosto de 2025, la Municipalidad de Garabito remitió a la CNE el oficio n.° S.G.434-2025, mediante el cual solicitó formalmente la declaratoria de estado de emergencia nacional respecto de la vía pública 611017, gestión que fue recibida por la CNE el 29 de agosto de 2025 (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). En los primeros días de setiembre de 2025 dieron inicio los trabajos de estabilización del talud en el camino de acceso a Playa Hermosa, en ejecución de la contratación de maquinaria pesada adjudicada para atender la emergencia en el cantón de Garabito (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 09 de setiembre de 2025, la CNE emitió el oficio n.° CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025 dirigido al Concejo Municipal de Garabito, en el que concluyó que la situación de la vía pública 611017 no reunía los requisitos para recomendar una declaratoria de emergencia nacional y que la problemática debía ser atendida por las autoridades competentes mediante los cauces ordinarios; dicho oficio fue comunicado por correo electrónico el 18 de setiembre de 2025 a las diez horas con cincuenta y dos minutos (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 18 de septiembre de 2025, la Unidad de Investigación y Análisis de Riesgo de la CNE, mediante oficio n.° CNE-UIAR-OF-195-2025, informó que en sus archivos no constaba ningún informe técnico relativo al sitio indicado por los recurrentes ni a la ruta 611017 (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 18 de setiembre de 2025, la Unidad de Gestión de Procesos de Reconstrucción de la CNE, mediante oficio n.° CNE-UGPR-OF-2793-2025, detalló las modalidades de intervención permitidas por la Ley 8488, confirmó la contratación de maquinaria pesada para la estabilización del talud en Playa Hermosa y reiteró que la declaratoria de emergencia es potestad del Poder Ejecutivo, sujeta al cumplimiento de los requisitos de nexo de causalidad, cobertura y magnitud del evento (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Sobre los hechos relacionados con la Municipalidad de Garabito:
El 02 de julio de 2025, la onda tropical n.° 12 afectó el territorio nacional, generando en Playa Hermosa un socavamiento en la vía pública n.° 611017, específicamente a 300 metros desde su intersección con la Ruta 34, debido al golpe del oleaje y al cruce existente de una alcantarilla (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 10 de julio de 2025, la Municipalidad de Garabito elaboró el informe técnico, la propuesta de intervención, la descripción de los materiales y el equipo requerido para atender el socavamiento, y remitió a la CNE la solicitud de intervención de emergencia no declarada (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 28 de agosto de 2025, la Municipalidad de Garabito atendió a los vecinos de la comunidad y les informó sobre las gestiones ya realizadas ante la CNE, así como aquellas pendientes para ejecutar la reparación de la vía afectada (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
El 29 de agosto de 2025, se formalizó la contratación n.° 2025PX-000260-0006500001, mediante la cual se emitió la orden de inicio para los trabajos de reparación y estabilización del sector afectado de la vía 611017 (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). El 24 de septiembre de 2025, la Oficina de Infraestructura Vial remitió el informe SIOP-525-2025 con el resumen de las actuaciones realizadas hasta ese momento respecto del proceso de intervención del camino público afectado (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas). En el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda se tramita el expediente 21-008119-1027-CA, relacionado con el drenaje de un humedal en Playa Hermosa, La Laguna Pochotal y la Municipalidad de Garabito no es parte del proceso (ver informe rendido por parte de las autoridades accionadas).
Este Tribunal Constitucional ha reconocido la obligación objetiva del Estado de tutelar la vida humana y se ha pronunciado sobre las omisiones administrativas que atentan contra la seguridad vial y la integridad física de las personas. Sobre el particular, cabe referir lo dispuesto en sentencia Nº2008-18443 de las 18:01 horas del 11 de diciembre de 2008, donde se indicó:
“Previo análisis del caso concreto, conviene indicar lo dicho por esta Sala en cuanto a la obligación objetiva del Estado de tutelar la vida humana, en el sentido que ha sido usual que el derecho a la vida, frecuentemente analizado junto con el derecho a la integridad física, haya sido entendido como un derecho de contenido negativo, es decir, que su objeto se limitaba a la pretensión contra el Estado de que se abstuviera de realizar acciones dirigidas a eliminar la existencia física de las personas, por ejemplo, la tortura o la pena de muerte, o bien, que castigara a las personas, públicas y privadas, que atentaran contra la vida e integridad de los otros, a través del sistema penal. No obstante, la tendencia actual es imponer al Estado diversas conductas positivas, en el sentido de que no debe perturbar la existencia física de las personas y, además, debe actuar en tutela de su protección, ante los múltiples peligros que la acechan, bien sea que ellos provengan de acciones del Estado mismo o de otras personas, e inclusive, de la misma naturaleza.
