← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00676-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 09/01/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber partially grants the amparo against the Municipality of San Ramón, SINAC, and the Water Directorate for inaction regarding recurrent flooding caused by illegal creek pipings in the Gambrinos creek. It orders the creation of an inter-institutional commission within 5 days and an action plan within 1 month. The State, SINAC, and the municipality are ordered to pay costs, damages, and losses. CONAVI is absolved.La Sala Constitucional declara parcialmente con lugar el amparo contra Municipalidad de San Ramón, SINAC y Dirección de Agua por inacción frente a inundaciones recurrentes causadas por entubamientos ilegales en la quebrada Gambrinos. Ordena crear una comisión interinstitucional en 5 días y un plan de acción en 1 mes. Se condena al Estado, SINAC y municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios. Se absuelve al CONAVI.
SummaryResumen
Residents of La Torre neighborhood in San Juan de San Ramón filed a constitutional complaint after nearly two decades of flooding caused by illegal piping of the Gambrinos creek. Despite a 2006 ruling by the Constitutional Chamber ordering the municipality to fix the problem, illegal works persisted or worsened due to new pipings, increased runoff from urban developments, and lack of maintenance. The Chamber partially grants the amparo against the Municipality of San Ramón, the Water Directorate, and SINAC, finding that their prolonged inaction and lack of inter-institutional coordination violated the rights to life, health, environment, and property. It orders the creation of a commission within five days and a comprehensive plan within one month. The State, SINAC, and municipality are ordered to pay costs, damages, and losses. CONAVI is absolved.Vecinos del barrio La Torre, San Juan de San Ramón, interponen amparo tras casi dos décadas de inundaciones provocadas por entubamientos ilegales en la quebrada Gambrinos. Aunque la Sala Constitucional ya había condenado en 2006 al municipio a solucionar el problema, las obras ilegales persistieron o se agravaron con nuevos entubamientos, aumento del caudal por desarrollos urbanos y falta de mantenimiento. La sentencia declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso contra la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Aguas y el SINAC, al constatar la violación a los derechos a la vida, salud, ambiente y propiedad por la inacción prolongada y la falta de coordinación interinstitucional. Se ordena crear una comisión en cinco días y diseñar un plan de acción en un mes. Se condena al Estado, SINAC y municipio al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios. Se absuelve al CONAVI.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Thus, the Chamber verifies the infringement of the fundamental rights of the protected persons by the Municipality of San Ramón, SINAC, and the Water Directorate of MINAE, due to the lack of diligent and prompt action to resolve the flooding problems affecting La Torre neighborhood caused by interventions to the bed of a creek that runs through there. (…) In sum, it has been proven that the Municipality of San Ramón, the Water Directorate, and SINAC have been aware that the protection area of the said creek has been invaded and that works, including piping, have been built that disturb its bed and cause flooding affecting residents of the area, such as the protected persons living in La Torre. However, despite the fact that this problem is long-standing, there is no evidence that these authorities have coordinated the necessary actions within their respective spheres of competence to remedy the situation; rather, they limit themselves to stating, for example, that they have carried out inspections, filed complaints, or adopted agreements—without this having led to a real solution to the problem, which, as noted above, not only endangers the life and physical integrity of people but also degrades the environment. Therefore, the appeal is granted with respect to these authorities, in accordance with the provisions of the operative part of this matter. Therefore: The appeal is partially granted, only with respect to the Municipality of San Ramón, the Water Directorate of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the National System of Conservation Areas. They are ordered… to coordinate whatever is necessary, take the appropriate measures, and issue the corresponding orders within their respective areas of competence, so that: i) within FIVE DAYS from the notification of this ruling, an inter-institutional commission is created to address the problem raised by the plaintiffs regarding the flooding that occurred in La Torre; and ii) within ONE MONTH from the creation of the aforementioned inter-institutional commission, a plan is designed to address the problem that is the subject of this appeal.Así las cosas, el Tribunal comprueba la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de las personas amparadas por parte de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, el SINAC y la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, debido a la falta de actuación diligente y célere a fin de resolver los problemas de inundaciones que afectan el Dirección7294 ante las intervenciones efectuadas al cauce de una quebrada que transcurre por ahí. (…) En suma, en la especie se tiene por acreditado que la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua y el SINAC han tenido conocimiento que se ha invadido el área de protección de la quebrada mencionada y que se han construido obras, entre ellas de entubamiento, que perturban su cauce y provocan inundaciones que afectan a los vecinos de la zona, tal como el caso de las personas tuteladas, quienes residen en Dirección7294. Ahora bien, pese a que tal problemática es de larga data, no se evidencia que tales autoridades hayan coordinado lo pertinente dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas a fin de corregir la situación, sino que se limitan a indicar, verbigracia, que han hecho inspecciones, interpuesto denuncias o adoptado acuerdos, sin que ello haya derivado en una solución real de la problemática, la cual, tal como se indicó ut supra, no solo pone en riesgo la vida e integridad física de las personas, sino que deteriora al ambiente. Por ende, se acoge el recurso en cuanto a estas autoridades, de acuerdo con lo establecido en la parte dispositiva de este asunto. Por tanto: Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso, solo en cuanto a la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. Se les ordena…coordinar lo necesario, tomar las medidas adecuadas y girar las órdenes que correspondan dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, a fin de que: i) en el plazo de CINCO DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de este pronunciamiento, se cree una comisión interinstitucional que se encargue de abordar la problemática expuesta por la parte accionante respecto a las inundaciones acaecidas en Dirección7294; y ii) en el plazo de UN MES, contado a partir de la creación de la comisión interinstitucional supramencionada, se diseñe un plan para atender el problema objeto de este recurso.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En suma, en la especie se tiene por acreditado que la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua y el SINAC han tenido conocimiento que se ha invadido el área de protección de la quebrada mencionada y que se han construido obras, entre ellas de entubamiento, que perturban su cauce y provocan inundaciones que afectan a los vecinos de la zona..."
"In sum, it has been proven that the Municipality of San Ramón, the Water Directorate, and SINAC have been aware that the protection area of said creek has been invaded and that works, including piping, have been built that disturb its bed and cause flooding affecting residents of the area..."
Considerando III
"En suma, en la especie se tiene por acreditado que la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua y el SINAC han tenido conocimiento que se ha invadido el área de protección de la quebrada mencionada y que se han construido obras, entre ellas de entubamiento, que perturban su cauce y provocan inundaciones que afectan a los vecinos de la zona..."
Considerando III
"pese a que tal problemática es de larga data, no se evidencia que tales autoridades hayan coordinado lo pertinente dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas a fin de corregir la situación, sino que se limitan a indicar, verbigracia, que han hecho inspecciones, interpuesto denuncias o adoptado acuerdos, sin que ello haya derivado en una solución real de la problemática"
"despite the fact that this problem is long-standing, there is no evidence that these authorities have coordinated the necessary actions within their respective spheres of competence to remedy the situation; rather, they limit themselves to stating, for example, that they have carried out inspections, filed complaints, or adopted agreements—without this having led to a real solution to the problem"
Considerando III
"pese a que tal problemática es de larga data, no se evidencia que tales autoridades hayan coordinado lo pertinente dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas a fin de corregir la situación, sino que se limitan a indicar, verbigracia, que han hecho inspecciones, interpuesto denuncias o adoptado acuerdos, sin que ello haya derivado en una solución real de la problemática"
Considerando III
"se les ordena a [...] coordinar lo necesario, tomar las medidas adecuadas y girar las órdenes que correspondan dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, a fin de que: i) en el plazo de CINCO DÍAS [...] se cree una comisión interinstitucional [...] y ii) en el plazo de UN MES [...] se diseñe un plan para atender el problema objeto de este recurso."
"they are ordered [...] to coordinate whatever is necessary, take the appropriate measures, and issue the corresponding orders within their respective areas of competence, so that: i) within FIVE DAYS [...] an inter-institutional commission is created [...] and ii) within ONE MONTH [...] a plan is designed to address the problem that is the subject of this appeal."
Por tanto
"se les ordena a [...] coordinar lo necesario, tomar las medidas adecuadas y girar las órdenes que correspondan dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, a fin de que: i) en el plazo de CINCO DÍAS [...] se cree una comisión interinstitucional [...] y ii) en el plazo de UN MES [...] se diseñe un plan para atender el problema objeto de este recurso."
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
Date of Resolution: January 9, 2026 at 9:20 a.m.
Case File: 25-033622-0007-CO Type of matter: Recourse of amparo CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the ninth of January of two thousand twenty-six.
Recourse of amparo processed in case file number 25-033622-0007-CO, filed by Nombre103379, identity card CED57258, Nombre103380, identity card CED57259, Nombre103381, identity card CED57260, Nombre103382, identity card CED57261, and Nombre103383, identity card CED57262, against the MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY (MINAE), THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATION AREAS (SINAC), THE MUNICIPALITY OF Nombre82652, AND THE NATIONAL ROAD COUNCIL (CONAVI).
Whereas:
Both works are insufficient to handle the streamflow of the creek (quebrada) when it rains: From this point, upstream is our Neighborhood (Barrio), affected by these unfortunate works and by the inaction of municipal and environmental authorities; the truth is that while no one does anything, we suffer the consequences year after year. Let the Court (Sala) take note that the water that flows from the upper part of San Juan passes through Dirección2388 and reaches this point, where all that flow must pass through that small culvert and continue underneath the lot belonging to Supermercados Molina, then under the public road, and end up passing through the questioned one-meter and one-and-a-half-meter diameter pipe (entubado) built by Servicentro Santamaría, which we have already stated NEVER HAD the approval of the Water Department (Depto. de Aguas) and did not respect the creek (quebrada) setbacks.
These photos obtained from SINAC reports demonstrate this (said documentation is provided as evidence): (…) We reiterate that we do not know the diameter or the quality of the works carried out on the Supermercados Molina lot; we do not know what flow-management capacity it may have, but if one judges by appearances, and we consider what we have suffered this winter, it is evident that once again a shoddy work was done where neither technical criteria nor effects on the environment or the rights of the other neighbors were considered, much less so if we consider that this is a problem well known to both SINAC and the Municipality. We do not understand how construction permits can be granted (if they were granted) knowing full well that they will worsen the existing problem. The question is: which officials turn a blind eye to this? The sad thing is that in San Ramón, while some can do as they please, others of us suffer the onslaught of nature, and even though we may have the law and the Constitution on our side, and even though a judgment might grant us our due, we find ourselves mocked and increasingly affected by the ineptitude, inefficiency, and it must be said, irresponsibility of those officials who DO NOT COMPLY WITH THEIR DUTIES as they should, who are, together with the Municipality, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY RESPONSIBLE (SOLIDARIAMENTE RESPONSABLES) for the acts they authorize and that cause harm to the administered party, whether by normal or abnormal, legitimate or illegitimate conduct.
This image shows the creek (quebrada) and the piping (entubado) under Dirección2388 itself, right next to the house of the petitioner Nombre103380 and petitioner Nombre103383, of the Nombre100989 family: At this point, we affected parties cannot even sleep peacefully in our homes because as soon as we hear the start of a downpour, we are overcome by absolute anxiety (zozobra) and a fear of what might happen, and the first thing we do is run to see how to safeguard our household belongings and be ready for any tragedy. In fact, on the past 18th of October, opening the door of Mrs. Nombre103380's home was extremely difficult because the water pressure prevented her from leaving, and this has generated a well-founded fear that if they were caught by surprise in the middle of the night by a new flood, they would be unable to get to safety, with the risk of drowning. For her in particular, this has generated severe anxiety episodes, which are not suitable for her health condition, as she is a patient recovering from breast cancer.
