← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 16433-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 07/05/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber declared the consultation unanswerable because the legislators failed to identify the specific constitutional norms allegedly violated or explain the mechanism of violation, thus failing to meet the reasoned-memorial requirement of Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.La Sala declaró la consulta inevacuable porque los diputados consultantes no identificaron las normas constitucionales concretas presuntamente vulneradas ni explicaron el mecanismo de afectación, incumpliendo el requisito de memorial razonado del artículo 99 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber rejected an optional legislative constitutional consultation filed by twelve legislators regarding the bill approving Financing Contract No. 9653-CR with the World Bank (IBRD) — worth up to USD 388,748,447.70 — to fund the Climate-Resilient Territorial Reconstruction and Development Program (Legislative File 24,761). The legislators raised three constitutional doubts: compliance with environmental norms for the program's infrastructure works (green and gray infrastructure, slope stabilization, watershed studies, bridge reconstruction); violation of the principle of legal certainty; and the loan's impact on public debt sustainability. The Chamber found that on all three grounds the legislators merely described the program and asserted a generic risk of unconstitutionality without identifying which specific norms would be violated, how, or how any financial commitment would compromise constitutional or human rights. Because the consultation failed to meet the reasoned-memorial requirement of Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, the Chamber declared it inadmissible and unanswerable.La Sala Constitucional rechazó una consulta legislativa facultativa interpuesta por doce diputados sobre el proyecto de ley que aprueba el Contrato de Financiamiento 9653-CR con el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento (BIRF) por hasta USD 388.748.447,70, destinado a financiar el Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima (Expediente Legislativo 24.761). Los diputados plantearon tres dudas constitucionales: cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental ante obras de infraestructura verde y gris, estabilización de taludes y gestión de cuencas; violación al principio de seguridad jurídica; e impacto del endeudamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública. La Sala determinó que en los tres alegatos los consultantes se limitaron a describir el programa sin identificar las normas concretas presuntamente afectadas, la forma en que se verían vulneradas ni el vínculo con derechos constitucionales. Por incumplir el requisito de memorial razonado establecido en el artículo 99 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, la consulta fue declarada inadmisible e inevacuable.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Regarding the first allegation, this Tribunal notes that the legislators merely describe what the program consists of and state that there is a possible exponential risk of transgressing current environmental norms when carrying out the program, without specifying what those risks are, what the concrete objections are, what the affected norms would be, and how they could be affected. Based on the foregoing, in this Tribunal's view, the legislators did not sufficiently and adequately justify the constitutional doubts they claim to have. Accordingly, this prevents the Tribunal from ruling on the matter, since, as already indicated, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any opinion without certainty about the aspects raised by the legislators, who are the ones with competence to raise constitutional doubts in these proceedings. For all of the foregoing, the consultation filed is found to lack the required reasoning, and on those terms it is neither possible nor admissible to analyze the aspects consulted regarding the bill in question.Respecto del primer alegato, este Tribunal advierte que los señores y señoras diputadas se limitan a describir en qué consiste el programa, y a decir que hay un posible riesgo exponencial de transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente al realizar el programa, sin precisar cuáles son esos riesgos, cuáles son los cuestionamientos concretos, cuál sería la normativa afectada y cómo podría afectarse. A partir de lo anterior, en criterio de este Tribunal, las personas legisladoras no justificaron suficiente y adecuadamente las dudas de constitucionalidad que manifiestan tener. De manera que, lo anterior impide a este Tribunal pronunciarse al respecto, pues tal y como ya se ha indicado, resultaría impropio para la Sala emitir criterio alguno sin la certeza de los aspectos consultados por las personas legisladoras, que son quienes tienen la competencia para plantear las dudas de constitucionalidad en estos procesos. Por todo lo expuesto, se considera que la consulta planteada carece de la fundamentación requerida, por lo que, en esos términos no resulta posible ni admisible el análisis de los aspectos consultados del proyecto de ley en cuestión.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Este Tribunal no debe fungir como una especie de asesoría legal con un espectro indefinido de acción, sino, específicamente, como una instancia que, con carácter preventivo en cuanto al fondo y vinculante respecto de la forma, coadyuva en el proceso de formación de las leyes, pero solo despejando las dudas u objeciones de constitucionalidad sometidas a su conocimiento de manera concreta y razonada."
"This Tribunal must not act as a kind of legal advisory service with an indefinite scope of action, but specifically as a body that, with a preventive character as to the merits and binding effect as to form, assists in the law-making process — but only by resolving the constitutional doubts or objections submitted to its knowledge in a concrete and reasoned manner."
Considerando II (citando Sentencia nro. 2024-29411)
"Este Tribunal no debe fungir como una especie de asesoría legal con un espectro indefinido de acción, sino, específicamente, como una instancia que, con carácter preventivo en cuanto al fondo y vinculante respecto de la forma, coadyuva en el proceso de formación de las leyes, pero solo despejando las dudas u objeciones de constitucionalidad sometidas a su conocimiento de manera concreta y razonada."