De ahí que, por ejemplo, los temas ambientales han pasado a ser, al menos en nuestro país, un asunto de índole constitucional, puesto que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado fue elevado a rango de derecho fundamental. Ahora bien, es menester aclarar que la existencia objetiva de una obligación del Estado en lo referente a la protección del derecho a la vida no apareja, ineludiblemente, un derecho subjetivo de las personas a exigir, a través de los organismos judiciales, que se tome una medida determinada, pero sí a que se tomen las medidas idóneas en tutela de ese derecho, ante actitudes abiertamente negligentes de las autoridades públicas. En consecuencia, se trata de que el Estado adquiere la obligación de regular las áreas de la vida social de las cuales puedan surgir peligros para la existencia física de los habitantes de su territorio, ya sea través de la ley, de reglamentos, de acuerdos o de otras medidas relacionadas con la organización y los procedimientos administrativos y del derecho subjetivo de las personas a que así se proceda, en forma diligente.
Así, la posibilidad de exigir judicialmente, a través de amparo, un tipo específico de actividad prestacional por parte del Estado en cumplimiento de su deber de protección a la vida e integridad física de sus habitantes, es restringida a la clara verificación de un peligro inminente contra esos derechos de las personas, de forma tal que si, por ejemplo, una determinada comunidad estimara necesario contar con un hospital para la atención de sus pobladores (o de cualquier otra obra pública) no es por la vía del amparo que se debe exigir, sino a través de los mecanismos previamente establecidos y ante los órganos y entes competentes, quienes deberán atender la petición y resolver su procedencia técnica, que no implica necesariamente una respuesta positiva. De lo anterior, se desprende que la injerencia de la jurisdicción constitucional solamente es viable ante la inercia comprobada del Estado, a través de sus órganos competentes en atender las demandas que en ejercicio de sus derechos realicen los habitantes del país (ver en este sentido la sentencia número 2003-11519 de las diez horas con treinta minutos del diez de octubre de dos mil tres)”.
La actuación de las instituciones públicas debe ser célere y eficiente, sobre todo cuando se trata de proveer los servicios que les competen. En el caso de las municipalidades, al asignárseles la labor genérica de atender los intereses y servicios locales, se abarca un amplio conjunto de actividades. En la sentencia No. 2011-012886, de las 12:44 horas del 23 de setiembre de 2011, se abordó esta materia, y en esa oportunidad la Sala indicó:
“…Conforme lo establece el artículo 169 de la Constitución Política y el Código Municipal, corresponde a las municipalidades la administración de los servicios e intereses locales, con el fin de promover el desarrollo integral de los cantones en armonía con el desarrollo nacional. En consecuencia, la Municipalidad debe establecer una política integral de planeamiento urbano de acuerdo con la ley respectiva, que persiga el desarrollo eficiente y armónico de los centros urbanos y que garantice -al menos- eficientes servicios de electrificación y de comunicación; buenos sistemas de provisión de agua potable y evacuación de aguas servidas, adecuados sistemas de acueductos y alcantarillado, sistemas de iluminación y ornato de las ciudades; servicios de construcción, reparación y limpieza de calles y otras vías públicas; en general planes concretos y prácticos para hacer confortable y segura la vida de la población.