No citizen should have to live like this, in a constant state of alert and in the most absolute helplessness; no citizen should be forced to buy new household goods every winter because they lose them to floods that should not be occurring; nor should we have to live in fear of losing our homes or drowning inside them. It is not fair that we live in these circumstances, much less that the justice we have been seeking for almost 19 years arrives neither promptly nor completely, and becomes just another document, a simple anecdote, and not a true solution. That is why we turn once again to this Court (Sala) so that, without further delay, it may order the authorities of the Municipality to comply with what was resolved in the prior vote of 2006 and to take responsibility for protecting the life, health, and property of the residents of Dirección2388, which it has left adrift for almost two decades of indolence; and also so that it may unequivocally order the Municipality to pay for the severe damages and losses caused to the residents, both moral and patrimonial.
LEGAL BASIS OF THE VIOLATED RIGHTS REGARDING THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND HEALTH: Both derived from Constitutional Article 21 thanks to the jurisprudence of this Chamber, as said article mentions: “Human life is inviolable.” Human life, in its purest essence, requires not only that it not be directly violated immediately by an illegitimate act, but also that it not be violated gradually by acts that deteriorate this right to the point of causing a person's death. Even more extensive is the protection of this legal right, such that it is prohibited to even endanger this right, whether by state institutions or private third parties, as Costa Rican constitutional law does not tolerate contempt for human life and health in the sense of putting these rights at risk. In our case, both rights have been threatened as there exists a latent and increasingly high danger that the once small, harmless creek (Quebrada) that ran through Our Neighborhood (Nuestro Barrio), now converted when it rains into a mighty, violent torrent loaded with logs, garbage, mud, and other waste, will become our EXECUTIONER AND ENFORCER (VERDUGO Y EJECUTANTE).
At this point, and after 19 years of waiting, we have suffered the WORST FLOODS that have affected our health and safety, our property, and have the potential to even cause a fatal tragedy if the uncontrolled current rushing down the creek (quebrada) sweeps away our homes or traps us by surprise inside them with no possibility of escape, and all despite the fact that we have been waiting for years for a fix that has not materialized. This would be avoided if the Municipality had addressed the order from 2006, which to date has become, and we say this with all respect, a simple empty gesture, because despite winning the amparo action (amparo) we continue suffering damage year after year and living in total and complete anxiety (zozobra), anguish, and fear of drowning. The latest floods have been the worst ever, and our fear grows given that climate change and the amount of rain that falls every time it rains is simply excessive; at the rate we are going, it seems that the Municipality is waiting for a true tragedy to occur before acting, and this is not acceptable.
REGARDING THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY AND ECOLOGICALLY BALANCED ENVIRONMENT: As relevant, Article 50 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica states: “Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to report acts that infringe upon that right and to demand reparation for the damage caused.” This paragraph lays the foundation for all environmental law developed in our country, together with the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, issued at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on June 14, 1992, which is applicable in Costa Rica by virtue of its inclusion in the United Nations since November 2, 1945, and which establishes: “PRINCIPLE 1. Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature (…)”, among other provisions that protect this right, established as essential for human survival.
In our case, the environmental problem is generated by the piping (entubamiento) without respecting setbacks or channel protection areas, and by the discharge of water from different works located along its course that have been built without mitigating their impact, causing what was once a small seasonal creek (quebrada) to become a real danger today for the community, which is also contaminated by all the waste thrown into it, bringing all the filth from the surrounding streets. Likewise, the channel has been totally invaded, tree felling around it has been permitted, and indiscriminate piping (entubamiento) of the creek (quebrada) has been allowed, which clearly threatens the environment. RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY: Finally, we consider that private property (protected by Article 45 of the Political Constitution) is also being violated by the actions (or rather, omissions) of the respondent authorities; because problems continue to occur in our community, and CONCRETE WORKS have not been carried out on the creek (quebrada) that passes through Dirección2388 AND NOT IN OTHER AREAS, that would mitigate the effect of the increased flow caused by the water discharges that have overloaded it due to the urban growth of the area, and the piping (entubamiento) carried out by third parties without any technical criteria on how to mitigate flood risk, allowing these works to become real bottlenecks that literally choke the channel causing it to overflow.
ANY justification the Municipality may offer is unacceptable, because the truth is that the creek (quebrada) that passes through our neighborhood, whatever it may be called, has NOT been truly intervened, except for a dredging performed years ago, which is nothing more than a palliative and temporary solution. And because the creek (quebrada) has been piped even without the approval of the Water Directorate (Dirección de Aguas) and without respecting setbacks, in plain sight and with the forbearance of the Municipality and the officials who irresponsibly granted those permits, allowing works that were impermissible and that have been the cause of the problems we, the residents of Dirección2388, face. Worse still, the municipal authority has omitted all this time to resolve the concrete problem of our community, and has defended itself by carrying out works on the Quebrada Gambrinos, yet today we are not even clear if the famous Quebrada Gambrinos located NEARBY has any effect on or connects with the creek (quebrada) that passes directly through our Neighborhood (Barrio).
The Municipality has justified its actions in the past with works it claims to do on that other channel, but in our neighborhood they have at most carried out merely palliative works, and have omitted their duty to monitor and prevent illegal works that complicate a problematic situation this Municipality has known perfectly well for years. The truth is that the Municipality has done nothing to prevent the piping (entubamientos) of the creek (quebrada), has allowed it, has not resolved the existing problems, has turned a blind eye, and has allowed the problem to perpetuate itself and become a vicious cycle, where every winter we, the residents of Dirección2388, pay the price. The Municipality is responsible for authorizing sewerage works IF THEY COMPLY with the setbacks and legal permits; it is the authority that has authorized the discharge of ever-increasing flow in the area in the various urban development projects and major works such as those carried out on the road that goes up to San Juan, and it has neither required the developers, nor carried out itself, the necessary works to guarantee the protection of the rights of those of us who live next to the creek (quebrada) where all those waters end up.
It is therefore the Municipality that must repair the damages caused and finally take decisive action to mitigate the pernicious effect occurring in the area and protect the rights of the residents of our community. In the same vein, the environmental authorities are the ones called upon to protect the water resource, order the demolition of illegal works, and protect channels, which, in our opinion, has not been done here. We earnestly beg the Court (Sala) not to be misled by claims of interventions in other nearby areas, and to demand that the Municipality account specifically for what concerns Dirección2388, and not divert attention to other works, as it is UNACCEPTABLE that they have had almost 19 years to resolve a problem and it continues to exist and has in fact worsened, all to the detriment of our most basic fundamental rights. Finally, I base the case procedurally on Articles 2, 5, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, and 38 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional).
(…) CASE FILE WITH PETITIONERS IN A CONDITION OF VULNERABILITY: We bring to the Court's (Sala) attention that in this petition there is at least one ELDERLY ADULT petitioner, as he is over 65 years of age; this is Mr. Nombre103382, aged 70 years. It is not superfluous to note that Mrs. Nombre103380 is a breast cancer survivor, and it is a violation of her right to health to have to live constantly in a house that floods and fills with garbage and sediment, affecting her while she receives her chemotherapy treatments. Therefore, a prompt and expeditious handling of this case file is requested of the Court (Sala). (…) PETITION Based on the foregoing, I request of this honorable Court (Sala) the following petitions: 1. That this amparo petition (recurso de amparo) be granted. 2. That the Municipality of Nombre82652 be ordered to pay for violating our constitutional rights. 3. That the respondent authorities be ordered to comply with and execute what was ordered by this Court (Sala) in Vote 16398-2006, of 4:09 PM on November 15, 2006, and to carry out an IMMEDIATE, UNDELAYED, CONCRETE, AND FORCEFUL intervention to resolve the problem arising from the floods in the creek (quebrada) that directly crosses the Calle La Torre Community, taking for this purpose mitigation measures and carrying out without delay the appropriate works to safeguard the environment and prevent the effects that put our integrity, lives, and property at risk. 4.
That the respondent authorities be ordered to carry out an intervention and inspection of the entire area of the creek (quebrada) that affects us, in order to determine if there are additional works that are having an impact on the water resource, its setbacks, and in general, affecting the free flow of waters and contributing to the flood problem that afflicts the residents of Dirección2388. 5. That the respondent authorities be ordered to demolish the illegal works that may have been built to pipe (entubar) the creek (quebrada) that flows and passes DIRECTLY through Dirección2388, specifically in the area of Servicentro Santamaría and the property of Nombre103384 and Supermercados Molina, and any other illegal piping (entubamiento) that is affecting the free passage of the Creek (Quebrada) channel, to prevent new floods resulting from the illegitimate and insufficient sewers that are causing the creek (quebrada) to overflow. 6.
That the responsible authorities be ordered to pay both the damages and losses caused to the petitioners, including moral damage, patrimonial damage, and the respective losses, as their rights have been violated not just once, but constantly and continuously for nearly 19 years, during which the Municipality and other authorities have not resolved the problem that afflicts them, amply exceeding any criterion of reasonableness and proportionality. 7. That the respondents be ordered to pay all procedural and personal costs of this proceeding, as we, as petitioners, have had to resort once more to professional advice to obtain justice for the flagrant non-compliance with the Constitutional Vote (Voto Constitucional) issued in our favor 19 years ago.”
Likewise, interested neighbors are urged to manage on their own the contribution of an Engineer, so that, independently of the municipal criterion, they may provide some solution that perhaps the Municipality has not been able to determine, and jointly, we can give a particular case of these neighbors a shared solution. Additionally, the Public Works Commission of this Council is requested to carry out an inspection of the situation presented regarding the water problem in the sector of Gambrinos, district of San Juan, so that an additional opinion may be had in this process. Request the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo and the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica to assess the possibility of conducting an evaluation of the problem occurring in the district of San Juan of this Canton, in the sector known as Gambrinos, where the Santamaría gas station operates, with the water flow that reaches that area, and to extend the study to other areas, updating the topographic and hydrographic reality of the central district and surrounding areas, in order to subsequently corroborate, before granting permits for new urban developments, the prevailing situation in that zone, taking into account if the basins are already heavily loaded and they must request the developer not only to invest in the works internal to their development, but also externally, regarding the water conveyance situation, especially if where those waters will flow affects some neighbors.
That is, to have a roadmap to follow with respect to these matters.» (the underlining is ours) As a result of this agreement, the Municipal Administration presented a Report Regarding Stormwater Management in the central district and its periphery, via official communication MSR-AM-GDU-151-2017 (folios 0015-0021 of Expediente Planificación Urbana Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-020710-0007-CO), a report that details how management should be for this sub-basin and for three additional sub-basins. In this document, which is of an administrative nature, the technical aspects that must be taken into account for urban development construction projects are indicated. It is based on the Low Impact Development (LID) Concept and includes Integrated Management Practices and Soil Management practices. This report was known and approved by the Municipal Council through Agreement 01 of Session 83 of May 16, 2017, in which the following was indicated: «Approve this Technical Proposal on stormwater management in the Central district and its Urban periphery and, in accordance with it, it is agreed, with the purpose that the different administrative units of the Municipality of Nombre82652 take preventive considerations within their competencies (limited by the non-implementation of the Plan Regulador), to recommend that the Municipal Council take an agreement in the following terms, for all lands located in the hydrographic sub-basins established in report MSR-AM-GDU-151-2017: 1.