Considerando II (citando Sentencia nro. 2024-29411)
"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."
"If the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be found inadmissible and, accordingly, unanswerable, since this Tribunal would not have the express grounds on which to rule."
Considerando II
"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."
Considerando II
"los señores y señoras diputadas se limitan a describir en qué consiste el programa, y a decir que hay un posible riesgo exponencial de transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente al realizar el programa, sin precisar cuáles son esos riesgos, cuáles son los cuestionamientos concretos, cuál sería la normativa afectada y cómo podría afectarse."
"The legislators merely describe what the program consists of and state that there is a possible exponential risk of transgressing current environmental norms when carrying out the program, without specifying what those risks are, what the concrete objections are, what the affected norms would be, and how they could be affected."
Considerando III-A
"los señores y señoras diputadas se limitan a describir en qué consiste el programa, y a decir que hay un posible riesgo exponencial de transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente al realizar el programa, sin precisar cuáles son esos riesgos, cuáles son los cuestionamientos concretos, cuál sería la normativa afectada y cómo podría afectarse."
Considerando III-A
"No ha lugar a evacuar la consulta."
"The consultation shall not be answered."
Por tanto
"No ha lugar a evacuar la consulta."
Por tanto
Full documentDocumento completo
Res. Nº 2026016433 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 consultation on constitutionality (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 (proyecto de ley) entitled "Approval of Financing Contract No. 9653-CR Entered into Between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Program for Climate-Resilient Reconstruction and Territorial Development," being processed under legislative file (expediente legislativo) No. 24.761.
Background:
1.- The consultation was received by the Secretariat of this Chamber at 10:54 hours on April 30, 2026. It is stated that the consultation is grounded in Article 96, subparagraph b), of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The legislators submit to the Sala Constitucional for consideration the bill under legislative file No. 24.761, "Approval of Financing Contract No. 9653-CR Entered into Between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Program for Climate-Resilient Reconstruction and Territorial Development." The objective of the Program is to develop adequate and relevant institutional capacity for the recovery of infrastructure damaged by disasters and for improved disaster risk management in the territories, with a forward-looking approach and a climate-resilient, inclusive territorial economic, social, and environmental development that mitigates the financial costs of emergency response and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of public services affected by future disaster events associated with climate-related phenomena. The bill was initiated on November 12, 2025, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 227 of December 3, 2025. It was placed on the agenda of the Finance Committee (Comisión de Hacendarios) on December 11, 2025. A committee report (dictamen) was issued on April 14, 2026, and on April 21, 2026, it was approved on first debate (primer debate). The three aspects being challenged in the bill are: compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the impact of the financing on public debt sustainability. The foregoing is based on the following reasoning: "I. The general interest — in the paramount protection of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and ultimately the impact of the financing on public debt sustainability — must inspire the analysis of LEGISLATIVE FILE No. 24.761, APPROVAL OF FINANCING CONTRACT No. 9653-CR ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (BIRF) TO FINANCE THE 'PROGRAM FOR CLIMATE-RESILIENT RECONSTRUCTION AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT.' It is plainly evident that the bill presents a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social standards, inasmuch as it seeks the following: The objective of the Project is to increase access to disaster- and climate-resilient infrastructure and services in selected regions of the Republic of Costa Rica. The project consists of urgent disaster and climate reconstruction for the Borrower's recovery, including, among others: (a) gray and green infrastructure to address river and rainfall flooding in selected regions; (b) slope stabilization works; (c) repair, reconstruction, and replacement of bridges and critical road network infrastructure; and (d) watershed-level studies and vulnerability assessments to inform reconstruction investments. It also includes the performance of detailed engineering studies for the national and subnational disaster risk management system, including, among others: (i) the construction, adaptation, renovation, and equipping of warehouses and storage facilities for disaster response; (ii) multipurpose emergency shelters; (iii) replacement of the headquarters of the Project Implementing Entity (including an emergency operations center and a storage area for emergency supplies), and the construction, adaptation, renovation, and equipping of facilities to serve as regional situation rooms for the Borrower's national risk management system; and (b) strengthening of early warning systems ("EWS") with a watershed approach, including, among others, the procurement of instrumentation and equipment for the organization of new early warning systems and the reinforcement of existing ones; all of this incorporating energy efficiency standards and climate-smart measures for reducing environmental impact and resilience, particularly in the event of flooding and other hydrometeorological events. The risk to which the country is exposed in carrying out this project without violating current environmental regulations is exponential; therefore, consideration is requested as to whether any unconstitutionality exists. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER. This is the second precept submitted for the Chamber's review, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of law, which can also be conceptualized as the guarantee afforded to every individual by which that individual has certainty that his or her 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 an individual has that his or her property will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as a judicial organization, a police corps, and laws; and therefore, from an objective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the existence of a just and effective social order whose compliance is assured by public coercion. In this regard, it must be understood that, since sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not transgress legal certainty are not available, an unconstitutionality may exist. III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON PUBLIC DEBT SUSTAINABILITY. This is the third precept submitted for review by the justices, given that the financing impact of the bill under review could affect public debt sustainability. The total cost of the Program is up to USD 388,748,447.70, of which USD 350,000,000 corresponds to the BIRF loan, USD 20,000,000 to a grant from the 'Global Concessional Financing Facility' (GFCC) as an effort to support countries affected by migratory flows, and USD 18,748,447.70 is contributed by the National Emergency Fund (Fondo Nacional de Emergencias, FNE) administered by CNE, the latter to finance exclusively the projects of Component I. The Borrower is the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica through the Ministerio de Hacienda. The large amount to which the country will be committed in repaying this loan calls into question the economic capacity to service that debt and, therefore, could generate a significant financial impact on public debt sustainability. For this reason, and since sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not transgress the country's financial sustainability are not available, an unconstitutionality may exist." The legislators request that this optional consultation be granted and that the Chamber evaluate whether the matters identified herein violate the Constitution.
