Legislative consultation dismissed for lack of grounds on IBRD-IFAD sustainable agriculture loansConsulta legislativa inadmisible sobre préstamos BIRF-FIDA para agricultura sostenible

Document Review Res. Nº 2026016432 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA). San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the seventh of May, two thousand twenty-six.

Optional legislative constitutional consultation (consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad) filed by legislators [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], [Nombre 003], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011], and [Nombre 012], concerning the "legislative bill recorded under EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA."

Findings:

1.- By written submission received at this Chamber on April 30, 2026, the consulting legislators filed an optional legislative constitutional consultation with respect to the "legislative bill recorded under EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA," in which they state:

"1. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL To improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of selected small and medium agricultural producers (PYMPAS) in Costa Rica.

Definition of objective terms:

'Sustainability': includes actions relating to environmental sustainability such as the reduction of greenhouse gas (GEI) emissions, climate change resilience, and broader management of natural resources (water, soils, biodiversity), as well as the social dimension through the inclusion of populations in vulnerable conditions (women, youth, persons with disabilities), and the economic dimension through actions that allow for greater democratization of economic activity and wealth generation, especially in communities with lower social development indices.

'Competitiveness': refers to the capacity of producers to compete in national and international markets.

'Economic participation': refers to the capacity of vulnerable groups (PYMPAS, including in particular women and youth) to benefit from the development of the agricultural sector. 'Agriculture': shall be understood as the primary economic sector and includes crops, livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture.

The Program's implementation framework falls within the Public Policy for the Agricultural Sector 2023-2032, made official through Decreto Ejecutivo N°43.887MAG, whose general objective is: 'To enhance economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the implementation of tools and mechanisms that contribute to the development and well-being of the population linked to the Costa Rican Agricultural Sector.' The Program for Results for sustainable and competitive agriculture in Costa Rica with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (FIDA) allows for the expansion of the scope of the Public Policy for the Costa Rican Agricultural Sector 2023-2032, which has four strategic pillars guiding its policy actions (strategic interventions): 1. modernization of Agricultural Sector institutions; 2. promotion of competitiveness; 3. productivity and sustainability; and 4. value added and commercialization.

Through an injection of resources amounting to US$ 140 million (equivalent to € 134,710,450), this will enable the scaling of 10,500 producers to sustainable climate-change adaptation and mitigation models with accessible financial products from the SBD for productive transformation; the development of a cold-chain network in the canton of Puntarenas that will provide cold-storage services to small and medium fishers, thereby improving product quality and commercialization; the modernization of infrastructure for 14 Water User Societies in the northern Cartago region, as well as the conduct of a feasibility study to determine the viability of developing an irrigation district in that area; the creation of a digital file system to facilitate information and administrative procedures for producers; the expansion of traceability processes covering activities such as potatoes and onions, fisheries and aquaculture, pork production, and oil palm, among others; as well as the strengthening of institutional services at the laboratory level within INTA, SFE, and SENASA; among other actions that will promote sustainable growth in the sector.

2. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The bill was introduced into the legislative process on October 6, 2025.

It was published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 200 of October 24, 2025, in Supplement No. 137.

It was reported out by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on March 17, 2026.

It was approved on first reading (primer debate) in the Legislative Plenary on April 21, 2026.

3. STANDING Articles 96, paragraph b), 97, and 98 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction establish as standing requirements for filing a constitutional consultation that it be requested by at least ten legislators and that it be filed after approval on first reading. Both requirements are met, as this consultation is signed by at least ten legislators, and it is filed after the bill in question 4. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONSULTATION In compliance with the provisions of Article 99 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, we set out below the specific aspects of the bill being challenged, indicating the grounds that give rise to sufficient doubts and objections to warrant this constitutional consultation.

Concern is expressed regarding two fundamental elements: the first is compliance with environmental regulations, the second is legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the third is the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt.

The following details matters of interest regarding specific aspects:

I.The public interest, in the paramount protection of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt, must inform the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA.

It is evident that the legislative initiative presents a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social regulations, since it seeks the following:

The objective of the project is to improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of specific PYMPAS in Costa Rica; to modernize public agricultural extension services: improve and implement the Digital Information Platform for Producers; train extension specialists to increase their knowledge and capacities in key areas, including: (i) adoption of NAMA; (ii) registration and use of the Digital Information Platform for Producers, the emerging agricultural sector traceability system, and other digital resources; (iii) adaptation of extension services for vulnerable groups; and (iv) general business management. Promote the competitiveness of agricultural producers; improve producers' access to national and international markets through actions such as: development and implementation of a traceability system for the agricultural sector and certification of participating producers; carrying out analyses to improve food safety and compliance with animal and phytosanitary standards, including those related to animal origin, quality of veterinary medicines, and veterinary diagnostics; developing and publishing a national public policy and corresponding action plan to promote the registration and proper use of agricultural pesticides; drafting and publishing regulations for the use of bioinputs; staffing and supplying materials to carry out analyses aimed at improving agrochemical control and registration services; and designing and constructing the Cold Storage Warehouse. Improvement of the environmental sustainability of agricultural production: providing specialized technical assistance to PYMPAS working with livestock, coffee, and sugarcane to accelerate NAMA adoption; establishing four (4) demonstration farms for the NAMA livestock model; improving access to financial mechanisms, including loans, guarantees, and subsidies for PYMPAS adopting NAMA, and providing financial literacy training to producers; recognizing producers who implement sustainable practices through the Bandera Azul program; carrying out baseline GHG emission assessments for livestock, coffee, and sugarcane NAMA models; carrying out GHG emission and organic soil carbon assessments for specific NAMA farms; (i) carrying out feasibility studies for the Cartago Irrigation District, training and strengthening the management capacities of Water User Societies, and modernizing the 14 existing irrigation works maintained by Water User Societies; and (ii) automating the sluices of the Arenal Tempisque Irrigation District to optimize water flows and improve water-use efficiency; strengthening INTA and ONS capacities to produce and certify specific resilient crop varieties; and carrying out an assessment of current NAMA financing initiatives with the aim of evaluating their effectiveness and identifying possible adjustments to reduce their fiscal costs.

The risk to which Costa Rica exposes itself in carrying out this project without transgressing existing environmental regulations is very great, and existing environmental regulations could be transgressed; therefore, it is requested that the Chamber consider whether this is unconstitutional.

II.THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER. This is the second precept submitted for review by the Chamber, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of law that may also be conceptualized as a guarantee for every individual whereby they have assurance that their legal situation will not be altered except through regular procedures established in advance — that is, it represents the guarantee of the objective application of the law, such that individuals know at all times what their rights and obligations are. From a subjective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the moral certainty that an individual has that their property will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as the judicial organization, the police force, and the laws, so that from an objective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the existence of a just and effective social order whose enforcement is guaranteed by public coercion.

In this regard, it must be understood that, in the absence of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate legal certainty, there could be grounds for unconstitutionality.

III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

This is the third precept submitted for review by the Justices, as the financing impact of the bill under review could affect the sustainability of the public debt.

The total cost of the Program is the sum of one hundred fifteen million five hundred thousand euros (EUR 115,500,000), as that amount may be converted from time to time through a Currency Conversion. The large sum that the country will be required to repay calls into question the economic capacity to service that debt, and could therefore generate a significant financial impact on the sustainability of the public debt.

For this reason, and in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate financial security, there could be grounds for unconstitutionality.

5. PROCEDURAL MATTERS Interlocutorily: The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly has scheduled the second reading (segundo debate) for April 27, 2026, at sixteen hundred hours.

We therefore request that the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly be formally notified of this Optional Consultation, and that all debate on bill No. 25228 and its vote on second reading be suspended.

6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Based on the constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential grounds set forth above, we respectfully request that this Tribunal grant the present Optional Consultation as filed, and assess whether the matters identified herein violate the Constitution as formulated in this consultation." 2.- The formal procedural requirements of law have been observed in the conduct of this proceeding.

Drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

Considerando I.- ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTATION. The consulting legislators argue that this consultation is admissible pursuant to Articles 96, paragraph b), 97, and 98 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction, having been signed by more than ten legislators and having been filed after the consulted bill was approved on first reading. However, this Tribunal concludes that the requirement set forth in Article 99 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction is not met in this case, as the consultation lacks adequate grounds for the constitutional doubts, as will be analyzed in the following considerandos.

Considerando II.- ON THE GROUNDS REQUIRED FOR OPTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSULTATIONS. Regarding the necessary grounds for optional constitutional consultations, this Chamber has established that:

"Article 99 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction clearly states that an optional constitutional consultation must be filed by means of a reasoned brief (memorial razonado) setting out the aspects of the bill being challenged, as well as the grounds for doubt or objections as to its constitutionality. This provision determines — and this has been recognized repeatedly in constitutional case law — that the filing brief (libelo de interposición) must identify the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is questioned or consulted, and must clearly express the reasons why a provision of the bill is believed to be unconstitutional; failing this, the consultation would be inadmissible (inadmisible) — see, in this regard, judgments numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others. Indeed, the Chamber has stated on this point that:

'…In this case, the consulting parties do not identify the articles of the bill they are challenging, nor the reasons why they have doubts or objections as to its constitutionality; they simply identify the subject matter being consulted, without advancing any constitutional argument, and therefore the consultation cannot be answered. Constitutional case law has repeatedly so held, and for that reason the appropriate ruling is not to answer the consultation as filed.' Beyond the specific citation of the articles whose constitutionality is being consulted, as already indicated, the grounds for the legislative consultation must also be clear and express, detailing the reasons why the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions being consulted. In this regard, the Chamber has stated that if the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be deemed inadmissible and therefore unanswerable (inevacuable), since this Tribunal would not have the express grounds on which to rule. Indeed, the Chamber has stated that:

'…It must also be recalled that the law itself provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber shall answer the consultation by issuing an opinion "on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others that it considers relevant from a constitutional standpoint," but the tribunal interprets "the aspects and grounds consulted" to be those that, in accordance with Article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or set out the grounds for any doubts the legislators may have about it. Since, therefore, the consultation departs from what is legally established, it cannot be received; if the tribunal were nonetheless to admit and answer it, it would be acting beyond the scope of its powers.' (Judgment No. 2001-11643, reiterated in judgments numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204, and 2022-9345, among others). Emphasis added.

Accordingly, if a consultation is imprecise in citing the articles or in setting out the grounds for well-founded constitutional doubts, it is inadmissible and unanswerable. This standard was reiterated and consolidated in the Chamber's case law, as determined in the already cited judgment number 2012-9253, reiterated in 2022-9345, which states that:

'[T]his is so because "in the case of optional legislative consultations, 'the Constitutional Chamber's jurisdiction has its origin in the doubts or constitutional objections formulated by the legislators' — judgment 2001-12459 — so that if such arguments do not in fact exist, or when the consulting legislators themselves state that they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions or bills consulted, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any opinion, since these would be situations that go beyond the Chamber's jurisdiction in the area of optional legislative constitutional consultations — judgment 2002-3460."' Emphasis added." (voto nro. 2024-032834 of 9:20 hours of November 1, 2024) For its part, in voto nro. 2024-036153 of 9:45 hours of December 3, 2024, this Tribunal further stated that the:

"(…) lack of grounds prevents the Tribunal from conducting an exhaustive analysis and issuing a decision on the matter, since the Chamber can only do so when it has the necessary elements to that end, which must be provided by the consulting legislators, who are the competent parties to raise constitutional doubts in this type of proceeding." Considerando III.- ON THE PRESENT CONSULTATION. In the case at hand (sub lite), this Chamber finds that the consultation as filed does not contain adequate grounds. The consulting legislators state that the bill being processed under expediente nro. 25.228, entitled "APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA," gives rise to "sufficient doubts and objections" regarding "compliance with environmental regulations," "legal certainty," and "the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt." In fact, however, no adequate argumentative development is provided as to those doubts. First, the consulting parties limit themselves to a cursory account of the content and objectives of the bill under consultation, then add that Costa Rica is exposed to a "risk… for carrying out this project without transgressing existing environmental regulations [that] is very great, and existing environmental regulations could be transgressed; therefore, it is requested that the Chamber consider whether this is unconstitutional." However, no specification or substantiation is provided as to what those risks would be. It is not even clear whether the consultants' doubts concern the specific content of the bill or its eventual application. What is certain is that this concern is raised in an entirely generic, abstract, and imprecise manner. A similar situation arises with respect to the topic of legal certainty, where the consultants make a generic reference to the principle of legal certainty and then add that "it must be understood that, in the absence of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate legal certainty, there could be grounds for unconstitutionality." However, the specific reasons why such criteria are lacking, or their effective bearing on a possible violation of the principle of legal certainty, are not explained. The same holds with regard to the alleged financial impact of the bill: the consultants make a cursory reference to the cost of the program and again assert that "in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate financial security, there could be grounds for unconstitutionality." On this point as well, no further argumentative development is provided. There is, in sum, no precise, sufficient, or adequately circumscribed argumentation, which renders this consultation inadmissible.

In view of the foregoing, the consultation shall not be answered, and it is so declared.

Considerando IV.- DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE FILE. The parties are hereby notified that if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology-produced device, these must be retrieved from the clerk's office within a maximum period of 30 business days from notification of this judgment. Failing this, all material not retrieved within this period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Plenary Court (Corte Plena) in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The consultation shall not be answered.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- Phone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 meters south of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).

San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the seventh of May, two thousand and twenty-six.

Optional legislative constitutional referral (consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad) filed by deputies [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], [Nombre 003], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011], and [Nombre 012], concerning the "*bill recorded under **EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.228, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA.**"*

Findings:

1.- By written submission received in this Constitutional Chamber (Sala) on 30 de abril de 2026, the consulting deputies file an optional legislative constitutional referral with respect to the "*bill recorded under **EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.228, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA,**"* in which they state:

"**1. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL** *To improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of selected small and medium-sized agricultural producers in Costa Rica.* *Definition of objective terms:* *"**Sustainability**": includes environmental sustainability actions such as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero), climate change resilience (resiliencia al cambio climático), and broader management of natural resources (water, soils, biodiversity), as well as a social dimension through the inclusion of populations in conditions of vulnerability (women, youth, persons with disabilities), and an economic dimension through actions that allow for greater democratization of economic activity and wealth generation, particularly in communities with lower social development indices (índices de desarrollo social).* *"**Competitiveness**": refers to the capacity of producers to compete in national and international markets.* *"**Economic participation**": refers to the capacity of vulnerable groups (small and medium-sized agricultural producers — PYMPAS, including in particular women and youth) to benefit from the development of the agricultural sector.* "Agriculture" (Agricultura): this term shall be understood as the primary economic sector and encompasses crop production, livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture.

The implementation framework of the Program falls within the Public Policy for the Agricultural Sector (Política Pública del Sector Agropecuario) 2023-2032, made official by Decreto Ejecutivo N°43.887MAG, whose general objective is: "To enhance economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the implementation of tools and mechanisms that contribute to the development and well-being of the population connected to the Costa Rican Agricultural Sector." The Results-Based Program for sustainable and competitive agriculture in Costa Rica with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (FIDA) expands the reach of the Costa Rican Public Policy for the Agricultural Sector 2023-2032, which has four strategic pillars (ejes estratégicos) around which policy actions are oriented — these are the strategic interventions (intervenciones estratégicas) — namely: 1. modernization of Agricultural Sector institutions, 2. promotion of competitiveness, 3. productivity and sustainability, and 4. value-added production and marketing.