That as an unavoidable requirement in urban developments or construction projects that require municipal approval for stormwater discharge (visto bueno de desfogue pluvial), the concept of Low Impact Development (LID) must be implemented. This type of development refers to a series of structural and non-structural measures that allow land development projects to be conceived with the least possible hydrological impact on their surroundings. 2. That to achieve LID-type development, it will be necessary to implement various strategies, among which Integrated Management Practices (IMPs) can be considered, as well as land use and site design management. These strategies focus on achieving one or more of the following specific objectives: reducing peak flow, reducing runoff volume, reducing flood frequency, reducing the pollutant load of surface runoff, increasing interception, increasing storage, increasing infiltration and encouraging groundwater recharge, reducing erosion, as well as improving flow conditions. 3.
That the required IMPs must be works distributed throughout the land of the Project, which together will achieve the objective of reducing surface runoff. Fundamentally, through water infiltration into the ground, such as the use of permeable pavements, the construction of infiltration trenches or retention and infiltration zones, dry wells, and bioretention gardens. Likewise, limiting the impacted area and compensating areas that will become impermeable with green zones that reduce surface runoff must be contemplated in a site design that is less hydrologically impactful. In such a way that it can allow the increase of surface flow paths, establish infiltration zones along those paths, and allocate certain areas of the project to the rehabilitation of natural vegetation, to reduce surface runoff during extreme precipitation events. 4. That for lands located in the hydrographic sub-basins established in the aforementioned report, given the intention to discharge a potential urban project into a stormwater collection channel that in turn would discharge into a stream (quebrada), or directly into it, it will be necessary to implement in the project the concept of Low Impact Development and the consequent Integrated Management Practices.
Therefore, the interested party must present in the pertinent department of this municipality, in written and graphic form, the strategies and works to meet such requirements, as a prerequisite for the granting of the Visto Bueno for the Stormwater Discharge (Visto Bueno para el Desfogue Pluvial) of the intended project. Furthermore, the developer must carry out the necessary civil works to condition the stormwater discharge crossings at intersections with public roads. Likewise, in the case of crossing private properties, before the final discharge point into the receiving water body, express authorization from the owners of such properties will be required. 5. That for the particular case of the Quebrada Estero, in addition to what is indicated, it will be essential to continue with municipal support in the project to recover El Laguito, located in the district of Alfaro, so that it functions as a flood prevention element in the central district.
Specifically, as a stormwater reservoir during intense precipitation events. 6. That this agreement will maintain its effects until the Plan Regulador is approved that provides something different regarding the matter, or if the Council, by better agreement, determines to change, expand, or modify the terms stipulated herein. 7. This agreement is taken under the protection of the powers that the Código Municipal – Ley 7794 – Recognizes to the Municipal Council regarding “issuing urban planning measures” within its territories.» (Folios 0022-0025 of Expediente Planificación Urbana Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-020710-0007-CO) Thus, the claim of the appellants that the Municipal Government has not been attended to and resolved by this corporation is not accepted as true. It must be considered, on the other hand, that the culverting (entubamientos) of streams (quebradas) is not the responsibility of the Municipality, since it is the competence of the Dirección de Aguas of MINAE; however, as can be observed in official communications MSR-AM-DDU-PU-195-2018 and MSR-AM-DDU-PU-379-2019 (visible in folios 0026 to 0032 of Expediente Planificación Urbana Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-020710-0007-CO), the Municipal Administration has informed MINAE of these situations so that they may carry out the duties legally incumbent upon them.
And in cases where earthworks (movimientos de tierra) have been carried out without authorization, the pertinent closures have even been executed. Second: That through Official Communication MSR-AM-GM-DDU-PU-339-2025, Engineer Andrés Zúñiga Castro, head of the Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial, proceeds to state the following: establish infiltration zones along those paths and allocate certain areas of the project to the rehabilitation of natural vegetation, to reduce surface runoff during extreme precipitation events. 4. That for lands located in the hydrographic sub-basins established in the aforementioned report, given the intention to discharge a potential urban project into a stormwater collection channel that in turn would discharge into a stream (quebrada), or directly into it, it will be necessary to implement in the project the concept of Low Impact Development and the consequent Integrated Management Practices.
Therefore, the interested party must present in the pertinent department of this municipality, in written and graphic form, the strategies and works to meet such requirements, as a prerequisite for the granting of the Visto Bueno for the Stormwater Discharge (Visto Bueno para el Desfogue Pluvial) of the intended project. Furthermore, the developer must carry out the necessary civil works to condition the stormwater discharge crossings at intersections with public roads. Likewise, in the case of crossing private properties, before the final discharge point into the receiving water body, express authorization from the owners of such properties will be required. 5. That for the particular case of the Quebrada Estero, in addition to what is indicated, it will be essential to continue with municipal support in the project to recover El Laguito, located in the district of Alfaro, so that it functions as a flood prevention element in the central district.
Specifically, as a stormwater reservoir during intense precipitation events. 6. That this agreement will maintain its effects until the Plan Regulador is approved that provides something different regarding the matter, or if the Council, by better agreement, determines to change, expand, or modify the terms stipulated herein. 7. This agreement is taken under the protection of the powers that the Código Municipal – Ley 7794 – Recognizes to the Municipal Council regarding “issuing urban planning measures” within its territories.» (Folios 0022-0025 of Expediente Planificación Urbana Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-020710-0007-CO) Thus, the claim of the appellants that the Municipal Government has not been attended to and resolved by this corporation is not accepted as true. It must be considered, on the other hand, that the culverting (entubamientos) of streams (quebradas) is not the responsibility of the Municipality, since it is the competence of the Dirección de Aguas of MINAE; however, as can be observed in official communications MSR-AM-DDU-PU-195-2018 and MSR-AM-DDU-PU-379-2019 (visible in folios 0026 to 0032 of Expediente Planificación Urbana Recurso de Amparo Exp 19-020710-0007-CO), the Municipal Administration has informed MINAE of these situations so that they may carry out the duties legally incumbent upon them.
And in cases where earthworks (movimientos de tierra) have been carried out without authorization, the pertinent closures have even been executed. Second: That through Official Communication MSR-AM-GM-DDU-PU-339-2025, Engineer Andrés Zúñiga Castro, head of the Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial, proceeds to state the following: a) On one hand, the intervention in the water channels that flow through that community. As has been done since 2004. b) The adoption of municipal agreements aimed at efficiently and preventively controlling the urban projects developed in that zone, and in other zones of San Ramón. c) Inspection work, closure of earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and notification to the competent authorities when actions outside the scope of municipal competence are detected. It is necessary to consider that, regarding urban development, a series of fundamental rights converge that must be properly weighed and measured in order to provide a solution to all those involved, since, although the right to Health derives from Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to private property also derives from Article 45 of the Constitution, and part of this right includes the right to build.
This right is pre-constituted in such a way that urban planning licenses are regulated acts and cannot be denied when the established requirements are met. Main claim: Based on the facts narrated and the evidence provided, this Municipal Government requests that: a) The amparo (recurso de amparo) filed against the mayor, the president of the Municipal Council, and Mr. Johnny Montoya Villalobos be declared without merit. b) That the mayor, the President of the Municipal Council of the Municipality of San Ramón, and the official Director of Urban Development not be ordered to pay costs (costas). Subsidiary claim: In the event that this Honorable Constitutional Court considers there is merit to declare the Amparo Appeal (Recurso de Amparo) with merit, and given that we have demonstrated that the Municipality of Nombre82652 has carried out all the actions legally within its reach to resolve this situation, we request that this Municipality not be sanctioned to make the payment of said costs (costas).”
• If the municipality granted those permits, do they or do they not have the approval of the Water Directorate? Why were the setbacks from the watercourse not respected? • Why, if the works carried out at the service station must be demolished pursuant to the order issued by the Water Directorate in official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019, are they still standing? • What mitigation and low-impact construction works were required of the developers of Maxi Pali, ProHogar, and the residential developments located in the upper part of San Juan, whose stormwater runs off and falls into the ditches that end in the culvert created next to the Santamaría Service Station? If the municipality approved some low-impact measures, because it does not refer to how it sought to protect, precisely from the impact of those works, an area that is already known to have serious flooding problems. This is where the proposals find no support in any evidence that the Municipality complied with its own instructions, since regarding this question that was raised in our remedy, they report NOTHING.
What are the specific measures required of those developers? What is the technical backing for them? The municipality claims that the piping of streams is NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY of the Municipality, but rather the competence of the Water Directorate, and claims that they reported it to Aguas through respective official communications MSR-AM-DDU-OUY-195-2018. This is, moreover, loaded with cynicism when the Municipality itself has bypassed the authority of the Water Directorate. The problem here is that, coincidentally, in the piping at Servicentro Santamaría, the Water Directorate called the Municipality's attention because the works were being carried out WITHOUT having the approval of said Directorate, and this fact turns the matter into the DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY of the municipality itself. This is so if indeed the works were carried out by the Municipality and not by the landowners with the Municipality's approval, but if we stick to what Minae reports in official communication DA-1550-2019, through which it responded to our remedy of that year on this same issue, the works were carried out by the MUNICIPALITY and it is the latter that is responsible for having created a work that, far from solving the problems, has worsened them.
What evidence exists regarding that work, who ordered it, who prepared the plans, who executed it, was it financed by the Municipality? Note that in official communication of July 8, 2019, identified as DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019, where they expressly give MAYOR NIXÓN UREÑA A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH TO ELIMINATE THOSE WORKS, an order that to this day is flagrantly ignored, for which reason IT IS THE MUNICIPALITY that is the main party responsible for the problems that now, as I said, my represented parties continue to endure and that are increased precisely by the insufficiency of the work carried out by the Municipality. The note in question is as follows and does not lie: (...) From the foregoing, it follows that the Municipality cannot shake off responsibility for works it carried out very clearly without technical criteria because they have not only proven insufficient to manage the waters and have become a true bottleneck every time it rains, but also they disrespected the setbacks from the watercourse and bypassed Aguas permits, which evidences poorly done work that violates the most essential rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, not to mention that they violated current legislation.
Administrative responsibility is STRICT and is evident in this case; it is the Municipality that placed an illegal and deficient pipe that, far from solving the problems, worsened them. Second fact: They claim that in official communication MSR-AM-GM-DDU-PU-339-2025, Engineer Andrés Zúñiga of the Technical Road Management Unit points out, and they quote, the content of official communication MSR-AM-DDUPU-319-2019 of 11-12-2019, in which it indicates that the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) at Dirección7288 were shut down and MINAE was notified to proceed accordingly, and this must be copied literally: If it were not that this matter is severely affecting the health, tranquility, property, and now very importantly, the very lives of my represented parties, I would find it laughable that the Municipality responds with that report as if it were a defense for them! It now turns out that they did not execute the DEMOLITION order they received from MINAE within the period granted to them, that is, one month from the notification of the Official Communication of July 8, 2019, identified as DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019, and that they are making (in 2019) the corresponding arrangements to execute them once the rainy season ends.
Six years have already passed and they are still standing! WHAT HAS THE MUNICIPALITY DONE IN THOSE SIX YEARS TO RESOLVE THIS MATTER? The answer is clearly NOTHING. And these are works that, done without permission and with all the shoddiness in the world, ended up being the cause of the flooding levels that the community already suffered to increase, and flooded the homes of the petitioner families like never before, and exposed them to the loss of domestic goods, clothing, appliances every time it rains for several winters now, to suffering seeing their houses full of dirt and trash, to the fear of being trapped by the floodwaters, and to having to sleep with one eye open because every time it rains their fear and anxiety spike. This, esteemed magistrates, with all due respect, is a true mockery, and it is unacceptable. How is it possible that in 2019 they responded with that, without presenting any type of evidence of what reasons prevented them from complying with the order, and that today the works remain there as if nothing had happened, knowing that they are endangering my represented parties.