2.- By official letter PSC-0023-2026 of April 30, 2026, the Secretariat of this Tribunal notified the President of the Asamblea Legislativa of the receipt of this optional constitutional consultation, pending admissibility (admisibilidad) review.
3.- In the conduct of the proceedings, the legal formalities have been observed.
Drafted by Justice (Magistrado) Castillo Víquez; and,
Considerando:
I.- On the Legislative Consultation on Constitutionality and the admissibility of the consultation now before the Chamber. The prior advisory opinion on legislative bills may be requested on a mandatory basis — subparagraph a) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction — or on an optional basis — subparagraphs b), c), and ch) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. In the latter case, three situations are contemplated: in the first, it is the parliamentary body itself that makes the request — when presented by no fewer than ten legislators —; in the second, it concerns consultations regarding bills relating to the constitutional competence of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, or the Contraloría General de la República, a consultation that must be submitted by those bodies themselves; and, in the third, the consultation may be submitted by the Defensor de los Habitantes when he or she considers that fundamental rights or freedoms are being infringed. Likewise, Article 98 of the law governing this jurisdiction states that, in the case of bills other than constitutional amendments, the legislative consultation must be filed after the bill has been approved on first debate and before receiving final approval on second debate (segundo debate); this requirement as a condition of admissibility of the legislative consultation finds its basis in the fact that it is only after the first debate that greater certainty is attainable regarding the likelihood of approval of the text submitted for consultation — see, among others, rulings (sentencias) of this Chamber numbers 193-90 and 2017-11714. In the case now before the Chamber, pursuant to subparagraph c) of Article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, eleven legislators filed an optional consultation on constitutionality concerning bill No. 24.155, entitled "Amendment to Articles 5, 7, and 12 of the Organic Law of the Professional Association of Criminology Professionals 8831, of May 12, 2010," which was approved on first debate on October 22, 2024. However, the Chamber notes that mere compliance with this requirement falls short of satisfying the admissibility requirements for the consultation as a whole, as will be explained below.
II.- On the statement of grounds as an admissibility requirement for legislative consultations. Article 99 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction clearly states that an optional constitutional consultation must be filed by means of a reasoned brief (memorial razonado) setting forth the aspects of the bill that are being challenged, as well as the reasons why there are doubts or objections as to the constitutionality of the bill. This provision establishes — and this has been recognized repeatedly by constitutional case law — that the petition filing (libelo de interposición) must identify the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is being challenged or consulted, and must clearly state the reasons why a provision of the bill is considered potentially unconstitutional; otherwise, the consultation would be inadmissible (inadmisible) — see, in this regard, rulings numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others. Indeed, this Chamber has stated the following on this point:
"…Finally, this Tribunal notes that it will only study the arguments raised in specific terms by the consulting legislators, in accordance with the above-mentioned Article 99 and established constitutional case law (rulings nos. 2018005758, 2017019636, 2017003262, 2016018351, 2016012413, 2015001240, 2014018836, 2014003969, 2013013344, 2012017705, 2012015840, 2012013367, 2012002675, 2011015968, 2011015655, 2011014966, 2011012611, 2011005274, 2011005268, 2011000992, 2011000905, 2010016202, 2010012026 and 2010-007630), under which optional constitutional consultations are limited to analyzing what has been specifically challenged, without the Chamber, in this procedural avenue, extending constitutional review motu proprio to other matters. This Tribunal must not function as a kind of legal advisory service with an indefinite scope of action, but rather, specifically, as a body that, with a preventive character as to the merits and binding character as to procedural form, assists in the process of lawmaking, but only by resolving the specific and reasoned constitutional doubts or objections submitted for its consideration." (Ruling no. 2024-29411, of 9:55 hours on October 8, 2024) As has been indicated, the grounds on which the legislative consultation is filed must also be clear and explicit, detailing the reasons why the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions being consulted. In this regard, the Chamber has held that, if the arguments are omissive, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be found inadmissible and, accordingly, unanswerable (inevacuable), since this Tribunal would not have the express grounds on which to issue an opinion. Indeed, the Chamber has held that:
"…It should also be recalled that the same law provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber shall rule on the consultation by issuing an opinion 'on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional standpoint,' but the tribunal interprets that 'the aspects and grounds consulted' are those which, in accordance with Article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or support the doubts that the legislators may have about it. Given, then, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not receivable; if the tribunal were nonetheless to admit and answer it, it would place itself in a situation outside the scope of its powers." (Ruling no. 2001-11643, reaffirmed in rulings numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204, and 2022-9345, among others). Emphasis not in the original.