Through a funding injection of US$ 140 million (equivalent to € 134.710.450), this will allow 10.500 producers to transition to sustainable climate-change adaptation and mitigation models, with accessible financial products through the SBD for productive transformation; the development of a cold-chain network (red de Frío) in the central canton of Puntarenas to provide cold-storage services to small and medium-sized fishers, thereby improving product quality and marketing; the modernization of the infrastructure of 14 Water User Associations in northern Cartago, as well as the conduct of a feasibility study to determine the viability of developing an irrigation district in that area; the creation of a digital case file (expediente digital) to streamline information and administrative procedures for producers; the expansion of traceability processes covering activities such as potato and onion production, fisheries and aquaculture, pork production, and oil palm, among others; as well as the strengthening of institutional laboratory services at INTA, SFE, and SENASA; among other actions that will promote sustainable growth in the sector.

**2. LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS** · The bill was submitted to the legislative process on October 6, 2025. · It was published in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial la Gaceta) No. 200 of October 24, 2025, in Supplement No. 137. · It was approved by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs (Comisión de Asuntos Hacendarios) on March 17, 2026. · It was approved in first reading (primer debate) by the Legislative Plenary on April 21, 2026.

**3. STANDING** Articles 96, subsection b), 97, and 98 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction establish as standing requirements for filing a constitutional review query (consulta de constitucionalidad) that the request be made by at least ten legislators and that it be filed after the bill has been approved in first reading. Both requirements are satisfied, in that at least ten legislators are signing this query, and we are filing it after the bill in question **4.** SUBJECT OF THE CONSULTATION In compliance with the provisions of Article 99 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), we set out below the contested aspects of the bill under reference, indicating the grounds that give rise to sufficient doubts and objections to bring this constitutional referral (consulta de constitucionalidad) before the Court.

Concern is hereby registered regarding two fundamental elements: the first is compliance with environmental regulations (normativa ambiental), the second is legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the third is the impact of the financing on the sustainability of public debt (deuda pública).

The following provides detail on matters of interest concerning specific aspects:

I.The general interest in the paramount protection of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and, finally, the impact of the financing on the sustainability of public debt should guide the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.O 25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA.

It is evident that the legislative initiative poses a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social regulations, inasmuch as it seeks to accomplish the following:

The objective of the project is to improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of specific small and medium agricultural producers in Costa Rica; to modernize public agricultural extension (extensión agrícola) services, including improvement and implementation of the Plataforma Digital de Información para Productores; to train extension specialists to expand their knowledge and skills in key areas, including: (i) adoption of NAMA; (ii) registration and use of the Plataforma Digital de Información para Productores, the emerging agricultural sector traceability (trazabilidad) system, and other digital resources; (iii) adapting extension services for vulnerable groups; and (iv) general business management. To promote the competitiveness of agricultural producers and improve their access to domestic and international markets through actions such as: developing and implementing a traceability system for the agricultural sector and certifying participating producers; conducting analyses to improve food safety and compliance with animal and phytosanitary standards, including those related to the origin of animals, the quality of veterinary medicinal products, and veterinary diagnostics; developing and publishing a national public policy and the corresponding action plan to promote the proper registration and use of agricultural pesticides; drafting and publishing regulations for the use of bio-inputs (bioinsumos); staffing and supplying resources to conduct analyses aimed at improving agrochemical control and registration services; and designing and constructing the Cold Storage Warehouse (Bodega de Almacenamiento en Frío). Improving the environmental sustainability of agricultural production: delivering specialized technical assistance to PYMPAs working with livestock, coffee, and sugarcane to accelerate NAMA adoption; establishing four (4) demonstration farms for the NAMA livestock model; improving access to financial mechanisms, including loans, guarantees, and subsidies for PYMPAs that adopt NAMA, and delivering financial literacy training for producers; recognizing producers who implement sustainable practices through the Programa Bandera Azul; conducting baseline assessments of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (emisiones de GEI) for NAMA models covering livestock, coffee, and sugarcane; conducting assessments of GHG emissions, organic carbon, and soil carbon on specific NAMA farms; (i) carrying out feasibility studies for the Cartago Irrigation District (Distrito de Riego Cartago), training and strengthening the management capacities of the Water User Associations (Sociedades de Usuarios de Agua), and modernizing the 14 existing irrigation works maintained by the Water User Associations; and (ii) automating the sluices of the Arenal Tempisque Irrigation District (Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque) to optimize water flows and improve water-use efficiency; strengthening the capacities of INTA and ONS to produce and certify specific resilient crop varieties; and carrying out an evaluation of current NAMA financing initiatives with the aim of assessing their effectiveness and identifying possible adjustments to reduce their fiscal costs.

The risk to which Costa Rica is exposed in attempting to carry out this project without transgressing current environmental regulations is very great; the result would indeed amount to a transgression of those regulations, and the Court is therefore asked to consider whether the bill is unconstitutional.

II.

THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA) AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER. This is the second provision submitted to the Sala for review, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of law that may also be understood as the guarantee afforded to every individual — the assurance that his or her legal situation will be altered only through regular procedures established in advance. In other words, it represents the guarantee of the objective application of the law, in that individuals know at all times what their rights and obligations are. From a subjective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the individual's moral assurance that his or her property will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as a functioning judicial system, a police force, and laws, such that, from an objective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the existence of a just and effective social order whose observance is secured by state coercion.

In this regard, it must be understood that, in the absence of sufficient legal and technical criteria to establish that the objectives of the bill (proyecto de ley) do not transgress legal certainty, a constitutional violation (inconstitucionalidad) could be present.

**III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.** This is the third provision submitted to the Honorable Justices for review; specifically, the financing impact of the bill under review could affect the sustainability of the public debt (deuda pública).

The total cost of the Program is the sum of one hundred million one hundred fifteen thousand five hundred euros (EUR 115.500.000), as that amount may be converted from time to time through a Currency Conversion. The high sum to which the country will be obligated in repaying this loan calls into question the country's economic capacity to meet that debt and could, moreover, generate a significant financial impact on the sustainability of the public debt.

For this reason, and in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to establish that the objectives of the bill do not transgress financial security, a constitutional violation could be present.

**5.** PROCEDURAL MATTERS Interlocutory matter: The Presiding Officer of the Legislative Assembly has scheduled the second reading (segundo debate) for April 27, 2026 at sixteen hundred hours.

We therefore request that formal notice of the present Optional Consultation (Consulta Facultativa) be given to the Presiding Officer of the Legislative Assembly, and that all discussion of bill N.° 25228 and its vote on second reading be suspended.

**6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF** On the basis of the constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential grounds set forth above, we respectfully request that this Tribunal uphold the present Optional Consultation as filed, and determine whether the matters identified herein violate the Political Constitution as argued in this consultation." **2.-** The procedural formalities required by law have been observed in the conduct of these proceedings.

Opinion drafted by Justice **Castillo Víquez**; and, **Considering:** **I.- ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTATION.** The consulting legislators argue that the present consultation is admissible under articles 96(b), 97, and 98 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction), having been signed by more than ten legislators and filed after the bill under review was approved on first reading (primer debate). This Tribunal concludes, however, that in the present case the requirement set forth in article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional has not been met, as the consultation lacks an adequate statement of the constitutional doubts, as will be analyzed in the following considerandos.