This is not a new problem; it is a matter well known to the municipality that, far from resolving it, made it worse. Third fact: Regarding the theory of the case they invoke as fact, to claim that the Municipality has complied, these are nothing more than claims without much support, because reality does not lie; they had to solve the problem definitively and effectively and they have not done so. They have not even demolished the harmful work they themselves created and whose demolition order dates back to 2019, and which has caused my represented parties to suffer flooding and damage to their property winter after winter, not to mention the impairment to their physical and mental health, and the immeasurable moral damage. As evidenced in the digital media notes we provide, the water overflows right in front of the Servicentro, because it is there, in the work apparently carried out by the Municipality, where the capacity of the sewer system is exceeded and the waters back up, flooding everything behind it and following the watercourse (sic) of the stream, that is, all that water accumulates and floods Dirección7294.
The three large groups of "actions" that the municipality claims to have taken also do not hold up, and I refer to them one by one: a) On the one hand, the intervention in the watercourses that run through said community. Just as it has been done since 2004. What interventions? The one they refer to without proof or evidence in the first fact and that we already refuted, or the works next to the Service Station that they carried out clearly without hydrological studies, without permits, and that they were ordered to demolish in 2019 without having done so to date, and which are what worsened the problem. What effective and adequate intervention have they made in the watercourse to prevent the constant flooding in Dirección2388? If they had done so, we would not be here for the third time in 19 years. b) The adoption of municipal agreements aimed at efficiently and preventively controlling the urban development projects taking place in said area, and in other areas of San Ramón.
With all due respect, paper holds whatever you put on it. If this is so, what mitigation works has the municipality done for the benefit of the residents of Dirección2388? What LID development measures to avoid hydrological impact were requested from the developers of the residential developments in the upper part of San Juan that discharge their waters into the stream? What mitigation measures and works were requested from ProHogar and Maxi Pali, whose stormwater falls directly into the ditches and discharges into the culvert of the illegal work carried out next to the Servicentro, worsening the situation even further? c) Inspection work, closure of earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and notification to the competent authorities when actions outside the scope of municipal competence are detected. Regarding this, I can only say that they provided information from the year 2006. Apart from that, they curiously do not indicate if they shut down or reported the earthworks (movimiento de tierra) and sewer system that were done at Dirección7295.
Moreover, they do not even tell us if they gave permission to carry out that earthworks (movimiento de tierra) and piping or not. Nevertheless, note that Minaet itself says that there are other problem areas in the watercourse (sic), and coincidentally, the Municipality has not reported anything since 2006. The reality of things is that the problem of Dirección2388 HAS NOT BEEN definitively resolved, and rather has been made worse by the municipality itself, for having carried out a clearly insufficient work that goes against environmental regulations, a work that in the long run has increased the problems of my represented parties' neighborhood. Just as the Municipality must weigh the rights that converge in urban development and respect the right to build, it MUST take responsibility for the way it carries out works or authorizes them to be done, so that they comply with all technical, legal, environmental requirements, and the very agreements the municipality has approved to supposedly mitigate the watershed's problems and oblige developers to build with a low hydrological impact, which, in our judgment, not even the municipality itself has done, as evidenced by the demolition order issued to it by the Water Directorate.
For all of the foregoing, it is clear and evident that the Municipality not only failed to definitively resolve the problem of Dirección2388 but made it worse, reaching levels this past winter not seen before, increasing the risk and the damages and losses suffered by my represented parties. 2. RESPONSE OF SISTEMA NACIONAL DE AREAS DE CONSERVACION SUBREGIONAL SAN RAMON: Regarding SINAC's response, it is also evasive, because despite knowing the facts, it does not mention anything about the case file and inspections they processed in the past, specifically when the culvert work was built on the boundary of the Santamaría gas station, which we see today, served said company to put a parking lot in the area, affecting the water resource that was piped, which is held in the court records by the Municipality. It is indicated that there were complaints in 2019, that a complaint was filed with the Public Prosecutor's Office, a copy of which they provide stamped received on 6-19-2019, this against Nombre103384, but they do not indicate what follow-up they have given to said proceeding, being the complainants themselves.
In this regard, the report is evasive as to what other actions have been taken to defend the natural resources in the area. Finally, and as a result of this amparo, they appear in the area where they indicate they find three situations, it is worth saying, situations that ARE NOT NEW, with the exception of the work on the lot of Supermercados Molina S.A.; it concerns the piping of the stream carried out by Nombre103384 and which they refer to in their report as previously reported, which denotes that nothing has been done to demolish those illegal works that complicate and worsen the situation that occurs every winter in Dirección7289. Then they indicate there is the piping in the area of the Gas Station, but I reiterate this work is not new, and in fact generated, through SINAC's intervention, and it is so recorded in the report we provide in the records as evidence, a resolution from the Water Directorate warning the Municipality of its demolition, which TO DATE HAS NOT OCCURRED.
Finally, it is confirmed what the residents already knew, that at Dirección7296 they piped the stream, evidently without permits from the Water Directorate, and once again, the water resource is affected in plain sight and with the patience of all the respondent authorities, without the actions they take having any follow-up so that whoever transgresses the law faces the consequences. The truth is that the entity responsible for ensuring respect for environmental regulations, following up on complaints, and proceeding against offenders is SINAC. Note that it is not until this remedy is filed that they appear at the site, where they do not discover warm water, but only ONE more piping of the stream, different from the other two that were already known about. Nevertheless, it is clear that anyone can carry out works in a watercourse without the authorities even blinking, shaking off the lethargy that seems to take hold of the entire public function.
Therefore, I beg that this remedy be resolved as in law corresponds. 3. RESPONSE OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT: The Water Department, through its Director Mr. José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, refers to the remedy and, in responding, reports on several actions it has taken as a result of complaints in the area. Specifically, it points out a list of official communications from the years 2018 to 2020 where it refers to actions mainly against Nombre103384, but does not mention the findings that generated the investigation of the works carried out next to the Servicentro Santamaría, and that generated, among other actions, a copy of which we present as evidence to the records, regarding proceeding 3509-2019, within which official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 was generated, in which Eng. Marilyn Mora notifies the Municipal Mayor at that time, Nixón Ureña, that he was granted a one-month period to eliminate the works they carried out illegally.
The Water Director also does not report what follow-up they gave to this order and, in general, to the complaint generated by those works since 2019, works that, I reiterate, are not new. In this sense, the report rendered is evasive and it is necessary to request that the Water Director provide all information related to the complaint, demolition order, and follow-up that the proceeding has had, and above all, how they have proceeded to achieve reparation of the environmental damage caused. The most important thing is for him to indicate for what reason they have not compelled the municipality to carry out that demolition and why the work remains standing. They add in point 2 of their report that as a result of this new remedy, the third in this long history to obtain justice, officials from the Water Department, Municipality, and Sinac appear at the site where they verify that the piping carried out by Nombre103384 remains, that is to say, the complaints, reports, and other actions were of no use if they were not followed up and the demolitions were executed, which has been a clear contributor to the damages and losses that my represented parties have suffered for years, as it is clearly indicated that the piping that Nombre103384 made was not only illegal and should have been demolished, but also diverted or discharged waters from another stream into the Gambrinos stream, thereby increasing the flow it receives and harming my represented parties who suffer damage to their property, health, and quality of life every winter.
Note that in his evidence, the Water Director provides us with a photo of the area of that piping, which discharges precisely into the stream that passes through Dirección2388, precisely a few meters behind the house of the petitioners Nombre103383 and Nombre103380 (sic), a point where later the stream continues crossing the street, which was also piped without permission, continues to the lot of Supermercados Molina, and ends in the piping that leads to the side of the Service Station: Regarding Servicentro Santamaría, I reiterate, IT IS NOT A NEW WORK, the piping was known to the Directorate, and generated official communication DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 ordering demolition. The question here is whether the parking lot that now exists over that piping is a new work subsequent to the one reported, which was indicated by the Directorate in the cited official communication, was the responsibility of the Municipality.
Note that a 45 m long piping is mentioned, which was supposedly made by the Municipality, on the property of the company Consorcio A & L Ltda, as indicated on page 3 of the report rendered by the respondent. Nevertheless, as in the case of Nombre103384, the excuse is that they have not been able to notify the owner, and that they will ask the Municipality for help locating their addresses, which is absurd when to obtain an entity's registered corporate domicile and name of its legal representative, it is enough to obtain a literal certification of the entity, like the one I provide at this time. It is not acceptable to delegate that task or delay it for something like this, when what is urgent is to notify and for that, the information is literally one click away; and state bodies have ways to request, among others, information from both the National Registry and the Civil Registry to obtain the registered addresses of the parties to be notified.
In the case of Supermercados Molina S.A., they indicate that there is a 36-meter-long piping in the watercourse, and it is indicated that it was reported in official communication DA-UHTPCOSR-0477-2025, and they claim that no one was found at the site to notify. Again, having the name of the owner company, the information is one click away, and at this time, the literal certification of said company is provided, it not being acceptable to delay taking action on the matter and ordering demolitions of illegal works with such a frankly absurd excuse. The truth is that there are old works, reported years ago, with demolition orders NOT EXECUTED, which are what have evidently caused the problem in Dirección2388, and all these works remain there while official communications come and go without a true willingness to take action and solve the problem once and for all being glimpsed, and with it, the works are perpetuated there, for the benefit of those who improperly made them and to the frank detriment of my represented parties.
So that the Water Department executes the demolitions, we gladly provide the addresses and legal representations they require for it: Nombre103384, ID card CED57263, is a resident of San Juan, from Agencia Honda 50m, this house on the right-hand side. SUPERMERCADOS MOLINA S.A. represented by Arcadio Molina Ferreto and Marco Vinicio Molina Salas, with corporate domicile in San Ramón, Alajuela, 100 meters east of Consumo, in Supermercados Molina. Its President resides in San Ramón, 25 meters south of the Municipal Depot, house set back on the right-hand side. CONSORCIO A & L LIMITADA, corporate domicile in San Juan, San Ramón, Dirección7297, represented by its Manager and Sub-Manager Juan José Santamaría Umaña and Danis Lorena Umaña Arroyo. REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF REPORTS: As we already indicated above, the Municipality's report is conveniently succinct, and omits referring to specific issues that are of relevance and that were touched upon in the facts of our remedy; likewise, the other authorities also omitted some relevant information from their reports.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Chamber to expressly warn the following authorities to expand information and provide evidence: To the Municipality of Nombre82652, to present the following information: • What specific works, with evidence of their completion, have they carried out to resolve the problem of Dirección2388? The supposed work they refer to in the year 2005 (at Dirección7293) is prior to the previous amparo filed by my represented parties, which is why it is not a relevant work because, being prior, it proved not to be a sufficient work to resolve the problem. • For what reason did they carry out the piping next to the Santamaría Service Station without having authorization from the Water Directorate? • Who paid for and carried out that piping, and what are the plans, studies, and permits that supported that intervention? If it was the Municipality, provide the technical and engineering documentation that supported that work; if it was a private party with municipal authorization, provide a copy of all the construction permit documentation. • Provide the hydrological studies and technical calculations they performed to determine the type of piping they installed in the sector of the Service Station, in order to technically determine if the work could move the necessary quantities of water so as not to generate flooding problems greater than those already existing in the area. • Provide the construction permit documents and their case file, in the event that the municipality authorized the construction of a Parking Lot over the piping of the Stream carried out next to the Santamaría Service Station and that benefits said company, having to provide plans or sketches of the works if they were presented to them, a copy of the construction permit, and any other document, in which the names of the officials who authorized them must be clearly stated.