III.- On the consultation as filed. The consulting legislators state that they have constitutional doubts concerning two provisions of the bill in question, setting forth only the following grounds:
On the basis of the foregoing, in this Tribunal's view, the legislators did not adequately and sufficiently justify the constitutional doubts they claim to hold. This accordingly prevents the Tribunal from issuing an opinion on the matter, since, as has already been noted, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any opinion without certainty as to the aspects consulted by the legislators, who are the parties with standing to raise constitutional doubts in these proceedings.
In view of all of the foregoing, it is considered that the consultation as filed lacks the required substantiation, and therefore the analysis of the challenged aspects of the bill in question is neither possible nor admissible on those terms.
In light of the foregoing, the consultation is not to be answered, and it is so declared.
IV.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE. The parties are hereby notified that if any documents in paper form, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, have been submitted, these must be retrieved from this office within a maximum period of 30 business days from notification of this ruling. Failing that, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Regulations on Electronic Court Files before the Judiciary," approved by the Corte Plena at session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Judicial Bulletin No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The consultation is not to 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 -- Telephone: 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 Perpetuo Socorro church).
9653-CR subscribed between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Program for Climate-Resilient Reconstruction and Territorial Development," which is being processed under legislative file nro. 24.761.
**Background:** **1.-** The consultation was received by the Court Secretariat at 10:54 a.m. on April 30, 2026. It is stated that the consultation is grounded in Article 96, paragraph b) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The parties submit to the consideration of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) the bill identified as legislative file nro. 24.761, "Approval of Financing Contract nro. 9653-CR subscribed between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Program for Climate-Resilient Reconstruction and Territorial Development." The Program's objective is to develop adequate and relevant institutional capacity for the recovery of infrastructure damaged by disasters and for improved disaster risk management in the relevant territories, with a forward-looking approach and a climate-resilient and inclusive territorial economic, social, and environmental development that mitigates the financial costs arising from emergency responses and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of public services affected by future disaster events associated with climate-related phenomena. The bill was initiated on November 12, 2025, and published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta nro. 227 of December 3, 2025. It was placed on the agenda of the Finance Committee (Comisión de Hacendarios) on December 11, 2025. A committee report was issued on April 14, 2026, and on April 21, 2026, it was approved on first reading. The three aspects questioned in the bill are: compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the impact of the financing on public debt sustainability (sostenibilidad de la deuda pública). The foregoing is based on the following grounds: *"I. The general interest, in the supreme safeguarding of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and the impact of the financing on public debt sustainability, must guide the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.° 24.761, APPROVAL OF FINANCING CONTRACT N° 9653-CR SUBSCRIBED BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (BIRF) TO FINANCE THE "PROGRAM FOR CLIMATE-RESILIENT RECONSTRUCTION AND TERRITORIAL DEVELOPMENT." It is plainly evident that the legislative initiative presents a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social regulations, given that it seeks to accomplish the following: The Project's objective is to increase access to disaster- and climate-resilient infrastructure and services in selected regions of the Republic of Costa Rica. The project consists of urgent disaster and climate reconstruction for the Borrower's recovery, including, among other things: (a) gray and green infrastructure (infraestructura gris y verde) to address fluvial and pluvial flooding in selected regions; (b) slope stabilization works (obras de estabilización de taludes); (c) repair, reconstruction, and replacement of bridges and critical road network infrastructure; and (d) watershed-level studies (estudios a nivel de cuenca) and vulnerability assessments to inform reconstruction investments. It also includes the preparation of detailed engineering studies for the national and subnational disaster risk management system, including, among other things: (i) construction, adaptation, remodeling, and equipping of warehouses and storage facilities for disaster response; (ii) multipurpose emergency shelters (refugios multipropósito de emergencia); (iii) replacement of the Project Implementing Entity's headquarters (including an emergency operations center and a storage area for emergency supplies), and the construction, adaptation, remodeling, and equipping of facilities to serve as regional situation rooms for the Borrower's national risk management system; and (b) strengthening of early warning systems ("EWS") with a watershed-based approach, including, among other things, the acquisition of instrumentation and equipment to establish new early warning systems and reinforce existing ones; all of this incorporating energy efficiency standards and climate-smart measures aimed at reducing environmental impact and building resilience, particularly against floods and other hydrometeorological events. The risk to which the country would be exposed in carrying out this project without transgressing existing environmental regulations is exponential; accordingly, the Court is asked to consider whether a constitutional violation is at issue. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER. This is the second precept submitted for review by the Constitutional Chamber, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of law that may also be understood as the guarantee afforded to every individual 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, whereby individuals know at any given moment what their rights and obligations are. From a subjective standpoint, legal certainty is equivalent to the individual's moral assurance that their property rights will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as the judicial system, 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 compliance is enforced through 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, a constitutional infirmity may exist. III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON PUBLIC DEBT SUSTAINABILITY. This is the third precept submitted for review by the justices, given that the financial impact of the bill under review could affect public debt sustainability. The total cost of the Program amounts to up to USD 388,748,447.70, of which USD 350,000,000 corresponds to the BIRF loan, USD 20,000,000 to a grant from the "Global Concessional Financing Facility" (GFCC) as an effort to support countries affected by migration flows, and USD 18,748,447.70 are contributed by the National Emergency Fund (Fondo Nacional de Emergencias, FNE) administered by CNE, with these latter funds financing exclusively the Component I projects. The Borrower is the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica through the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda). The large amount the country will be obligated to repay under this loan raises doubts about its economic capacity to service that debt and could therefore generate a significant financial impact on public debt sustainability. For this reason, and in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate the country's financial sustainability, a constitutional infirmity may exist."* They request that this discretionary consultation (consulta facultativa) be upheld, and that the Constitutional Chamber assess whether what is set forth herein violates the Political Constitution (Constitución Política).