En el caso concreto, el Alcalde recurrido manifiesta que los caminos mencionados por el recurrente no fueron incluidos en el plazo estratégico anual que deben presentar las instituciones públicas, por lo que no se pueden comprometer fondos públicos sin estar presupuestados. Que estarán realizando una visita de campo para gestionar reparar los caminos que alegan los recurrentes. Además del informe rendido bajo juramento no se dice nada acerca del trámite que se le diera a la solicitud de información respecto a la falta de mantenimiento de caminos públicos de interés social, ni se indica que se le hubiera dado respuesta, pese a que la gestión fue presentada desde mayo del dos mil once. Así las cosas, estima esta Sala que existe una clara omisión en la tutela de los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes atribuible al gobierno local, toda vez que la omisión del pleno ejercicio de las facultades que la ley le otorga a este ente, ha permitido que se llegue a dar y persistan los problemas denunciados por los recurrentes, sobre todo provocados por la falta de mantenimiento de caminos públicos, los cuales, al estar dañados dejan incomunicados a los vecinos de la comunidad Nueve Millas, Moín Limón.
Además, del expediente no se logra acreditar que las autoridades municipales hubieran dado respuesta a la nota presentado el 16 de mayo del 2011, en la Unidad Técnica de la Junta Vial de la Municipalidad del Cantón, por medio del cual se solicitaba información respecto a la falta de mantenimiento de caminos públicos de su interés. Por consiguiente, a juicio de este Tribunal, con su omisión, la Municipalidad ha puesto en situación de peligro el libre transitar de los recurrentes y vecinos de la comunidad en cuestión, así como el derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y equilibrado, reconocidos en los artículos 27 y 50 de la Constitución Política, por lo que, en cuanto a esta entidad, el presente recurso deberá ser declarado con lugar…”.
Después de analizar los elementos probatorios aportados, este Tribunal desestima 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- y la prueba aportada para la resolución del asunto ha sido debidamente acreditado que, tanto la Municipalidad de Garabito como la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias sí realizaron actuaciones concretas para atender la situación denunciada, en el marco de sus respectivas competencias legales y reglamentarias.
Al respecto, se comprobó que el socavamiento en la vía pública No. 611017 fue consecuencia de la onda tropical No. 12 del 02 de julio de 2025, circunstancia que fue oportunamente identificada y reportada por el Comité Municipal de Emergencias, lo que generó la activación de los mecanismos de atención, tales como la inspección de sitio, señalización preventiva y la preparación del informe técnico correspondiente. Aunado a ello, dentro de los plazos razonables se elaboraron los estudios y diagnósticos necesarios para definir la intervención requerida, se remitió a la CNE la solicitud formal de intervención de emergencia no declarada y se gestionaron los permisos ambientales indispensables ante el SINAC, dado que el área afectada se ubica dentro de una zona de especial protección.
Asimismo, se constató que la Municipalidad de Garabito efectuó coordinación activa la CNE para procurar la obtención de recursos y asistencia técnica, lo que derivó en la contratación de maquinaria pesada, adjudicada el 21 de agosto de 2025 y, el inicio de los trabajos de estabilización del talud durante los primeros días de septiembre de 2025. Lo anterior permiten descartar la alegada inacción municipal, pues se evidencia un proceso continuo de gestión, planificación y ejecución ajustado a los procedimientos ordinarios y a las exigencias técnicas para intervenir infraestructura vial.
En cuanto a la CNE, también quedó demostrado que actuó dentro del marco normativo que regula su competencia. Según consta en el oficio CNE-PRE-UAL-OF-0125-2025, la Comisión analizó la solicitud de declaratoria de emergencia nacional y concluyó, conforme a la Ley 8488 y a la jurisprudencia de esta Sala, que la situación no configuraba un estado de necesidad y urgencia que habilitara al Poder Ejecutivo para decretar un régimen por excepción. Por el contrario, la CNE determinó que se trataba de una problemática de carácter local cuya atención correspondía al gobierno municipal mediante los mecanismos ordinarios, criterio que esta jurisdicción ha sostenido reiteradamente cuando no se acredita el nexo de causalidad exigido para activar el régimen extraordinario de emergencias. Ello no impidió, sin embargo, que la CNE brindara apoyo dentro de sus competencias ordinarias, particularmente en lo relacionado con la contratación por emergencia no declarada.