In the event of not having granted those permits, provide any documentation of the actions they have taken to report those works and the follow-up given to those proceedings. • Indicate expressly whether the municipality gave permission for the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and piping carried out on the lot of Supermercados Molina S.A. located in front of the Santamaría Gas Station. If the answer is affirmative, deliver a copy of the permits and provide any document related to the permit request and its technical support, as well as indicate the names of the officials who granted those permits. If the answer is negative, indicate whether the municipality shut down that work or not and whether it reported it to MINAE. • If the municipality granted those permits, why did they grant them if they did not have authorization from the Water Directorate? Why did they not respect the setbacks regarding the watercourse? • Expressly indicate the reasons why they have not proceeded to demolish the works next to the Servicentro Santamaría as ordered in official communication DAUHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 from the Water Directorate, issued on July 8, 2019. • Expressly indicate, through a report containing the necessary documentary and technical evidence, what mitigation works were required of the developers of Maxi Pali, Almacén ProHogar, and the residential developments located in the upper part of San Juan, whose stormwater runs off and falls into the ditches that end in the culvert created next to the Santamaría Service Station, and whether they verified that they were completed in accordance with the agreements adopted by the municipality to solve the problem in basins with flooding risk, specifically those of the Gambrinos Stream, especially when the sewer work precisely where those waters flow, at Estacionamiento Santamaría, is clearly insufficient, having culverts whose largest diameter is one and a half meters and which is a work to be demolished. • What specific actions did they take regarding the floods that occurred last October in Dirección2388, a date on which Mayor Gabriela Jiménez was even in the area and in the homes of my represented parties seeing the damage suffered.
To the members of SISTEMA NACIONAL DE AREAS DE CONSERVACION SUBREGIONAL SAN RAMON: • Indicate what follow-up they have given, as complainants, and what is the status of the criminal cases related to the piping carried out by Nombre103384. • Indicate whether in 2019 they received complaints related to the piping carried out next to Dirección7298 in San Juan, and prove what follow-up they have given to any eventual complaints or proceedings undertaken. To the WATER DEPARTMENT: • Formally report the procedure given to proceeding 3509-2019 regarding the complaint presented for piping of the Gambrinos stream. • Report why the demolition ordered in official communication DAUHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 has not been executed, in which Eng. Marilyn Mora notifies the Municipal Mayor of that time, Nixón Ureña, that he was granted a one-month period to eliminate the works they carried out illegally. • Report what proceedings they have undertaken to demolish the works that Nombre103384 carried out, which they have known about since 2018, and if they have not done so, how they intend to remedy said situation. • In both of the aforementioned cases, indicate whether they presented Complaints to the Environmental Tribunal and whether it issued any ruling in this regard, having to provide a copy of it, or indicate the status of the case file.
I beg that the respondents be warned to provide what is requested, as it is required for this Chamber to resolve this amparo, and I respectfully request the Chamber that, should there be any other necessary diligence or evidence that this high court considers essential, order it immediately, as the only thing my represented parties want is a definitive and adequate solution to a problem of almost two decades. Regarding the claim: For all the foregoing, I expressly request the Chamber to Declare our remedy well-founded in all its aspects, and to finally do justice to the residents of Dirección2388. As has been evidenced, the reality is that the problems afflicting my represented parties are not new, and despite the fact that at some moments the authorities have intervened, such interventions have not come to resolve the situation due to the negligence in EXECUTING the pertinent acts to demolish the works that private subjects and apparently even the Municipality have carried out illegally and with total contempt for the water resource, all in plain sight and with the patience of the authorities.
The height of it is that the Municipality itself, which should have solved the problems, did nothing but worsen them and, despite having a demolition order for the piping it carried out, has not demolished it, and that work, together (sic) with the works of Nombre103384 and Supermercados Molina S.A., have become the direct cause of the damages that the inhabitants of Dirección2388 suffer every winter. All the respondents deny responsibility for the facts, all claim it is not their responsibility to resolve them, and meanwhile, those who suffer the onslaught of the weather every time a downpour is unleashed are my represented parties, who do not deserve such a level of disinterest in their well-being and in respect for their fundamental rights. As we have set forth, there are direct actions by the Municipality, as well as gross omissions that have come to worsen the situation, which, far from being resolved, becomes more complicated each year.
It has also been evidenced how works are done without permits that the authorities do not detect until the residents file a complaint, and this despite the fact that they are developed in front of a public road and in a high-traffic area in view of the community, and not only that, but said authorities give no follow-up whatsoever either to the complaints against the offenders, or to the demolition orders for the works they issue, all to the detriment of the rights of my represented parties and the environment. It is time to bell the cat, for all those who have responsibilities in this matter to assume them and faithfully fulfill them, and for the total and definitive solution to the flooding problem in Dirección2388 to be carried out without further excuses and delays. Official communications that come and go, municipal agreements, plans, and strategies are of no use if they are not reflected in reality, and the reality is that the watercourse has been repeatedly intervened (sic) and has become a true bottleneck that directly affects a community of humble and hard-working people, people who feel that if this had happened in a neighborhood of greater high standing, it would have already been solved, but in their case, both the Municipality and private companies do and undo without any authority taking action on the matter.
It seems, rather, that faults are tolerated for everyone, no action ends in sanctions, no illegal work is demolished, the new works located in the upper part do not appear to have taken measures to mitigate the hydrological impact that the waters flowing from those works to the ditches that discharge into the collapsed culvert of the stream can have. The truth is that every time it rains heavily, the stream collapses, the illegal piping cannot cope, and those who suffer the damages and losses to their property and to their state of mind and health are the residents of Dirección2388. For all of the foregoing, I beg the Chamber that, once the additional reports I consider essential to resolve this matter have been requested, this remedy be ruled well-founded and that the respondents, as corresponds, be condemned not only to immediately and without further delay do what corresponds to them to DEMOLISH and remove any piping or work that is causing the flooding at Dirección7289 and to immediately take all the mitigation measures necessary to resolve totally and definitively the problem that afflicts the community and violates their rights.
Likewise, and due to the clear and evident negligence and irresponsibility with which these matters have been handled, the parties, especially the Municipalidad de San Ramón, must be condemned to pay the costs that I request be determined by this court, and also to pay damages, including the moral harm caused to the affected petitioners."
Drafted by Judge Rueda Leal; and,
Considering:
The petitioners indicate that since 2006 this Chamber issued judgment No. 16398-2006 in which an amparo appeal filed by residents of the La Torre neighborhood was granted and the mayor Nombre82652 was ordered to take immediate measures to solve the sanitary problem generated by the culverting (entubamiento) of the Gambrinos stream. They claim that, despite the foregoing, the problems persist to the date on which they again file for amparo, since they still suffer recurrent flooding every winter, as the stream that crosses their neighborhood continues without receiving effective interventions. They clarify that they do not know if the stream that passes through their neighborhood is in fact Gambrinos or if it is another tributary stream. They state that this stream was culverted by the owners of the Servicentro Santamaría, despite the fact that according to the Dirección de Agua of MINAE there is no permit for works in the streambed, and therefore its removal was ordered; however, currently the works remain intact.
They add that in 2019 a second amparo appeal was filed under case file 19-020710-0007-CO, but the problem persists. They comment that during the following years, urban growth in the upper part of San Juan de Nombre82652 with the construction of supermarkets, housing developments, and paved roads has increased the water flow that discharges into the neighborhood stream, which the municipal authorities have permitted without requiring technical studies or mitigation works, despite knowing the risks faced by the residents of that area for almost two decades. They emphasize that in October 2025 the worst floods were recorded in the sector, especially on the 18th, when a torrential downpour caused the collapse of the illegal culvert at the Servicentro Santamaría and the new culverting on the lot of Supermercados Molina, as the waters flooded homes, reaching levels of up to half a meter and causing the destruction of household goods, appliances, furniture, and generating a serious risk to the lives of the inhabitants.
Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been accredited as such or because the respondent authority omitted to refer to them, in accordance with the initial order:
Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 171 square meters. FIFTH: That, the second and third properties inspected correspond to properties number 2-552098-000 and 2-373514-000, with plan numbers A-1966800-2017 and CED57265 respectively, properties that according to (sic) consultation with the Registro Nacional, their owner is Supermercados Molina Sociedad Anónima, legal entity ID CED57266, whose legal representatives are Arcadio Molina Ferreto, identity card CED57267, and Marco Vinicio Molina Salas, identity card CED57268. On this property, it can be seen that the Gambrinos stream runs, duly determined by the Dirección de Agua of MINAE. It is observed that in a sector of the stream, specifically from coordinates CRTM 05 E 448835 and N 1117227 to coordinates CRTM 05 E 448853 and N 1117199, the protection area is invaded by earth fill and a pasture cover that is regularly maintained, preventing a natural regeneration process in the protection area.
Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 780 square meters. SIXTH: That, the fourth property inspected, where the Servicentro Santamaría is located, corresponds to property number Dirección7301, with plan number A-2144332-2019, a property that according to (sic) consultation with the Registro Nacional, its owner is Consorcio A&L Limitada, legal entity ID CED57256, whose legal representatives are Juan José Santamaría Umaña, identity card CED57269, and Danis Lorena Umaña Arroyo, identity card CED57270. On this property, it can be seen that the Gambrinos stream runs along its boundary, duly determined by the Dirección de Agua of MINAE. It is observed that in a sector of the stream, specifically from coordinates CRTM 05 E 448865 and N 1117174 to coordinates CRTM 05 E 448892 and N 1117146, the protection area is invaded by the parking area of a Servicentro.
Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 350 square meters. Conclusions and recommendations 1. It is concluded from the field inspection that an invasion of the water resource protection area, as defined in Article 33 of the Ley Forestal, can be determined on four different properties, of which, the current owners can be determined for the 4 of them. 2. As it was not possible to identify a specific actor for this case, it is recommended to file a complaint with the Organismo de Investigación Judicial so that the corresponding expert analyses can be carried out, based on the possible crime of invasion of the protection area of the Gambrinos stream, on the inspected properties. 3. For the sites where structures are found within protection areas, request a forensic assessment from the Ministerio Público." (See documentary evidence).
Nombre103384 to the main road (…) At the scene, there is a lot where the culverting was carried out, so there is no one at the site to be able to issue a demolition and removal order for the culverting. (…) Servicentro Santa María It was determined during (duranta) (sic) the site visit of November 13, 2025, that the 45-meter-long culverting over the streambed of the Gambrinos stream, which was reported in official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019 (attached), for property number 0582736 and cadastral plan A-2144332-2019, continues at the site (…) It is not omitted to indicate that in addition to these culverts, there are additional sections of illegal intervention in the streambed of the Gambrinos stream, as documented in official letter DAUHTPCOSR-0538-20 (…)". (See documentary evidence).
In this case, the petitioners indicate that since 2006 this Chamber issued judgment No. 16398-2006 in which an amparo appeal filed by residents of Dirección7294 was granted and the mayor Nombre82652 was ordered to take immediate measures to solve the sanitary problem generated by the culverting of the Gambrinos stream. They claim that, despite the foregoing, the problems persist to the date on which they again file for amparo, since they still suffer recurrent flooding every winter, as the stream that crosses their neighborhood continues without receiving effective interventions. They clarify that they do not know if the stream that passes through their neighborhood is in fact Gambrinos or if it is another tributary stream. They state that this stream was culverted by the owners of the Servicentro Santamaría, despite the fact that according to the Dirección de Agua of MINAE there is no permit for works in the streambed, and therefore its removal was ordered; however, currently the works remain intact.