**2.-** By official communication PSC-0023-2026, dated April 30, 2026, the Secretariat of this Court notified the President of the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) of the receipt of this discretionary consultation on constitutionality, which is under admissibility review.
**3.-** The legal formalities required by law have been observed in the processing of this case.
Opinion drafted by Justice (Magistrado) **Castillo Víquez**; and, **Considering:** **I.-** On the Legislative Consultation on Constitutionality and the admissibility of the present consultation now before this Court.
The prior advisory opinion (opinión consultiva) on legislative bills may be required on a mandatory basis — subsection a of article 96 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional (Constitutional Jurisdiction Law) — or on a discretionary basis — subsections b, c, and ch of article 96 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional. In the latter case, three scenarios arise: in the first, the parliamentary body itself initiates the consultation — when presented by no fewer than ten deputies; in the second, it concerns consultations on legislative bills relating to the constitutional competence of the Corte Suprema de Justicia, the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, or the Contraloría General de la República, which must be brought by those institutions themselves; and, in the third, the consultation may be brought by the Defensor de los Habitantes when that office considers that fundamental rights or freedoms are being infringed. Similarly, article 98 of the law governing this jurisdiction provides that, in the case of legislative bills other than constitutional amendments, the Consulta Legislativa (Legislative Consultation) must be filed after the bill has been approved on first debate and before it receives final approval on second debate; this requirement, as an admissibility condition for the Legislative Consultation, is grounded in the fact that it is only after the first debate that greater certainty can be had regarding the likelihood of approval of the text under consultation — see, among others, judgments of this Chamber numbers 193-90 and 2017-11714. In the case now before the Chamber, on the basis of subsection c) of article 96 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, eleven deputies have filed a discretionary constitutional consultation (consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad) regarding legislative bill no. 24.155, titled "Reforma a los artículos 5, 7 y 12 de la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Profesionales en Criminología 8831, de 12 de mayo de 2010," which was approved on first debate on 22 October 2024. Nevertheless, the Chamber finds that mere compliance with this requirement falls far short of establishing that all admissibility requirements have been duly met with respect to the consultation as a whole, as will be explained below.
**II.- On the statement of grounds as an admissibility requirement for legislative consultations.** Article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional clearly provides that a discretionary constitutional consultation must be presented by way of a reasoned brief (memorial razonado), setting out the aspects of the legislative bill being challenged, as well as the grounds on which doubts or objections as to its constitutionality are held. This provision requires — and this has been recognized consistently in constitutional case law — that the petition for filing (libelo de interposición) must identify the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is being questioned or consulted, and must clearly set forth the grounds on which a provision of the bill is believed to be unconstitutional; otherwise the consultation would be inadmissible — see, in this regard, judgments numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others. Indeed, on this point the Chamber has stated the following:
*"…Finally, this Tribunal notes that it will only examine the arguments raised in specific terms by the consulting legislators, in accordance with article 99 cited ut supra and consistent constitutional case law (judgments nos. 2018005758, 2017019636, 2017003262, 2016018351, 2016012413, 2015001240, 2014018836, 2014003969, 2013013344, 2012017705, 2012015840, 2012013367, 2012002675, 2011015968, 2011015655, 2011014966, 2011012611, 2011005274, 2011005268, 2011000992, 2011000905, 2010016202, 2010012026 and 2010-007630), under which discretionary constitutional consultations are limited to examining what has been specifically challenged, and the Chamber does not, through this procedural avenue, extend constitutional review motu proprio to other matters. This Tribunal must not act as a form of legal advisory service with an indefinite scope of action but, rather, specifically as a body that, with a preventive character on the merits and a binding character as to form, assists in the law-making process, **but only by resolving the constitutional doubts or objections that have been submitted to it in a concrete and reasoned manner**."* (Judgment no. 2024-29411, of 9:55 a.m. on 8 October 2024) As noted above, the grounds on which the legislative consultation is filed must also be clear and express, detailing the reasons for which the legislators hold reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions under consultation. In this regard, the Chamber has stated that if the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be found inadmissible and, consequently, unanswerable, since the Tribunal would lack the express grounds on which to render an opinion. Indeed, the Chamber has stated that:
*"…It must also be recalled that the same law provides in its article 101 that the Chamber shall answer the consultation by rendering an opinion 'on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others it deems relevant from a constitutional standpoint,' **but the tribunal interprets 'the aspects and grounds consulted' as those which, in accordance with article 99, challenge or object to the bill, or form the basis for any doubt the legislators may have about it. Given, then, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not admissible; if the tribunal were nonetheless to admit it 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.