**II.- ON THE SUBSTANTIATION OF OPTIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONSULTATIONS.** With respect to the necessary substantiation of optional constitutional consultations (consultas facultativas de constitucionalidad), this Court has held that:

"Article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional clearly provides that an optional constitutional consultation must be filed by way of a reasoned petition (memorial razonado), in which the aspects of the bill being challenged are set out, as well as the grounds on which doubts or objections regarding the constitutionality of the bill are held. This provision establishes — and constitutional case law has recognized this on a repeated basis — that the filing petition (libelo de interposición) must identify the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is being challenged or queried, and must clearly set out the reasons for which a provision of the bill is considered potentially unconstitutional; otherwise the consultation would be inadmissible — see, in this regard, judgments numbered 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others. Indeed, the Court has stated on this point that:

"…In this case, the consulting parties do not identify the articles of the bill they are challenging, nor do they state the grounds for their doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality; they merely indicate the subject matter of the consultation, without advancing any constitutional argument, and therefore the consultation cannot be answered. Constitutional case law has so held on repeated occasions, and for that reason the proper course is to decline to answer the consultation as filed." Beyond the specific citation of the articles whose constitutionality is being consulted, and as already noted, the grounds on which the legislative consultation is filed must also be clear and express, detailing the reasons for which the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions under review. On this point, the Court has held that if the arguments are absent, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be declared inadmissible and therefore unanswerable (inevacuable), since the Tribunal would lack the express grounds on which to rule. The Court has indeed stated that:

"…It should also be recalled that the same law provides in article 101 that the Court shall answer the consultation by ruling 'on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others it considers constitutionally relevant'; **the Tribunal interprets 'the aspects and grounds consulted,' however, as those which, under article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or ground the doubt that the legislators may hold regarding it. Since the consultation therefore departs from what is legally required, it cannot be entertained; if the Tribunal were nonetheless to admit and answer it, it would be acting beyond the scope of its powers**." (Judgment no. 2001-11643, reaffirmed in judgments numbered 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204 and 2022-9345, among others). Emphasis added.

Thus, if a consultation is imprecise in citing the relevant articles or in setting out the grounds for well-founded constitutional doubts, it is inadmissible and unanswerable. This standard was reaffirmed and consolidated by the Court's case law when it held, in the already-cited judgment no. 2012-9253, reaffirmed in 2022-9345, that:

"[T]his is so because, in the case of optional legislative consultations, «**the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction originates in the doubts or constitutional objections formulated by the legislators**» — judgment 2001-12459 — so that if such arguments do not in fact exist, or if the consulting legislators themselves state that they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions or bills under review, **it would be improper for the Court to issue any ruling, as those situations would exceed the Court's competence in the area of legislative constitutional consultations**" — judgment 2002-3460. Emphasis added." (voto nro. 2024-032834 of 9:20 a.m. on November 1, 2024) For its part, in voto nro.

2024-036153 of 9:45 a.m. on December 3, 2024, this Tribunal added that the:

"(…) *lack of a statement of grounds (fundamentación) prevents the Tribunal from conducting a thorough analysis and issuing a ruling on the matter, since the Court can only do so when it has the necessary elements before it, which must be provided by the consulting deputies, who are the ones competent to raise constitutional doubts in this type of proceeding.*" **III.- ON THE PRESENT REFERRAL.** In the *sub lite*, this Court finds that the referral submitted does not contain an adequate statement of grounds. The consulting deputies assert that the bill being processed under expediente nro. 25.228, titled "*APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA,*" gives rise to "*sufficient doubts and objections*" regarding "*compliance with environmental regulations,*" "*legal certainty (seguridad jurídica),*" and the "*impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt.*" However, no proper development of arguments is in fact offered in support of these doubts. First, the consulting parties limit themselves to a brief account of the content and objectives of the bill under referral, then add that Costa Rica faces a "*risk… to carry out this project without violating current environmental regulations is very great, and there would be a violation of current environmental regulations, and therefore it is requested that consideration be given to whether it is unconstitutional.*" Yet no specification or substantiation is provided as to what those risks would be. It is not even clear whether the consultants' doubt concerns the specific content of the bill or its eventual application. What is certain is that this concern is raised in an entirely generic, abstract, and imprecise manner. A similar situation arises with respect to the issue of legal certainty, in which the consultants make a generic reference to the principle of legal certainty and then add that "*it must be understood that, in the absence of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not breach legal certainty, there could be a finding of unconstitutionality.*" However, no concrete explanation is provided as to the reasons why such criteria are considered lacking or their actual bearing on a possible violation of the principle of legal certainty. The same is true with regard to the alleged financial impact of the project: the consultants make only a cursory reference to the cost of the program and once again assert that by "*not having sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not breach financial security, there could be a finding of unconstitutionality.*" On this point as well, no further development of argument is offered. In short, there is no precise, sufficient, and duly substantiated argumentation, which renders the present referral inadmissible (inadmisibilidad).

In light of the foregoing, there are no grounds to answer the referral, and it is so declared.

**IV.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE.** The parties are hereby put on notice that if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, these must be retrieved from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the date of notification of this judgment.

Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of 22 August 2011, artículo XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, artículo LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The referral for advisory opinion is dismissed.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

There is no Spanish legal text in the content you submitted. What was provided is base64-encoded JPEG image data embedded in HTML markup — the long strings beginning with `/9j/4AAQSkZJRgAB...` are raw binary image files, not readable document text.

To proceed with the translation, please paste the actual Spanish text of the legal document excerpt — the readable prose, article numbers, considerandos, tables, and so on. If the document is a scanned image or PDF, the text will need to be extracted (via OCR or copy-paste from a selectable PDF) before I can translate it.

Luis Fdo.

Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- --- **BUDGET. FINANCING OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE** Case file: 26-015433-0007-CO Decision: 016432-26 of May 7, 2026 Type of matter: Optional Legislative Constitutional Referral (Consulta Legislativa Facultativa) Challenged norm: Approval of the loan agreements entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Fund for Agricultural Development to finance the Program for Sustainable and Competitive Agriculture in Costa Rica. Legislative Expediente N.° 25.228. Operative clause: The referral is dismissed.

CO05/26 --- Res. Nº 2026016432 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the seventh of May, two thousand twenty-six.

Optional legislative constitutional referral (consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad) filed by legislators [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], [Nombre 003], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011], and [Nombre 012], concerning the "*bill recorded under EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA.*" **Background:** **1.-** By written submission received in this Chamber on 30 de abril de 2026, the consulting legislators file an optional legislative constitutional referral with respect to the "*bill recorded under EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA*," in which they state that:

"1.

SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSAL *To improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of selected small and medium-sized agricultural producers in Costa Rica.* *Definition of objective terms:* *"**Sustainability**": includes environmental sustainability actions such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, building resilience to climate change, and more broadly managing natural resources (water, soils, and biodiversity), as well as the social dimension through the inclusion of populations in vulnerable conditions (women, youth, persons with disabilities) and the economic dimension through actions that enable greater democratization of economic activity and wealth generation, especially in communities with lower social development indices.* *"**Competitiveness**": refers to the capacity of producers to compete in national and international markets.* *"**Economic participation**": refers to the capacity of vulnerable groups (small and medium-sized agricultural producers, PYMPAS, including in particular women and youth) to benefit from the development of the agricultural sector.* *"Agriculture": should be understood as the primary economic sector and includes crops, livestock, fishing, and aquaculture.* *The Program's implementation framework falls within the Política Pública del Sector Agropecuario 2023-2032, made official through Decreto Ejecutivo N°43.887MAG, whose general objective is: "To strengthen economic, social, and environmental sustainability through the implementation of tools and mechanisms that contribute to the development and well-being of the population linked to the Costa Rican Agricultural Sector."* *The Program-for-Results for Sustainable and Competitive Agriculture in Costa Rica, financed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (FIDA), expands the reach of the Política Pública del Sector Agropecuario Costarricense 2023-2032, which has four strategic axes (ejes estratégicos) around which policy actions (strategic interventions, intervenciones estratégicas) are oriented, namely: 1. modernization of the institutions of the Agricultural Sector, 2. promotion of competitiveness, 3. productivity and sustainability, and 4.* value added and commercialization.