They add that in 2019 a second amparo appeal was filed under case file 19-020710-0007-CO, but the problem persists. They comment that during the following years, urban growth in the upper part of San Juan de Nombre82652 with the construction of supermarkets, housing developments, and paved roads has increased the water flow that discharges into the neighborhood stream, which the municipal authorities have permitted without requiring technical studies or mitigation works, despite knowing the risks faced by the residents of that area for almost two decades. They emphasize that in October 2025 the worst floods were recorded in the sector, especially on the 18th, when a torrential downpour caused the collapse of the illegal culvert at the Servicentro Santamaría and the new culverting on the lot of Supermercados Molina, as the waters flooded homes, reaching levels of up to half a meter and causing the destruction of household goods, appliances, furniture, and generating a serious risk to the lives of the inhabitants.
The Chamber verifies that, by official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0302-2018 of August 17, 2018, the Dirección de Agua of MINAE stated that, following a complaint filed by an official of SINAC regarding the alleged culverting of an unnamed stream in San Juan de Nombre82652, an inspection was carried out on August 10, 2018, and three illegal culverts were found. Additionally, it was established that the diameter of the culverts is smaller than the width of the streambed, generating a risk of flooding, and that these installations lack hydrological and hydraulic studies, and also lack environmental viability from Setena, so it was recommended to completely eliminate the culverts, fills, and buildings and restore the streambed to its natural state. On February 10, 2019, SINAC received a complaint for apparent accumulation of material in the protection area of the Gambrinos stream, and therefore filed a report with the Fiscalía Adjunta de Nombre82652 for apparent invasion of the protection area.
In 2018 and 2019, the Dirección de Aguas filed complaints with the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo regarding three culverts found on the Gambrinos stream. By official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0477-2020 of November 6, 2020, the Dirección de Agua of MINAE filed a complaint with the Organismo de Investigación Judicial for the illegal culverting of a stream that passes through San Juan de San Ramón, specifically 75 meters north of the fuel station owned by Alfonso Santamaría Porras, and the complete removal of the works in the streambed was recommended. By memorandum DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019 of June 18, 2019, the Dirección de Agua informed the Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo that it inspected a site following a complaint that the Municipalidad de Nombre82652 was carrying out culverting in the streambed of the Gambrinos stream and determined that, effectively, such works were carried out without a permit, presumably by the local government, to comply with a judgment issued by the Sala Constitucional.
By memorandum DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 of July 8, 2019, the Dirección de Agua ordered the mayor of Nombre82652 to remove the culverting works crossing the property of Juan José Santamaría for lacking a permit for works in the streambed. By official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0478-2020 of November 4, 2020, the Dirección de Agua of MINAE filed a complaint with the Organismo de Investigación Judicial regarding the culverting of a section of an unnamed stream, and the removal of the illegal works in the streambed was recommended. On November 13, 2025, personnel from the Municipalidad de San Ramón, SINAC, and the Dirección de Agua inspected the Servicentro Santamaría, Supermercados Molina S. A., and the property of Nombre103386. By memorandum SINAC-ACC-OSR-inf-1873-2025 of November 13, 2025, SINAC indicated, regarding the inspection carried out at the reported locations: "FOURTH: That, the first property inspected corresponds to property number Dirección7300, with plan number A-1651670-2013, a property that according to (sic) consultation with the Registro Nacional its owners are Nombre103384, identity card CED57257, and María Grace del Socorro Chavarría Quirós, identity card CED57264.
On this property, it can be seen that the Gambrinos stream runs, duly determined by the Dirección de Agua of MINAE. It is observed that in a sector of the stream, specifically from coordinates CRTM 05 E 448827 and N 1117246 to coordinates CRTM 05 E 448831 and N 1117232, the protection area is invaded by earth fill and a pavement covering resembling a road, currently used for vehicle and general pedestrian traffic. Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 171 square meters. FIFTH: That, the second and third properties inspected correspond to properties number 2-552098-000 and 2-373514-000, with plan numbers A-1966800-2017 and CED57265 respectively, properties that according to (sic) consultation with the Registro Nacional, their owner is Supermercados Molina Sociedad Anónima, legal entity ID CED57266, whose legal representatives are Arcadio Molina Ferreto, identity card CED57267, and Marco Vinicio Molina Salas, identity card CED57268.
On this property, it can be seen that the Gambrinos stream runs, duly determined by the Dirección de Agua of MINAE. It is observed that in a sector of the stream, specifically from coordinates CRTM 05 E 448835 and N 1117227 to coordinates CRTM 05 E 448853 and N 1117199, the protection area is invaded by earth fill and a pasture cover that is regularly maintained, preventing a natural regeneration process in the protection area. Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 780 square meters. SIXTH: That, the fourth property inspected, where the Servicentro Santamaría is located, corresponds to property number Dirección7301, with plan number A-2144332-2019, a property that according to (sic) consultation with the Registro Nacional, its owner is Consorcio A&L Limitada, legal entity ID CED57256, whose legal representatives are Juan José Santamaría Umaña, identity card CED57269, and Danis Lorena Umaña Arroyo, identity card CED57270.
On this property, it can be seen that the Gambrinos stream runs along its boundary, duly determined by the Dirección de Agua of MINAE. It is observed that in a sector of the stream, specifically from coordinates CRTM 05 E 448865 and N 1117174 to coordinates CRTM 05 E 448892 and N 1117146, the protection area is invaded by the parking area of a Servicentro. Through field and office survey, with available field and technological tools, it is estimated that the protection area invaded on this property amounts to approximately 350 square meters. Conclusions and recommendations 1. It is concluded from the field inspection that an invasion of the water resource protection area, as defined in Article 33 of the Ley Forestal, can be determined on four different properties, of which, the current owners can be determined for the 4 of them. 2. As it was not possible to identify a specific actor for this case, it is recommended to file a complaint with the Organismo de Investigación Judicial so that the corresponding expert analyses can be carried out, based on the possible crime of invasion of the protection area of the Gambrinos stream, on the inspected properties. 3.
For the sites where structures are found within protection areas, request a forensic assessment from the Ministerio Público." (the bold was added). By official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0456-2025 of November 14, 2025, the Dirección de Agua indicated: "(…) As a result of said inspection, the following was determined for each property. Nombre103384 On the property of Mr. Nombre103384, with property number 0505623 and cadastral plan 2-1651670-2013, it was determined that the culverting carried out and reported in official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0478-2020 (attached) remains in place. It concerns an unnamed stream that is a tributary of the Gambrinos stream, whose streambed was culverted for approximately 110 meters in length and which outfalls into the Gambrinos stream. (…) At the scene, there is a lot and an easement access where the culvert crossing is located, but Mr. Nombre103384 was not at the site, so it was not possible to notify him at the time of the visit to the property (…) Supermercados Molina It was determined during (duranta) (sic) the site visit of November 13, 2025, that the 36-meter-long culverting over the streambed of the Gambrinos stream, which was reported in official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0477-2020 (attached), for properties number 0373514 with cadastral plan 2-0706127-2001, property number 0552098 with cadastral plan 2-1966800-2017, and property number 000002 without a cadastral plan, continues at the site continuously, from the end of the culvert crossing on the property of Mr.
Nombre103384 to the main road (…) At the scene, there is a lot where the culverting was carried out, so there is no one at the site to be able to issue a demolition and removal order for the culverting. (…) Servicentro Santa María It was determined during (duranta) (sic) the site visit of November 13, 2025, that the 45-meter-long culverting over the streambed of the Gambrinos stream, which was reported in official letter DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019 (attached), for property number 0582736 and cadastral plan A-2144332-2019, continues at the site (…) It is not omitted to indicate that in addition to these culverts, there are additional sections of illegal intervention in the streambed of the Gambrinos stream, as documented in official letter DAUHTPCOSR-0538-20 (…)" (the highlighting was added). On November 17, 2025, SINAC filed a complaint with the OIJ regarding what was observed in the inspection of November 13, 2025.
Thus, the Court verifies the injury to the fundamental rights of the protected persons by the Municipalidad de San Ramón, SINAC, and the Dirección de Agua of MINAE, due to the lack of diligent and swift action to resolve the flooding problems affecting Dirección7294 arising from the interventions made to the streambed of a stream that passes through there.
On this point, it is deduced from the case records that, at least since 2006, the local corporation of Nombre82652 has been aware of the problems caused by the Gambrinos stream and, on the occasion of judgment No. 2006016398 issued by this Court at 4:09 p.m. on November 15, 2006, actions have been taken to address this situation. However, in the report submitted to this Chamber, the authorities of the aforementioned municipality fail to explain whether the constructions that have affected the streambed of that stream have had municipal permits or not, nor whether they have carried out inspection work to verify this. Nor did they provide evidence to demonstrate that this local corporation has executed effective measures to resolve the problem that is the subject of this matter, which is long-standing. The foregoing is aggravated when considering that, since June 2019, the Dirección de Agua of MINAE determined that one of the culverts affecting the streambed of the stream in question was built by the Municipalidad de Nombre82652 and that since that year a one-month deadline was granted to remove such works - see official letter DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 -, which is not verified as having been carried out.
On the other hand, it is observed that both SINAC and the Dirección de Agua have carried out inspections of the reported stream and have confirmed that an invasion of its streambed has occurred and that works lacking permits that cause flooding have been built. Regarding this, although it is observed that complaints have been filed with the OIJ and the Ministerio Público, diligent and swift action on their part to address the reported problem is missing. In this sense, it should be noted that in the case under study it has not been proven that such authorities have provided adequate follow-up to this situation, despite being aware of its seriousness to the detriment of both the environment and the life and physical integrity of the residents of the area.
In summary, in this case it is accredited that the Municipalidad de San Ramón, the Dirección de Agua, and SINAC have had knowledge that the protection area of the mentioned stream has been invaded and that works, including culverting, have been built that disturb its streambed and cause floods that affect the residents of the area, as is the case of the protected persons, who reside in Dirección7294.
Now, despite this issue being of long standing, there is no evidence that such authorities have coordinated what is pertinent within the scope of their respective competencies in order to correct the situation; rather, they limit themselves to stating, for example, that they have conducted inspections, filed complaints, or adopted agreements, without this having led to a real solution to the problem, which, as indicated above, not only endangers the life and physical integrity of individuals but also degrades the environment. Therefore, the recourse is granted with respect to these authorities, in accordance with the provisions in the operative part of this matter.
IV.On the other hand, if the claimants consider that what was ordered by this Tribunal in judgment No. 2006016398 of 15:09 hours on November 15, 2006, has not been complied with, it is advisable to note that, if they so choose, they may file the corresponding non-execution proceeding in the case file of that matter, namely, 6-012100-0007-CO.
V.Finally, even though during the course of this proceeding a report was requested from the executive director of Conavi, no action or omission by that council is observed that violates fundamental rights in the terms in which the recourse was filed, which is why it is not granted with respect to that authority.
As a matter of principle, I consider that cases related to the inactivity of the Public Administration in the repair, construction, modification, or demolition of any infrastructure work must be dismissed, since that omission constitutes a matter of legality, the discussion of which belongs to the ordinary jurisdiction, before which the interested person may debate their disagreements more broadly. However, when some violation of other fundamental rights protected in this constitutional jurisdiction derives from that omissive administrative conduct, or vulnerable groups are affected, I do proceed to hear the merits of the matter, this situation constituting an exception to my position on this subject, as occurs in this case, where it is claimed that the respondent party has not solved the sanitary problem generated by the culverting of the Gambrinos stream (quebrada Gambrinos), in San Ramón, which endangers the life and integrity of the claimant and the neighbors.