**III.- On the consultation filed.** The consulting deputies state that they have constitutional doubts regarding two provisions of the legislative bill in question, setting forth only the following grounds:
The petitioning parties state that the total cost of the Program amounts to up to USD 388,748,447.70, of which USD 350,000,000 corresponds to the BIRF loan, USD 20,000,000 comes from a grant provided by the "Mecanismo Global de Financiamiento Concesional" (Global Concessional Financing Facility - GFCC) as an effort to support countries affected by migratory flows, and USD 18,748,447.70 is contributed by the FNE administered by CNE, with those last funds designated exclusively to finance projects under Component I. The Borrower is the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica through the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda). The petitioning parties warn that the substantial amount the country will be required to repay under this loan raises doubts about its economic capacity to service that debt and could, as a result, generate a significant financial impact on the sustainability of the public debt. For this reason, and given the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the bill's objectives do not transgress the country's financial sustainability, a constitutional violation may be at issue.
In light of the foregoing, this Tribunal finds that the legislators did not sufficiently and adequately substantiate the constitutional doubts they claim to have. Accordingly, the foregoing prevents this Tribunal from ruling on the matter, since, as has already been noted, it would be improper for the Court to issue any opinion without certainty as to the aspects raised by the legislators, who are the ones with standing to present constitutional doubts in these proceedings.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the consultation as filed is found to lack the required substantiation, and accordingly it is neither possible nor admissible to analyze the aspects of the bill in question that were raised in the consultation.
In light of the foregoing, the consultation shall not be answered, and it is so declared.
IV.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE. The parties are advised 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, such items must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment.
otherwise, any material not retrieved within this time limit will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The referral is hereby dismissed.
--- Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.
The content you submitted does not contain any Spanish legal text to translate. What was provided is HTML markup with embedded base64-encoded JPEG image data — binary image content, not readable legal prose.
To translate the excerpt, please paste the **plain text** of the Spanish legal document (the actual sentences, articles, considerandos, tables, etc.). You can copy the text directly from the source PDF or document, or paste the readable HTML if it contains Spanish text in standard characters.
The content you submitted appears to be raw HTML containing a base64-encoded JPEG image, not a Spanish legal text excerpt. The only readable text fragment at the end is `Luis Fdo.` — which is an incomplete name, not a translatable passage.
To proceed, please paste the actual Spanish legal text you want translated — plain prose, article numbers, considerandos, and so on. If the document is in a Word or PDF file, copy the text directly from it rather than the HTML source of an editor embedding the file as an image.
Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
**BUDGET. FINANCING FOR CLIMATE-RESILIENT TERRITORIAL RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT** Case file: 26-015437-0007-CO Judgment: 016433-26 of May 7, 2026 Type of matter: Voluntary Legislative Consultation Challenged instrument: Approval of Financing Contract No. 9653-CR entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to finance the "Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima." Legislative file No. 24.761 Operative part: The consultation is dismissed without further proceedings.
CO05/26 **Exp:** 26-015437-0007-CO **Res. Nº** 2026016433 **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at nine hours and thirty minutes on the seventh of May of two thousand and twenty-six.
Voluntary legislative constitutional consultation (consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad) filed by the legislators (diputados) [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], regarding the bill titled "Approval of Financing Contract No. 9653-CR entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima," which is being processed under legislative file (expediente legislativo) No. 24.761.