Through an injection of resources totaling US$ 140 million (equivalent to € 134,710,450), which will enable 10,500 producers to scale up to sustainable climate-change adaptation and mitigation models, with accessible financial products from the SBD for productive transformation; the development of a cold-chain network in the central canton of Puntarenas that will provide cold-storage services to small and medium-sized fishers, thereby improving product quality and commercialization; the modernization of the infrastructure of 14 Water User Associations (Sociedades de Usuarios del Agua) in northern Cartago, as well as the conduct of a feasibility study to determine the viability of developing an irrigation district in that area; the creation of a digital record to facilitate information access and administrative procedures for producers; expanded traceability processes covering activities such as potato and onion farming, fishing and aquaculture, pork production, and oil palm, among others; as well as the strengthening of institutional laboratory services at INTA, SFE, and SENASA; among other actions that will promote sustainable growth in the sector.

**2. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY** · The bill was introduced into the legislative process on October 6, 2025.

· It was published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 200 of October 24, 2025, in Supplement No. 137.

· It was reported out of the Comisión de Asuntos Hacendarios on March 17, 2026.

· It was approved on first reading (primer debate) in the Legislative Plenary on April 21, 2026.

**3. STANDING** Articles 96, paragraph b), 97, and 98 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establish, as the standing requirements for filing a constitutional referral (consulta de constitucionalidad), that the request be made by at least ten legislators and that it be filed after the bill has been approved on first reading. Both requirements are met, as the present referral is signed by at least ten legislators, and we file it after the bill in question **4. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE REFERRAL** In compliance with Article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, we set out below the specific questioned aspects of the bill in question, with an indication of the grounds that give rise to sufficient doubts and objections to warrant filing the present constitutional referral.

Concern is hereby expressed regarding two fundamental elements: the first is compliance with environmental regulations (normas ambientales), the second is legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the third is the impact of the financing arrangement on the sustainability of the public debt.

Below are the details of concern regarding specific aspects:

I.The general interest in the supreme protection of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and ultimately the impact of the financing arrangement on the sustainability of the public debt, must guide the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.

O 25.228, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA.

It is evident that the bill poses a genuine challenge to compliance with applicable environmental and social standards, inasmuch as it seeks to accomplish the following:

The project's objective is to improve the sustainability, competitiveness, and economic participation of specific small and medium-sized agricultural producers in Costa Rica; to modernize public agricultural extension services through the improvement and implementation of the Digital Information Platform for Producers (Plataforma Digital de Información para Productores); and to train extension specialists to expand their knowledge and capacities in key areas, including: (i) the adoption of NAMA; (ii) registration and use of the Digital Information Platform for Producers, the agricultural sector's emerging traceability system, and other digital resources; (iii) the adaptation of extension services for vulnerable groups; and (iv) general business management. To promote the competitiveness of agricultural producers and improve producers' access to national and international markets through actions such as: the development and implementation of a traceability system for the agricultural sector and the certification of participating producers; conducting analyses to improve food safety and compliance with animal and phytosanitary standards, including those relating to animal origin, the quality of veterinary medicines, and veterinary diagnostics; developing and publishing a national public policy and the corresponding action plan to promote the proper registration and use of agricultural pesticides; drafting and publishing regulations governing the use of bioinputs; staffing and supplying laboratories to carry out analyses aimed at improving agrochemical control and registration services; and designing and constructing the Cold Storage Warehouse (Bodega de Almacenamiento en Frío). Improving the environmental sustainability of agricultural production: providing specialized technical assistance to small and medium-sized agricultural production units (PYMPAs) working with livestock, coffee, and sugarcane to accelerate NAMA adoption; establishing four (4) demonstration farms for the NAMA livestock model; improving access to financial mechanisms, including loans, guarantees, and subsidies for PYMPAs that adopt NAMA, and providing financial literacy training to producers; recognizing producers who implement sustainable practices through the Programa Bandera Azul; conducting baseline assessments of greenhouse gas emissions (GEI) for NAMA models covering livestock, coffee, and sugarcane; conducting assessments of greenhouse gas emissions, organic carbon, and soil carbon on specific NAMA farms; (i) carrying out feasibility studies for the Distrito de Riego Cartago, training and strengthening the management capacities of Water Users' Associations (Sociedades de Usuarios de Agua), and modernizing the 14 existing irrigation works maintained by the Water Users' Associations; and (ii) automating the sluice gates of the Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque to optimize water flows and improve water-use efficiency; strengthening the capacities of INTA and ONS to produce and certify specific resilient crop varieties; and conducting an assessment of current NAMA financing initiatives for the purpose of evaluating their effectiveness and identifying possible adjustments to reduce their fiscal costs.

The risk to which Costa Rica exposes itself in carrying out this project without transgressing applicable environmental regulations is very great, and such implementation would constitute a violation of those regulations; accordingly, the Court is asked to consider whether the bill is unconstitutional.

**II. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER.** This is the second precept submitted for review by the Chamber, as legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) constitutes a general principle of law that may also be understood as the guarantee afforded to every individual whereby that individual has assurance that his or her legal situation will not be altered except through regular procedures established in advance — in other words, it represents the guarantee of the objective application of the law, insofar as individuals know at any given moment what their rights and obligations are.

From a subjective standpoint, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) is equivalent to the moral assurance that individuals have that their property will be respected; this assurance requires certain conditions, such as a judicial system, a police force, and laws. From an objective standpoint, therefore, legal certainty is equivalent to the existence of a just and effective social order whose observance is guaranteed by state coercion.

In this regard, it must be understood that, without sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not transgress legal certainty, a finding of unconstitutionality may be warranted.

**III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.** This is the third provision submitted for review by the honorable justices, as the financial impact of funding the bill under review could affect the sustainability of the public debt.

The total cost of the Program is one hundred fifteen million five hundred thousand euros (EUR 115.500.000), as that amount may be converted from time to time through a Currency Conversion. The large sum to which the country will be obligated in repaying this loan raises doubts about its economic capacity to service that debt and could therefore generate a significant financial impact on the sustainability of the public debt.

For this reason, and without sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not transgress financial security, a finding of unconstitutionality may be warranted.

**5. PROCEDURAL MATTERS** As an interlocutory matter: the Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa has scheduled the second reading for April 27, 2026, at sixteen hundred hours.

We therefore request that the Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa be formally notified of the present optional constitutional referral (Consulta Facultativa), and that all debate on bill N.° 25228 and its vote at second reading be suspended.

**6.** PRAYER FOR RELIEF "On the basis of the constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential grounds set forth, we respectfully request that this Tribunal grant the present discretionary constitutional review petition (consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad) and assess whether what is indicated herein violates the Political Constitution, as formulated in this petition." **2.-** The legal formalities have been observed in the conduct of the proceedings.

Opinion drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and, **Considering:** **I.- ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE PETITION.** The consulting deputies (personas diputadas consultantes) contend that the present petition is admissible pursuant to articles 96, subsection b), 97, and 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), having been signed by more than ten deputies and having been submitted after the bill under review was approved on first reading. However, this Tribunal concludes that the requirement set forth in article 99 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is not met in this case, as the petition lacks an adequate statement of the constitutional doubts, as will be analyzed in the following considerandos.