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, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The recourse is partially granted, solely with respect to the Municipalidad de San Ramón, the Dirección de Agua of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, and the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. Fabián Vásquez Quirós, Hermelink Chinchilla Corrales, and Johnny Montoya Villalobos, in their respective capacities as acting mayor, council president, and director of Desarrollo Urbano, all of the Municipalidad de San Ramón, as well as José Miguel Zeledón Calderón and Julio Rojas Elizondo, in their respective capacities as director de Agua of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía and acting head of the Subregional Office of Nombre82652 of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, or whoever occupies those positions, are ordered to coordinate what is necessary, take the appropriate measures, and issue the corresponding orders within the scope of their respective competencies, so that: i) within a period of FIVE DAYS, counted from the notification of this pronouncement, an inter-institutional commission is created to address the problem set forth by the claimant regarding the floods that occurred at Dirección7294; and ii) within a period of ONE MONTH, counted from the creation of the aforementioned inter-institutional commission, a plan is designed to address the problem that is the subject of this recourse.
The foregoing is issued with the warning that, based on the provisions of article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, will be imposed on those who receive an order that they must execute or cause to be executed, issued in an amparo recourse, and who do not execute it or cause it to be executed, provided the offense is not more severely punished. The State, the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, and the Municipalidad de Nombre82652 are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the contentious-administrative judgment. In all other respects, the recourse is dismissed. Judge Salazar Alvarado adds a note. Notifíquese.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del nueve de enero de dos mil veintiseis .
Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 25-033622-0007-CO, interpuesto por Nombre103379, cédula de identidad CED57258, Nombre103380, cédula de identidad CED57259, Nombre103381, cédula de identidad CED57260, Nombre103382, cédula de identidad CED57261 y Nombre103383, cédula de identidad CED57262, contra el MINISTERIO DE AMBIENTE Y ENERGÍA (MINAE), EL SISTEMA NACIONAL DE ÁREAS DE CONSERVACIÓN (SINAC), LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE Nombre82652 Y EL CONSEJO NACIONAL DE VIALIDAD (CONAVI).
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,
Considerando:
Los recurrentes indican que desde el 2006 esta Sala dictó la sentencia nro. 16398-2006 en el que se declaró con lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos del barrio La Torre y se le ordenó al alcalde Nombre82652 tomar medidas inmediatas para solucionar el problema sanitario generado por el entubamiento de la quebrada Gambrinos. Reclaman que, a pesar de lo anterior, los problemas persisten hasta la fecha en la que acuden nuevamente en amparo, ya que todavía sufren inundaciones recurrentes cada invierno, pues la quebrada que atraviesa su barrio sigue sin recibir intervenciones efectivas. Aclaran que no saben si la quebrada que pasa por su barrio es en efecto Gambrinos o si es otra quebrada afluente. Exponen que esa quebrada fue entubada por los dueños del Servicentro Santamaría, pese a que según informó la Dirección de Agua del MINAE no se cuenta con permiso de obra en el cause, por lo que se ordenó su eliminación; sin embargo, en la actualidad las obras siguen intactas.
Agregan que en 2019 se presentó un segundo recurso de amparo bajo el expediente 19-020710-0007-CO, pero la problemática persiste. Comentan que durante los años siguientes el crecimiento urbano en la parte alta de San Juan de Nombre82652 con la construcción de supermercados, urbanizaciones y calles asfaltadas ha incrementado el caudal de agua que desemboca en la quebrada del barrio, lo que las autoridades municipales han permitido sin exigir estudios técnicos ni obras de mitigación, a pesar de conocer los riesgos que enfrentan los vecinos de esa zona desde hace casi dos décadas. Recalcan que en octubre de 2025 se registraron las peores inundaciones en el sector, especialmente el día 18, cuando un torrencial aguacero provocó el colapso del alcantarillado ilegal en el Servicentro Santamaría y el nuevo entubamiento en el lote de Supermercados Molina, pues las aguas anegaron viviendas, alcanzando niveles de hasta medio metro y generaron la destrucción de enseres domésticos, electrodomésticos, muebles y generando un grave riesgo para la vida de los habitantes.
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:
Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 171 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. QUINTO: Que, la segunda y tercera propiedad inspeccionada corresponden a las fincas número 2-552098-000 y 2-373514-000, mismas con números de plano A-1966800-2017 y CED57265 respectivamente, propiedades que de acuerdo a (sic) consulta a Registro Nacional su propietario corresponde a Supermercados Molina Sociedad Anónima, cédula jurídica CED57266, cuyos representantes legales, corresponden a Arcadio Molina Ferreto, cédula de identidad CED57267 y Marco Vinicio Molina Salas, cédula de identidad CED57268. En esta propiedad se puede apreciar que discurre la quebrada Gambrinos, misma debidamente dictaminada por la Dirección de Agua de MINAE. Se aprecia que un sector de la quebrada, específicamente de las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448835 y N 1117227 hasta las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448853 y N 1117199, el área de protección se encuentra invadida por relleno de tierra y una cobertura de pastos a los cuales se les da mantenimiento regularmente, impidiendo un proceso de regeneración natural en el área de protección.
Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 780 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. SEXTO: Que, la cuarta propiedad inspeccionada, donde se encuentra el Servicentro Santamaría, corresponde a la finca número Dirección7301, con número de plano A-2144332-2019 propiedad que de acuerdo a (sic) consulta a Registro Nacional su propietario corresponde a Consorcio A&L Limitada, cédula jurídica CED57256, cuyos representantes legales corresponden a Juan José Santamaría Umaña, cédula de identidad CED57269 y Danis Lorena Umaña Arroyo, cédula de identidad CED57270. En esta propiedad se puede apreciar que en su límite discurre la quebrada Gambrinos, misma debidamente dictaminada por la Dirección de Agua de MINAE. Se aprecia que un sector de la quebrada, específicamente de las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448865 y N 1117174 hasta las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448892 y N 1117146 el área de protección se encuentra invadida por zona de parqueo de un Servicentro.
Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 350 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. Conclusiones y recomendaciones 1. Se concluye de la inspección de campo, que se puede determinar invasión a área de protección de recurso hídrico, definidas en el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal, en cuatro propiedades distintas, de las cuales, de las 4 se pueden determinar los propietarios actuales de las mismas. 2. Al no lograr individualizar algún actor para este caso, se recomienda presentar denuncia ante el Organismo de Investigación Judicial para que se realicen las pericias correspondientes, partiendo del posible delito de invasión al área de protección de la Quebrada Gambrinos, en las propiedades inspeccionadas. 3. Para los sitios donde se encuentran estructuras dentro de áreas de protección, solicitar al Ministerio de Público pericia forense”. (Ver prueba documental).
(…) Servicentro Santa María Se determinó duranta (sic) la visita al sitio del 13 de noviembre de 2025, que el entubamiento de 45 metros de largo sobre el cauce de la quebrada Gambrinos y que fue denunciado en el oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019(adjunto), para la propiedad finca 0582736 y plano catastro A-2144332-2019, continúa en el sitio (…) No se omite indicar que además de estos entubamientos, existen tramos adicionales de intervención ilegal de cauce de la quebrada Gambrinos, según se documenta en el oficio DAUHTPCOSR-0538-20 (…)”. (Ver prueba documental).
En la especie, los recurrentes indican que desde el 2006 esta Sala dictó la sentencia nro. 16398-2006 en el que se declaró con lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto por vecinos del Dirección7294 y se le ordenó al alcalde Nombre82652 tomar medidas inmediatas para solucionar el problema sanitario generado por el entubamiento de la quebrada Gambrinos. Reclaman que, a pesar de lo anterior, los problemas persisten hasta la fecha en la que acuden nuevamente en amparo, ya que todavía sufren inundaciones recurrentes cada invierno, pues la quebrada que atraviesa su barrio sigue sin recibir intervenciones efectivas. Aclaran que no saben si la quebrada que pasa por su barrio es en efecto Gambrinos o si es otra quebrada afluente. Exponen que esa quebrada fue entubada por los dueños del Servicentro Santamaría, pese a que según informó la Dirección de Agua del MINAE no se cuenta con permiso de obra en el cause, por lo que se ordenó su eliminación; sin embargo, en la actualidad las obras siguen intactas.
Agregan que en 2019 se presentó un segundo recurso de amparo bajo el expediente 19-020710-0007-CO, pero la problemática persiste. Comentan que durante los años siguientes el crecimiento urbano en la parte alta de San Juan de Nombre82652 con la construcción de supermercados, urbanizaciones y calles asfaltadas ha incrementado el caudal de agua que desemboca en la quebrada del barrio, lo que las autoridades municipales han permitido sin exigir estudios técnicos ni obras de mitigación, a pesar de conocer los riesgos que enfrentan los vecinos de esa zona desde hace casi dos décadas. Recalcan que en octubre de 2025 se registraron las peores inundaciones en el sector, especialmente el día 18, cuando un torrencial aguacero provocó el colapso del alcantarillado ilegal en el Servicentro Santamaría y el nuevo entubamiento en el lote de Supermercados Molina, pues las aguas anegaron viviendas, alcanzando niveles de hasta medio metro y generaron la destrucción de enseres domésticos, electrodomésticos, muebles y generando un grave riesgo para la vida de los habitantes.
La Sala comprueba que, mediante oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0302-2018 del 17 de agosto de 2018, la Dirección de Agua del MINAE expuso que, ante denuncia planteada por un funcionario del SINAC debido al presunto entubamiento de una quebrada sin nombre en San Juan de Nombre82652 se efectuó una inspección el 10 de agosto de 2018 y se encontraron tres entubamientos ilegales. Además, se estableció que el diámetro de las alcantarillas es menor al ancho del cauce de la quebrada, lo que genera un riesgo de inundaciones, así como que estos no cuentan con estudios hidrológicos ni hidráulicos, tampoco con la viabilidad ambiental de Setena, por lo que se recomendó eliminar los entubamientos, rellenos y edificaciones por completo y restituir al estado natural el cauce. El 10 de febrero de 2019, el SINAC recibió una denuncia por aparente acumulación de material en el área de protección de la quebrada Gambrinos, por lo que planteó un informe ante la Fiscalía Adjunta de Nombre82652 por aparente invasión del área de protección.
En 2018 y 2019, la Dirección de Aguas planteó denuncias ante el Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo por tres entubamientos encontrados sobre la quebrada Gambrinos. Por oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0477-2020 del 6 de noviembre de 2020, la Dirección de Agua del MINAE planteó una denuncia ante el Organismo de Investigación Judicial por el entubamiento ilegal de una quebrada que pasa por San Juan de San Ramón, específicamente 75 metros al norte de la estación de combustible de Alfonso Santamaría Porras y se recomendó la completa eliminación de la obra del cauce. Por memorial DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019 del 18 de junio de 2019, la Dirección de Agua comunicó al Tribunal Ambiental Administrativo que inspeccionó un lugar ante la denuncia de que la Municipalidad de Nombre82652 estaba efectuando un entubamiento al cauce de la quebrada Gambrinos y determinó que, efectivamente, se efectuó sin permiso una obra de ese tipo presuntamente por parte del gobierno local para cumplir una sentencia dictada por la Sala Constitucional.
Por memorial DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019 del 8 de julio de 2019, la Dirección de Agua ordenó al alcalde de Nombre82652 eliminar las obras de entubamiento que atraviesa la propiedad de Juan José Santamaría por no contar con permiso de obra en cauce. Mediante oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0478-2020 del 4 de noviembre de 2020, la Dirección de Agua del MINAE formuló una denuncia ante el Organismo de Investigación Judicial en relación con un entubamiento de un tramo de una quebrada sin nombre y se recomendó la eliminación de la obra ilegal en el cauce. El 13 de noviembre de 2025, personal de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, del SINAC y de la Dirección de Agua inspeccionaron el Servicentro Santamaría, Supermercados Molina S. A. y la propiedad de Nombre103386. Por memorial SINAC-ACC-OSR-inf-1873-2025 del 13 de noviembre de 2025, el SINAC indicó en relación con la inspección efectuada a los lugares denunciados: “CUARTO: Que, la primera propiedad inspeccionada corresponde a la finca número Dirección7300, con número de plano A-1651670-2013 propiedad que de acuerdo a (sic) consulta a Registro Nacional sus propietarios corresponden a Nombre103384, cédula de identidad CED57257 y a María Grace del Socorro Chavarría Quirós, cédula de identidad CED57264.