**Findings:** **1.-** The consultation was received at the Chamber's Clerk's Office (Secretaría de la Sala) at 10:54 hours on April 30, 2026. It is stated that the consultation is grounded in Article 96, subsection b) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. The petitioners submit for the consideration of the Constitutional Chamber the bill contained in legislative file No. 24.761, "Approval of Financing Contract No. 9653-CR entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRF) to Finance the Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima." The Program's objective is to develop adequate and relevant institutional capacity for the recovery of infrastructure damaged by disasters and for improved disaster risk management in the territories under consideration, with a forward-looking approach and climate-resilient, inclusive territorial economic, social, and environmental development that mitigates the financial costs of emergency response and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of public services affected by future disaster events associated with climate-related phenomena. The bill was introduced on November 12, 2025, and published in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 227 of December 3, 2025. It was placed on the agenda of the Finance Committee (Comisión de Hacendarios) on December 11, 2025. The committee issued its report on April 14, 2026, and on April 21, 2026, the bill was voted on first reading (primer debate). The three aspects of the bill that the petitioners challenge are: compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and the impact of the financing on the sustainability of public debt. This is grounded in the following reasoning: *"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 public debt must guide the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.° 24.761, APPROVAL OF FINANCING CONTRACT N° 9653-CR ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT (BIRF) TO FINANCE THE 'PROGRAMA DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y DESARROLLO TERRITORIAL RESILIENTE AL CLIMA.' It is plainly evident that the legislative bill presents a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social regulations, insofar as it proposes the following: The Project's objective is to increase access to disaster- and climate-resilient infrastructure and services in selected regions of the Republic of Costa Rica. The project consists of urgent disaster and climate reconstruction for the Borrower's recovery, including, among others: (a) gray and green infrastructure to address fluvial and pluvial flooding in selected regions; (b) slope stabilization works (obras de estabilización de taludes); (c) repair, reconstruction, and replacement of bridges and critical road network infrastructure; and (d) watershed (cuenca) level studies and vulnerability assessments to inform reconstruction investments. It also includes the conduct of detailed engineering studies) for the national and subnational disaster risk management system, including, among others: (i) the construction, adaptation, remodeling, and equipping of warehouses and storage facilities for disaster response; (ii) multipurpose emergency shelters (refugios multipropósito de emergencia); (iii) replacement of the Project Implementing Entity's headquarters (including an emergency operations center and a storage area for emergency supplies), and the construction, adaptation, remodeling, and equipping of facilities to serve as regional situation rooms (salas de situación) for the Borrower's national risk management system; and (b) strengthening of early warning systems ("EWS") with a watershed-based approach, including, among others, the acquisition of instrumentation and equipment for the organization of new early warning systems and the reinforcement of existing ones; all of this incorporating energy efficiency (eficiencia energética) standards and climate-smart measures for the reduction of environmental impact and resilience, particularly in the occurrence of floods and other hydrometeorological events. The risk to which the country is exposed in carrying out this project without violating existing environmental regulations is exponential; therefore, the petitioners request that the Chamber consider whether an unconstitutionality is present. THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER. This is the second precept submitted for the Chamber's review, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of law, which may also be understood as the guarantee afforded to every individual whereby that individual has certainty that his or her legal situation will not be modified except through regular, previously established procedures; 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 the subjective standpoint, security is equivalent to the moral certainty the individual has that his property will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as the judicial organization, the police corps, and the laws, so that, from the objective standpoint, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) 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 infringe on legal certainty, there could be a finding of unconstitutionality. III. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC DEBT. This is the third precept submitted for review by the honorable justices, given that the financing impact of the bill under review could affect the sustainability of the public debt. The total cost of the Program is up to USD 388,748,447.70, of which USD 350,000,000 corresponds to the BIRF loan, USD 20,000,000 from a donation from the "Global Concessional Financing Facility" (GCFF) as an effort to support countries affected by migratory flows, and USD 18,748,447.70 are contributed by the FNE administered by CNE, the latter funds financing exclusively the projects under Component I. The Borrower is the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica through the Ministry of Finance. The large amount the country will be required to repay for this loan casts doubt on 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 in the absence of sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not infringe on the country's financial sustainability, there could be a finding of unconstitutionality." They request that the present discretionary consultation (Consulta Facultativa) be granted and that it be assessed whether what is stated herein violates the Political Constitution.
**2.**- By official communication PSC-0023-2026, of April 30, 2026, the Secretariat of this Tribunal notified the President of the Legislative Assembly of the receipt of this discretionary consultation on constitutionality, which is under admissibility review.
**3.-** The procedural formalities required by law have been duly observed in the conduct of this proceeding.
Drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and, **Considering:** **I.- On the Legislative Consultation on Constitutionality (consulta legislativa de constitucionalidad) and the admissibility of the consultation now before the Court.** The prior advisory opinion on legislative bills may be requested on a mandatory basis — subsection a of article 96 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional — or on a discretionary basis — subsections b, c, and ch of article 96 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional. In the latter case, there are three scenarios: in the first, the parliamentary body itself makes the request — when submitted by no fewer than ten deputies —; in the second, it concerns the consultation of bills relating to the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, or the Comptroller General of the Republic, a consultation that must be submitted by those same bodies; and, in the third, the consultation may be submitted by the Ombudsman (Defensor de los Habitantes) when he considers that fundamental rights or freedoms are being infringed. Similarly, article 98 of the law governing this jurisdiction provides that, in the case of bills other than constitutional amendments, the legislative consultation must be filed after the bill has been approved on first reading (primer debate) and before receiving final approval on second reading (segundo debate); this requirement as an admissibility condition for the legislative consultation finds support in the fact that it is after the first reading that greater certainty can be had about the likelihood of approval of the text submitted for consultation — see, among others, judgments of this Court numbers 193-90 and 2017-11714-. In the case now before the Court, based on the provisions of subsection c) of article 96 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, eleven deputies filed a discretionary consultation on constitutionality with respect to bill no. 24.155, entitled "Reform to articles 5, 7 and 12 of the Organic Law of the Colegio de Profesionales en Criminología 8831, of May 12, 2010," which was approved on first reading on October 22, 2024. However, the Court notes that mere compliance with this requirement falls far short of satisfying all the admissibility requirements for the consultation now submitted, as will indeed be stated.