**II.- ON THE REQUIREMENT OF ADEQUATE GROUNDS FOR DISCRETIONARY CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW PETITIONS.** With respect to the necessary grounding of discretionary constitutional review petitions, the Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Chamber) has stated:

"Article 99 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction clearly provides that a discretionary constitutional review petition must be submitted in the form of a reasoned brief (memorial razonado), setting out the aspects of the bill that are being challenged as well as the reasons for which the petitioner has doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality. This provision establishes — and constitutional case law has repeatedly recognized — that the filing brief (libelo de interposición) must identify the specific articles of the bill whose constitutionality is being questioned or reviewed, and must clearly state the reasons for which a provision of the bill may be deemed unconstitutional; failing this, the petition would be inadmissible — see, in this regard, rulings numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others. On this point, the Sala has stated:

"…In this case, the petitioners do not identify the articles of the bill they are challenging, nor the grounds for their doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality; they merely identify the subject matter under review without providing any constitutional argument whatsoever, and therefore the petition cannot be answered. Constitutional case law has consistently so held, and for that reason the appropriate disposition is to decline to answer the petition as submitted." Beyond simply citing the specific articles whose constitutionality is at issue — as already noted — the grounds on which the legislative petition is based must also be clear and explicit, setting out in detail the reasons why the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions in question. The Sala has held that if the arguments are absent, insufficient, or vague, the petition must be deemed inadmissible and therefore incapable of being answered, since this Tribunal would lack the express grounds on which to issue an opinion. The Sala has stated:

"…It should also be recalled that the same law provides in its article 101 that the Sala shall answer the petition by issuing an opinion 'on the aspects and grounds raised or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional standpoint.' **However, the Tribunal interprets 'the aspects and grounds raised' as those which, pursuant to article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or form the basis of the legislators' doubts about it. Since the petition therefore departs from what the law requires, it is not admissible; if the Tribunal were nonetheless to admit it and answer it, it would be placing itself in a position that exceeds the scope of its powers.**" (Ruling no. 2001-11643, reiterated in rulings numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204, and 2022-9345, among others). Emphasis is not in the original.

Accordingly, if a petition is imprecise in citing the relevant articles or in stating the grounds for well-founded constitutional doubts, it is inadmissible and incapable of being answered. This standard was reaffirmed and consolidated in the Sala's case law, as determined in the already-cited ruling number 2012-9253, reiterated in ruling 2022-9345:

"[T]his is so because 'with respect to discretionary legislative constitutional review petitions, **«the Constitutional Chamber's jurisdiction is grounded in the doubts or constitutional objections raised by the legislators»** — ruling 2001-12459 — such that if such arguments do not in fact exist, or when the consulting deputies themselves indicate that they have no doubts regarding the constitutionality of the provisions or bills under review, **it would be improper for the Sala to issue any opinion whatsoever, as this would go beyond the Sala's competence in the area of discretionary legislative constitutional review**' — ruling 2002-3460." Emphasis is not in the original." (voto nro. 2024-032834 of 9:20 a.m. on November 1, 2024) For its part, in voto nro. 2024-036153 of 9:45 a.m. on December 3, 2024, this Tribunal added that the:

"(…) *lack of supporting grounds prevents the Tribunal from conducting a thorough analysis and issuing a decision on the matter, since the Sala can only do so when it has the necessary elements available to it, which must be provided by the consulting deputies, who are the proper parties to raise constitutional doubts in proceedings of this kind.*" **III.- ON THE PRESENT PETITION.** In the *sub lite*, the Sala finds that the petition as filed does not contain an adequate statement of grounds. The consulting deputies indicate that the bill pending in expediente nro.

25.228, entitled *"APPROVAL OF THE LOAN AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT TO FINANCE THE PROGRAM FOR A SUSTAINABLE AND COMPETITIVE AGRICULTURE IN COSTA RICA,"* gives rise to *"sufficient doubts and objections"* regarding *"compliance with environmental regulations (normativa ambiental),"* *"legal certainty (seguridad jurídica),"* and the *"impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt."* However, the fact remains that no adequate argumentative development (desarrollo argumentativo) is provided with respect to these doubts. First, the referring parties (personas consultantes) limit themselves to a terse exposition of the content and objectives of the bill (proyecto de ley) under referral (consulta), only to then add that Costa Rica faces a *"risk… of carrying out this project without violating current environmental regulations is very great, and one would be faced with a violation of current environmental regulations; therefore it is requested that unconstitutionality be considered."* Yet the nature of such risks is neither specified nor substantiated. It is not even clear whether the referring parties' doubt concerns the specific content of the bill or relates to its eventual application. The fact is that such concern is raised in a wholly generic, abstract, and imprecise manner. A similar situation arises with respect to the issue of legal certainty, where the referring parties make a generic reference to the principle of legal certainty and then add that *"it must be understood that, in the absence of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate legal certainty, one could be faced with unconstitutionality."* Yet the specific reasons why such criteria are missing, or their actual bearing on a possible breach of the principle of legal certainty, are not concretely explained. The same is true regarding the alleged financial impact of the bill: the referring parties make a cursory reference to the cost of the program and again assert that *"in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate financial security, one could be faced with unconstitutionality."* On this point as well, no further argumentative development is provided. There is, in sum, no precise, sufficient, and duly substantiated argument, which determines the inadmissibility (inadmisibilidad) of the present referral.

In light of the foregoing, there are no grounds to answer the referral, and it is so declared.

**IV.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE.** The parties are hereby notified that, should they have submitted any paper document, as well as any objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, such items must be retrieved from the court's offices within a maximum period of 30 business days (días hábiles) counted from the date of notification of this judgment (sentencia).

Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of 22 August 2011, artículo XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session N° 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, artículo LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The referral for advisory opinion is dismissed.

Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.

There is no Spanish legal text in the content you submitted. What was provided is base64-encoded JPEG image data embedded in HTML markup — the long strings beginning with `/9j/4AAQSkZJRgAB...` are raw binary image files, not readable document text.

To proceed with the translation, please paste the actual Spanish text of the legal document excerpt — the readable prose, article numbers, considerandos, tables, and so on. If the document is a scanned image or PDF, the text will need to be extracted (via OCR or copy-paste from a selectable PDF) before I can translate it.

Luis Fdo.

Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code --

Revisión del Documento  Res. Nº 2026016432 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del siete de mayo de dos mil veintiseis .

Consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad interpuesta por los diputados [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], [Nombre 003], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011] y [Nombre 012], referente al “proyecto de ley consignado bajo el EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA.”

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en esta Sala el 30 de abril de 2026, los diputados consultantes formulan consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad con respecto al “proyecto de ley consignado bajo el EXPEDIENTE N.°25.228, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA”, en el que manifiestan que:

“1. OBJETO DE LA PROPUESTA Mejorar la sostenibilidad, competitividad y participación económica de pequeños y medianos productores agrícolas seleccionados en Costa Rica.

Definición de términos del objetivo:

"Sostenibilidad": incluye acciones de sostenibilidad ambiental como la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, la resiliencia al cambio climático y la gestión más amplia de los recursos naturales (agua, suelos, biodiversidad), así como a la dimensión social mediante la inclusión de poblaciones en condiciones de vulnerabilidad (mujeres, jóvenes, personas con discapacidad) y la dimensión económica mediante acciones que permitan una mayor democratización de la actividad económica y generación de riqueza especialmente en comunidades con menores índices de desarrollo social.

"Competitividad": se refiere a la capacidad de los productores para competir en los mercados nacionales e internacionales.

"Participación económica": se refiere a la capacidad de los grupos vulnerables (pequeños y medianos productores agrícolas — PYMPAS, incluyendo en particular a las mujeres y los jóvenes) de beneficiarse del desarrollo del sector agrícola. "Agricultura": debe entenderse como sector económico primario e incluye a cultivos, ganado, la pesca y la acuicultura.

El marco de aplicación del Programa es dentro de la Política Pública del Sector Agropecuario 2023-2032, oficializada mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo N°43.887MAG, cuyo objetivo general es: "Potenciar la sostenibilidad económica, social y ambiental mediante la implementación de herramientas y mecanismos que contribuyan al desarrollo y bienestar de la población vinculada al Sector Agropecuario Costarricense. " Programa por Resultados para una agricultura sostenible y competitiva en Costa Rica con el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento (BIRF) y el Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola (FIDA), permite ampliar el alcance de la Política Pública del Sector Agropecuario Costarricense 2023-2032, la cual tiene cuatro ejes estratégicos, sobre los cuales se orienta las acciones de política (intervenciones estratégicas), a saber: 1. modernización de las instituciones del Sector Agropecuario, 2. fomento de la competitividad, 3. productividad y sostenibilidad, y 4. valor agregado y comercialización.