En esta propiedad se puede apreciar que discurre la quebrada Gambrinos, misma debidamente dictaminada por la Dirección de Agua de MINAE. Se aprecia que un sector de la quebrada, específicamente de las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448827 y N 1117246 hasta las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448831 y N 1117232 el área de protección se encuentra invadida por relleno de tierra y una cobertura de pavimento tipo calle, actualmente utilizada para tránsito de vehículos y personas en general. Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 171 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. QUINTO: Que, la segunda y tercera propiedad inspeccionada corresponden a las fincas número 2-552098-000 y 2-373514-000, mismas con números de plano A-1966800-2017 y CED57265 respectivamente, propiedades que de acuerdo a (sic) consulta a Registro Nacional su propietario corresponde a Supermercados Molina Sociedad Anónima, cédula jurídica CED57266, cuyos representantes legales, corresponden a Arcadio Molina Ferreto, cédula de identidad CED57267 y Marco Vinicio Molina Salas, cédula de identidad CED57268.
En esta propiedad se puede apreciar que discurre la quebrada Gambrinos, misma debidamente dictaminada por la Dirección de Agua de MINAE. Se aprecia que un sector de la quebrada, específicamente de las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448835 y N 1117227 hasta las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448853 y N 1117199, el área de protección se encuentra invadida por relleno de tierra y una cobertura de pastos a los cuales se les da mantenimiento regularmente, impidiendo un proceso de regeneración natural en el área de protección. Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 780 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. SEXTO: Que, la cuarta propiedad inspeccionada, donde se encuentra el Servicentro Santamaría, corresponde a la finca número Dirección7301, con número de plano A-2144332-2019 propiedad que de acuerdo a (sic) consulta a Registro Nacional su propietario corresponde a Consorcio A&L Limitada, cédula jurídica CED57256, cuyos representantes legales corresponden a Juan José Santamaría Umaña, cédula de identidad CED57269 y Danis Lorena Umaña Arroyo, cédula de identidad CED57270.
En esta propiedad se puede apreciar que en su límite discurre la quebrada Gambrinos, misma debidamente dictaminada por la Dirección de Agua de MINAE. Se aprecia que un sector de la quebrada, específicamente de las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448865 y N 1117174 hasta las coordenadas CRTM 05 E 448892 y N 1117146 el área de protección se encuentra invadida por zona de parqueo de un Servicentro. Haciendo levantamiento de campo y gabinete, con las herramientas de campo y tecnológicas disponibles, se estima que el área de protección invadida en esta propiedad corresponde a 350 metros cuadrados aproximadamente. Conclusiones y recomendaciones 1. Se concluye de la inspección de campo, que se puede determinar invasión a área de protección de recurso hídrico, definidas en el artículo 33 de la Ley Forestal, en cuatro propiedades distintas, de las cuales, de las 4 se pueden determinar los propietarios actuales de las mismas. 2.
Al no lograr individualizar algún actor para este caso, se recomienda presentar denuncia ante el Organismo de Investigación Judicial para que se realicen las pericias correspondientes, partiendo del posible delito de invasión al área de protección de la Quebrada Gambrinos, en las propiedades inspeccionadas. 3. Para los sitios donde se encuentran estructuras dentro de áreas de protección, solicitar al Ministerio de Público pericia forense” (la negrita fue añadida). Mediante oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0456-2025 del 14 de noviembre de 2025, la Dirección de Agua indicó: “(…) Producto de dicha inspección se determinó lo siguiente para cada propiedad. Nombre103384 En la propiedad del señor Nombre103384, con número de finca 0505623 y plano catastro 2- 1651670-2013, se determinó que se mantiene la existencia del entubamiento realizado y denunciado en el oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0478-2020 (adjunto). Se trata de una quebrada sin nombre que es afluente de la quebrada Gambrinos que fue entubado su cauce en aproximadamente 110 metros de largo y que desfoga en la quebrada Gambrinos.
(…) En el lugar de los hechos lo que hay es un lote y una entrada de servidumbre la cual está el paso de alcantarilla, pero no está el señor Nombre103384 en el sitio por lo que no fue posible notificarlo en el momento de la visita a la propiedad (…) Supermercados Molina Se determinó duranta (sic) la visita al sitio del 13 de noviembre de 2025, que el entubamiento de 36 metros de largo sobre el cuce de la quebrada Gambrinos y que fue denunciado en el oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0477-2020 (adjunto), para las propiedades finca 0373514 con plano catastro 2-0706127- 2001, finca 0552098 con plano catastro 2-1966800-2017 y finca 000002 sin plano catastro, continúa en el sitio de forma continua, desde el final del paso de alcantarilla en propiedad del señor Nombre103384 hasta la carretera principal (…) En el lugar de los hechos lo que hay es un lote en donde se realizó el entubamiento por lo que no hay nadie en el sitio para poder realizar la notificación de derribo y eliminación del entubamiento.
(…) Servicentro Santa María Se determinó duranta (sic) la visita al sitio del 13 de noviembre de 2025, que el entubamiento de 45 metros de largo sobre el cauce de la quebrada Gambrinos y que fue denunciado en el oficio DA-UHTPCOSR-0259-2019(adjunto), para la propiedad finca 0582736 y plano catastro A-2144332-2019, continúa en el sitio (…) No se omite indicar que además de estos entubamientos, existen tramos adicionales de intervención ilegal de cauce de la quebrada Gambrinos, según se documenta en el oficio DAUHTPCOSR-0538-20 (…)” (el destacado fue añadido). El 17 de noviembre de 2025, el SINAC formuló una denuncia ante el OIJ en relación con lo observado en la inspección del 13 de noviembre de 2025.
Así las cosas, el Tribunal comprueba la lesión a los derechos fundamentales de las personas amparadas por parte de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, el SINAC y la Dirección de Agua del MINAE, debido a la falta de actuación diligente y célere a fin de resolver los problemas de inundaciones que afectan el Dirección7294 ante las intervenciones efectuadas al cauce de una quebrada que transcurre por ahí.
Sobre el particular, de los autos se colige que, al menos desde el año 2006, la corporación local de Nombre82652 conoce la problemática ocasionada por la quebrada Gambrinos y, con ocasión de la sentencia dictada por este Tribunal nro. 2006016398 de las 16:09 horas del 15 de noviembre de 2006, se han llevado actuaciones para atender tal situación. Sin embargo, en el informe rendido ante esta Cámara, las autoridades de la municipalidad aludida son omisas al explicar si las construcciones que han afectado el cauce de esa quebrada han contado o no con permisos municipales, ni si han llevado a cabo labores de inspección para corroborarlo. Tampoco aportaron elementos probatorios que permitan acreditar que esa corporación local ha ejecutado labores eficaces para resolver la problemática objeto de este asunto, la cual es de vieja data. Lo anterior se agrava al considerar que, desde junio de 2019, la Dirección de Agua del MINAE determinó que uno de los entubamientos que afecta el cauce de la quebrada en cuestión fue construido por la Municipalidad de Nombre82652 y que desde ese año se confirió un plazo de un mes para eliminar tales obras -véase el oficio DA-UHTPCOSJ-1350-2019-, lo cual no se verifica que se haya llevado a cabo.
Por otra parte, se observa que tanto el SINAC como la Dirección de Agua han efectuado inspecciones sobre la quebrada denunciada y han constatado que se ha dado una invasión de su cauce y que se han construido obras carentes de permisos que generan inundaciones. Acerca de esto, si bien se observa que se han planteado denuncias ante el OIJ y el Ministerio Público, se echa de menos una actuación diligente y célere de su parte para atender la problemática denunciada. En ese sentido, adviértase que en el caso bajo estudio no se tiene por demostrado que tales autoridades hayan dado seguimiento adecuado a esta situación, pese a que son conocedoras de su gravedad en detrimento tanto del ambiente como de la vida e integridad física de los vecinos de la zona.
En suma, en la especie se tiene por acreditado que la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua y el SINAC han tenido conocimiento que se ha invadido el área de protección de la quebrada mencionada y que se han construido obras, entre ellas de entubamiento, que perturban su cauce y provocan inundaciones que afectan a los vecinos de la zona, tal como el caso de las personas tuteladas, quienes residen en Dirección7294. Ahora bien, pese a que tal problemática es de larga data, no se evidencia que tales autoridades hayan coordinado lo pertinente dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas a fin de corregir la situación, sino que se limitan a indicar, verbigracia, que han hecho inspecciones, interpuesto denuncias o adoptado acuerdos, sin que ello haya derivado en una solución real de la problemática, la cual, tal como se indicó ut supra, no solo pone en riesgo la vida e integridad física de las personas, sino que deteriora al ambiente. Por ende, se acoge el recurso en cuanto a estas autoridades, de acuerdo con lo establecido en la parte dispositiva de este asunto.
IV.Por otra parte, si los accionantes estiman que se ha incumplido lo ordenado por este Tribunal en la sentencia nro. 2006016398 de las 16:09 horas del 15 de noviembre de 2006, conviene advertir que, si a bien lo tienen, pueden plantear la gestión de inejecución correspondiente en el expediente de ese asunto, a saber, 6-012100-0007-CO.
V.Finalmente, aun cuando en la resolución de curso de este proceso se requirió informe al director ejecutivo del Conavi, no se observa alguna acción u omisión de ese consejo que conculque los derechos fundamentales en los términos en que fue planteado el recurso, motivo por el cual no se acoge en cuanto a esa autoridad.
En tesis de principio, considero que los casos relacionados con la 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 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 se reclama, que la parte recurrida no ha solucionado el problema sanitario generado por el entubamiento de la quebrada Gambrinos, en San Ramón, lo que pone en riesgo la vida e integridad de la recurrente y los vecinos.
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 parcialmente con lugar el recurso, solo en cuanto a la Municipalidad de San Ramón, la Dirección de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. Se les ordena a Fabián Vásquez Quirós, Hermelink Chinchilla Corrales y Johnny Montoya Villalobos, por su condición respectiva de alcalde a.i., presidente del Concejo y director de Desarrollo Urbano, todos de la Municipalidad de San Ramón, así como a José Miguel Zeledón Calderón y Julio Rojas Elizondo, en su condición respectiva de director de Agua del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y jefe a.i. de la Oficina Subregional de Nombre82652 del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, o a quienes ocupen esos cargos, coordinar lo necesario, tomar las medidas adecuadas y girar las órdenes que correspondan dentro del ámbito de sus competencias respectivas, a fin de que: i) en el plazo de CINCO DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de este pronunciamiento, se cree una comisión interinstitucional que se encargue de abordar la problemática expuesta por la parte accionante respecto a las inundaciones acaecidas en Dirección7294; y ii) en el plazo de UN MES, contado a partir de la creación de la comisión interinstitucional supramencionada, se diseñe un plan para atender el problema objeto de este recurso.
Lo anterior se dicta con el apercibimiento de que con base en lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quienes recibieren una orden que deban cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y que no la cumplieren o no la hicieren cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado, al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación y a la Municipalidad de Nombre82652 al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso-administrativo. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. 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.