Tampoco se acreditó que la Municipalidad se hubiese negado injustificadamente a intervenir la vía o que hubiera desatendido la situación denunciada. Antes bien, los informes rendidos dan cuenta de varias gestiones realizadas entre julio y septiembre de 2025, incluyendo reuniones con vecinos, levantamientos topográficos, tramitación de permisos ante SINAC, preparación de expedientes técnicos y coordinación con la CNE para avanzar en la intervención, lo que evidencia una actuación razonable. Adicionalmente, se constató que, en el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda ya se conoce, en el expediente 21-008119-1027-CA, el tema relacionado con el drenaje de un humedal en Playa Hermosa, La Laguna Pochotal y la Municipalidad de Garabito no es parte del proceso.
En consecuencia, y conforme a lo indicado por esta Sala en jurisprudencia reiterada, no procede la tutela constitucional por la vía del amparo cuando se constata que la administración ha activado los mecanismos institucionales dentro del margen de su competencia para atender el asunto, aunque los resultados aún no se hayan materializado pues, además, no ha transcurrido un plazo desproporcionado. Por último, en relación con el resto de las reparaciones de la infraestructura vial en cuestión, tomen nota las autoridades accionadas de la Municipalidad de Garabito, que estas deberán ser atendidas mediante los mecanismos ordinarios del gobierno local y dentro de un plazo razonable, como obligación objetiva constitucional y legal. Consecuentemente, se desestima el presente proceso de conformidad con lo indicado en la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia.
He apoyado la tesis de este Tribunal, de que cuando el justiciable alega una vulneración al derecho a una justicia pronta y cumplida en sede administrativa, quienes deben conocer la controversia jurídica son los Tribunales de lo Contencioso-Administrativo y no esta Sala. Ahora bien, con la reciente promulgación de la Ley n.° 9097, Ley de Regulación del Derecho de Petición, se ha establecido que ese derecho es susceptible de tutela judicial por medio del recurso de amparo establecido por el artículo 32 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en relación con el artículo 27 de la Constitución Política de la República de Costa Rica, en aquellos casos en que el peticionario considere que las actuaciones materiales de la Administración, sus actos administrativos o su respuesta le estén afectando sus derechos fundamentales. A mi modo de ver, la normativa recién promulgada no implica que este Tribunal deba modificar su línea jurisprudencial, quien, con base en el numeral 7 de su Ley, le corresponde definir exclusivamente su propia competencia.
Por ende, salvo aquellas controversias jurídico-constitucionales que han sido reconocidas por esta misma Sala como supuestos de excepción, que sí proceden ser conocidas en esta jurisdicción a través del proceso constitucional de garantía del amparo, en los demás casos, y por las razones que ha dado este Tribunal (sentencia N° 2008-02545 de las 8:55 horas de 22 de febrero de 2008), los competentes son los Jueces de la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo, todo lo cual es conforme al numeral 25, de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, el Derecho de la Constitución (valores, principios y normas) y las normas legales correspondientes con base en una interpretación lógica, sistémica y teleológica del ordenamiento jurídico.
En tesis de principio, considero que los casos relacionados con la actividad o inactividad de la Administración Pública en la reparación, construcción, modificación o demolición de cualquier obra de infraestructura, deben ser desestimados, por constituir, esa omisión, un tema de legalidad, cuya discusión corresponde a la jurisdicción ordinaria, ante la cual la persona interesada puede debatir, con mayor amplitud, sus disconformidades. Sin embargo, cuando de aquella conducta administrativa (omisiva o no) se derive alguna violación a otros derechos fundamentales tutelados en esta jurisdicción constitucional, o se afecten grupos considerados vulnerables, sí entro a conocer el fondo del asunto, por constituir esta situación una excepción a mi posición en esta materia, tal y como sucede en este caso, en que la parte recurrente indica que, denunció el socavamiento de la calle pública que da acceso a Playa Hermosa de Garabito, lo cual afecta a los vecinos y turistas de la zona que se desplazan por esta vía; y aún no se ha reparado.
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. Tomen nota las autoridades accionadas de la Municipalidad de Garabito, de lo indicado en el considerando VI de esta sentencia. El Magistrado Castillo pone nota. El Magistrado Salazar Alvarado pone nota. Notifíquese.- Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.