Mediante una inyección de recursos por un monto de US$ 140 millones (equivalente a € 134.710.450), que permitirá el escalamiento de 10.500 productores a modelos sostenibles de adaptación y mitigación al cambio climático con productos financieros accesibles desde el SBD para la transformación productiva; el desarrollo de una red de Frío en el cantón central Puntarenas que ofrecerá el servicio de frío a los pequeños y medianos pescadores, lo cual mejorará la calidad y comercialización del producto; la modernización de la infraestructura de 14 Sociedades de Usuarios del Agua en el Norte de Cartago así como la realización de un estudio de factibilidad que permitirá determinar la viabilidad de desarrollar un distrito de riego en dicha zona; la creación de un expediente digital que facilite la información y trámites a las personas productoras; aumentar los procesos de trazabilidad incluyendo actividades como la papa y cebolla, la pesca y la acuicultura, el ganado porcino, la palma aceitera entre otros; así como el fortalecimiento de los servicios instituciones a nivel de laboratorios en el IN TA, el SFE y SENASA; entre otras acciones que fomentará el crecimiento sostenible del sector.

2. TRAMITACIÓN  El expediente fue presentado a la corriente legislativa el 6 de octubre de 2025.

 Fue publicado en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta N. 0 200 de 24 de octubre de 2025 en el Alcance N. 0 137.

 Fue dictaminado en la Comisión de Asuntos Hacendarios el 17 de marzo de 2026.

 Fue aprobado en primer debate en el Plenario Legislativo el 21 de abril de 2026.

3. LEGITIMACIÓN Los Artículos 96, inciso b), 97 y 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, establecen como parámetro de legitimación para plantear consulta de constitucionalidad, que la soliciten al menos diez diputados y que se plantee después de haber sido aprobada en primer debate. Ambos requisitos se cumplen, por cuanto la presente consulta la suscribimos al menos diez diputados, y la planteamos luego de que el proyecto de referencia 4. OBJETO DE LA CONSULTA En cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el Artículo 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a continuación, puntualizamos los aspectos cuestionados del proyecto en referencia, con la indicación de los motivos que generan dudas y objeciones suficientes como para elevar la presente consulta de constitucionalidad.

Se deja manifiesta la preocupación en relación con dos elementos fundamentales, el primero es el cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, el segundo la seguridad jurídica y el tercero es el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública.

A continuación el detalle de interés sobre aspectos particulares:

I.El interés general, en el supremo resguardo del cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y finalmente el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública deben inspirar el análisis del EXPEDIENTE N. O 25.228, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA".

Es evidente que la iniciativa de ley presenta un verdadero desafío al cumplimiento de las normas ambientales y sociales toda vez que pretende lo detallado a continuación:

El objetivo del proyecto es mejorar la sostenibilidad, competitividad y participación económica de pequeños y medianos productores agrícolas específicos, en Costa Rica, Modernizar los servicios públicos de extensión agrícola: mejora e implementación de la Plataforma Digital de Información para Productores; capacitar a los especialistas en extensión para aumentar sus conocimientos y capacidades en áreas clave, como las siguientes: (i) la adopción de NAMA; (ii) el registro y uso de la Plataforma Digital de Información para Productores, el sistema de trazabilidad emergente del sector agrícola y otros recursos digitales; (iii) la adaptación de la extensión para grupos vulnerables; y (iv) la gestión general del negocio. Promover la competitividad de los productores agrícolas, mejorar el acceso de los productores agrícolas a mercados nacionales e internacionales a través de acciones como: el desarrollo e implementación de un sistema de trazabilidad para el sector agrícola y certificar a los productores participantes; llevar a cabo análisis para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y el cumplimiento de los estándares animales y fitosanitarios, incluidos aquellos relacionados con el origen de los animales, la calidad de los medicamentos de uso veterinario y los diagnósticos veterinarios; desarrollar y publicar una política pública nacional y el plan de acción correspondiente para promover el registro y uso adecuado de pesticidas agrícolas; redactar y publicar las regulaciones para el uso de bioinsumos; dotar de personal y proporcionar los suministros para llevar a cabo análisis destinados a mejorar los servicios de control y registro agroquímicos; y diseñar Y construir la Bodega de Almacenamiento en Frío. Mejoramiento de la sostenibilidad medioambiental de la producción agraria: entregar asistencia técnica especializada a PYMPAs que trabajan con ganado, café y caña de azúcar para acelerar la adopción de NAMA; establecer cuatro (4) fincas de demostración para el modelo de NAMA para la ganadería; mejorar el acceso a mecanismos financieros, que incluye créditos, avales y subvenciones para PYMPAs que adopten NAMA, y entregar capacitaciones en materia de educación financiera para los productores; reconocer a los productores que implementen prácticas sostenibles a través del Programa Bandera Azul; llevar a cabo evaluaciones de referencia de las emisiones de GEI para modelos de NAMA de ganado, café y caña de azúcar; llevar a cabo evaluaciones de emisiones de GEI, carbono orgánico y en suelo de fincas NAMA específicas; (i) llevar a cabo estudios de viabilidad para el Distrito de Riego Cartago, capacitar y fortalecer las capacidades de gestión de las Sociedades de Usuarios de Agua, y modernizar los 14 trabajos de riego existentes mantenidos por las Sociedades de Usuarios de Agua; y (ii) automatizar las esclusas del Distrito de Riego Arenal Tempisque para optimizar los flujos de agua y mejorar la eficiencia del uso del agua; fortalecer las capacidades del INTA y la ONS para producir y certificar variedades de cultivos resilientes específicas; y llevar a cabo una evaluación de las iniciativas actuales de financiamiento de NAMA con el propósito de evaluar su eficacia e identificar posibles ajustes para disminuir sus costos fiscales.

El riesgo al que se expone Costa Rica para realizar este proyecto sin transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente es muy grande, y se estaría ante la transgresión de la normativa ambiental vigente por lo tanto se solicita considerar si es inconstitucional.

II.PRINCIPIO DE LA SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA COMO PRINCIPIO FUNDANTE DEL ORDENAMIENTO JURÍDICO. Este es el segundo precepto que se somete a revisión de la Sala ya que la seguridad jurídica constituye un principio general del Derecho, que también puede conceptualizarse como la garantía de todo individuo, por la cual, tiene la certeza de que su situación jurídica no será modificada más que por procedimientos regulares, establecidos previamente, es decir, representa la garantía de la aplicación objetiva de la ley, en tanto los individuos saben en cada momento cuáles son sus derechos y obligaciones. Desde el punto de vista subjetivo, la seguridad equivale a la certeza moral que tiene el individuo de sus bienes le serán respetados; lo cual requiere de ciertas condiciones, tales como la organización judicial, el cuerpo de policía, las leyes, por lo que, desde el punto de vista objetivo, la seguridad jurídica equivale a la existencia de un orden social justo y eficaz cuyo cumplimiento está asegurado por la coacción pública.

Al respecto, debe entenderse que al no contarse con criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad.

III. IMPACTO FINANCIERO EN LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA DEUDA PUBLICA

Este es el tercer precepto que se somete a revisión de los señores magistrados, siendo que el impacto del financiamiento del proyecto de ley en revisión podría afectar la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública.

El costo total del Programa es por la suma de cien millones ciento quince mil quinientos euros (EUR 115.500.000), según pueda convertirse tal monto de vez en cuando a través de una Conversión de Moneda. El alto monto al que se verá sometido el país para pagar este crédito pone en duda la capacidad económica para hacerle frente a esa deuda y por ende más bien podría generar un alto impacto financiero en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública.

Por esta razón y al no contar con criterios jurídicos y financieros suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad financiera se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad.

5. CUESTIONES DE TRÁMITE Interlocutoriamente: La Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa tiene agendado realizar segundo debate para el 27 de abril de 2026 a las dieciséis horas.

Por lo que solicitamos se comunique formalmente a la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa de la presente Consulta Facultativa y que se suspenda toda discusión del proyecto de ley N.° 25228 y su votación en segundo debate.

6. PETITORIA En razón del fundamento constitucional, legal y jurisprudencial expuesto, solicitamos respetuosamente a este Tribunal estime la presente Consulta Facultativa planteada, y valore si lo aquí señalado violenta la Constitución Política según se formula en esta consulta.” 2.- En la substanciación del proceso se ha observado las formalidades de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,

Considerando:

I.- SOBRE LA ADMISIBILIDAD DE LA CONSULTA. Las personas diputadas consultantes aducen que la presente consulta es admisible, conforme lo dispuesto en los artículos 96, inciso b), 97 y 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, por haber sido suscrita por más de diez diputados y haberse formulado después de aprobarse en primer debate el proyecto consultado. No obstante, concluye este Tribunal que en la especie no se cumple el requisito previsto en el ordinal 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, al carecer la consulta de una adecuada fundamentación de las dudas de constitucionalidad, según se analizará en los siguientes considerandos.

II.- SOBRE LA FUNDAMENTACIÓN DE LAS CONSULTAS FACULTATIVAS DE CONSTITUCIONALIDAD. En lo atinente a la necesaria fundamentación de las consultas facultativas de constitucionalidad, esta Sala ha precisado que:

“El artículo 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, señala claramente que en tratándose de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad, la misma deberá plantearse mediante un memorial razonado, en el cual se exprese los aspectos que se cuestionan del proyecto de ley, así como los motivos por los cuales se tuviere duda u objeciones sobre la constitucionalidad del mismo. Esta disposición determina -y así ha sido reconocido de manera reiterada por la jurisprudencia constitucional- que en el libelo de interposición deba expresarse los artículos del proyecto cuya constitucionalidad se cuestiona o consulta, y manifestarse de manera clara los motivos por los cuales se estima que una norma del proyecto puede ser inconstitucional, pues caso contrario la consulta sería inadmisible -ver, en este sentido, las sentencias números 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, entre otras-. En efecto, sobre el particular ha dicho la Sala que:

“…En este caso los consultantes no indican los artículos del proyecto que cuestionan, ni los motivos por los cuales tienen dudas u objeciones sobre su constitucionalidad, y simplemente señalan el tema consultado, prescindiendo de realizar algún tipo de argumento de constitucionalidad, por lo que no procede evacuar la consulta. Así lo ha resuelto reiteradamente la jurisprudencia constitucional y por ese motivo lo procedente es no ha lugar a evacuar la consulta formulada.” Más allá de la cita puntual de los artículos cuya constitucionalidad se consulta, tal como se ha indicado, los motivos por los cuales se formula la consulta legislativa también deben ser claros y expresos, detallando las razones por las cuales las personas legisladoras mantienen dudas razonables sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas consultadas. Al respecto, ha dicho la Sala que, si las argumentaciones resultan omisas, insuficientes, o vagas, la consulta debe resultar inadmisible y, por ende, inevacuable, por cuanto no contaría este Tribunal con los motivos expresos por los cuales pronunciarse. En efecto, ha dicho la Sala que:

“…Ha de recordarse también que la misma ley dispone en su artículo 101 que la Sala evacuará la consulta dictaminando "sobre los aspectos y motivos consultados o sobre cualesquiera otros que considere relevantes desde el punto de vista constitucional", pero el tribunal interpreta que "los aspectos y motivos consultados" son los que, de acuerdo con el artículo 99, cuestionan u objetan el proyecto, o fundamentan la duda que pudieran tener los legisladores acerca de éste. Dado, pues, que la consulta se aparta de lo legalmente establecido, no es de recibo; si el tribunal, no obstante, la admitiera y absolviera, se colocaría en situación que está fuera de los alcances de sus atribuciones”. (Sentencia nro. 2001-11643, reiterada en las sentencias números 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204 y 2022-9345, entre otras). El énfasis no es del original.

De tal forma, si una consulta resulta ser imprecisa en citar los artículos o en exponer los motivos por los cuales existen dudas fundadas de constitucionalidad, la misma resulta inadmisible e inevacuable. Este criterio fue reiterado y consolidado por la jurisprudencia de la Sala, al determinar, en la ya citada sentencia número 2012-9253, reiterada en la 2022-9345, que:

“[E]sto es así por cuanto «tratándose de consultas legislativas de tipo facultativo, «la competencia de la Sala Constitucional tiene origen en las dudas o reparos de constitucionalidad que formulen los legisladores» -sentencia 2001-12459-, de forma que si tales argumentos no existen como tal, o bien, cuando los propios diputados consultantes manifiesten carecer de dudas sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas o proyectos consultados, resultaría impropio para la Sala emitir criterio alguno, pues se estaría en supuestos que trascienden las competencias de la Sala en materia de consultas legislativas de constitucionalidad -sentencia 2002-3460-.” El destacado no es del original.” (voto nro. 2024-032834 de las 9:20 horas del 1 de noviembre de 2024) Por su parte, en voto nro. 2024-036153 de las 9:45 horas del 3 de diciembre de 2024, este Tribunal agregó que la:

“(…) falta de fundamentación impide al Tribunal realizar un análisis exhaustico y emitir una decisión al respecto, pues la Sala solo puede hacerlo, cuando cuente con los elementos necesarios para ello, los cuales deben ser aportados por los diputados consultantes, quienes son los competentes para plantear dudas de constitucionalidad en este tipo de procesos.” III.- SOBRE LA PRESENTE CONSULTA. En el sub lite, constata esta Sala que la consulta formulada no contiene una adecuada fundamentación. Las personas diputadas consultantes refieren que el proyecto de ley que se tramita en expediente nro. 25.228, de “APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO Y EL FONDO INTERNACIONAL DE DESARROLLO AGRÍCOLA PARA FINANCIAR EL PROGRAMA PARA UNA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE Y COMPETITIVA EN COSTA RICA”, les genera “dudas y objeciones suficientes”, en relación con “el cumplimiento de las normas ambientales”, “la seguridad jurídica” e “impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública”. Pero lo cierto es que no se realiza un apropiado desarrollo argumentativo respecto de tales dudas. En primer lugar, las personas consultantes se limitan a realizar una lacónica exposición sobre el contenido y objetivos del proyecto objeto de consulta, para luego añadir que Costa Rica se expone a un “riesgo… para realizar este proyecto sin transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente es muy grande, y se estaría ante la transgresión de la normativa ambiental vigente por lo tanto se solicita considerar si es inconstitucional”. Pero no se especifican ni fundamentan cuáles serían tales riesgos. Incluso, no queda claro si la duda de los consultantes se refiere al contenido concreto del proyecto o se relaciona con su eventual aplicación. Lo cierto es que tal preocupación se plantea de forma totalmente genérica, abstracta e imprecisa. Similar situación se presenta respecto al tema de la seguridad jurídica, en que los consultantes hacen una referencia genérica al principio de seguridad jurídica y luego añaden que “debe entenderse que al no contarse con criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad.” Pero lo cierto es que no se explican concretamente los motivos por lo que se extrañan tales criterios o su incidencia efectiva en una posible infracción al principio de seguridad jurídica. Lo mismo acontece en cuanto al alegado impacto financiero del proyecto, pues, los consultantes hacen una somera referencia al costo del programa y nuevamente afirman que al “no contar con criterios jurídicos y financieros suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad financiera se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad.” En cuanto a este punto, tampoco se realiza mayor desarrollo argumentativo. No existe, en definitiva, una argumentación precisa, suficiente y debidamente circunstanciada, lo que determina la inadmisibilidad de la presente consulta.

En virtud de lo expuesto, no ha lugar a evacuar la consulta y así se declara.

IV.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE. 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:

No ha lugar a evacuar la consulta.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 