**II.- On the expression of grounds as admissibility requirements for legislative consultations.** Article 99 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional clearly states that a discretionary consultation on constitutionality must be filed through a reasoned brief (memorial razonado), in which the aspects of the bill being questioned are set forth, as well as the grounds on which doubts or objections to its constitutionality are held. This provision determines — and this has been repeatedly recognized in constitutional jurisprudence — that the filing brief must identify the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is being questioned or consulted, and that the grounds on which a provision of the bill may be considered unconstitutional must be clearly stated, as otherwise the consultation would be inadmissible — see, in this regard, judgments numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9342, among others-. Indeed, on this point the Court has stated the following:
"…Finally, this Tribunal notes that it will only examine the arguments raised in specific terms by the consulting legislators, in accordance with the aforementioned article 99 *ut supra* and reiterated constitutional jurisprudence (judgments nos. 2018005758, 2017019636, 2017003262, 2016018351, 2016012413, 2015001240, 2014018836, 2014003969, 2013013344, 2012017705, 2012015840, 2012013367, 2012002675, 2011015968, 2011015655, 2011014966, 2011012611, 2011005274, 2011005268, 2011000992, 2011000905, 2010016202, 2010012026 and 2010-007630), according to which discretionary consultations on constitutionality are restricted to analyzing what has been specifically questioned, without the Court, in this procedural avenue, extending constitutional review *motu proprio* to other matters. This Tribunal must not function as a kind of legal advisory body with an indefinite scope of action, but rather, specifically, as a body that, with a preventive character as to substance and binding character as to form, assists in the lawmaking process, **but only by resolving the doubts or objections of constitutionality submitted to its consideration in a concrete and reasoned manner**." (Judgment no. 2024-29411, of 9:55 a.m. on October 8, 2024) As has been indicated, the grounds on which the legislative consultation is filed must also be clear and express, detailing the reasons why the legislators hold reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the norms consulted. In this regard, the Court has stated that, if the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be found inadmissible and therefore unanswerable, as this Tribunal would not have the express grounds on which to rule. Indeed, the Court has stated that:
"…It must also be recalled that the law itself provides in article 101 that the Court will answer the consultation by ruling 'on the aspects and matters consulted or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional standpoint,' **but the tribunal interprets that 'the aspects and matters consulted' are those which, in accordance with article 99, question or object to the bill, or support the doubt that the legislators may have regarding it. Since, then, the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not admissible; if the tribunal were nonetheless to admit and answer it, it would place itself in a situation that is outside 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.
**III.- On the consultation submitted.** The consulting deputies state that they have doubts about the constitutionality of two norms of the bill in question, setting forth only the following grounds:
They state that the objective of the Project is to increase access to disaster- and climate-resilient infrastructure and services in selected regions of the Republic of Costa Rica. They describe it as consisting of urgent disaster and climate reconstruction for the Borrower's recovery, including, among other things: (a) gray and green infrastructure to address riverine and rainfall flooding in selected regions; (b) slope stabilization works; (c) repair, reconstruction, and replacement of bridges and critical road-network infrastructure; and (d) watershed (cuenca)-level studies and vulnerability assessments to inform reconstruction investments. It likewise includes the carrying out of detailed engineering studies for the national and subnational disaster risk management system, including, among other things: (i) the construction, adaptation, renovation, and equipping of warehouses and storage facilities for disaster response; (ii) multipurpose emergency shelters; (iii) replacement of the headquarters of the Project Implementing Entity (including an emergency operations center and a storage area for emergency supplies), and the construction, adaptation, renovation, and equipping of facilities to serve as regional situation rooms for the Borrower's national risk management system; and (b) strengthening of early warning systems (sistemas de alerta temprana, "EWS") with a watershed-based approach, including, among other things, the acquisition of instrumentation and equipment for the organization of new early warning systems and the reinforcement of existing ones; all of this incorporating energy-efficiency standards and climate-smart measures for the reduction of environmental impact and resilience, particularly in connection with flooding and other hydrometeorological events. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners question whether the risk to which the country is exposed in carrying out this project without violating the applicable environmental regulations is exponential, and therefore ask the Court to consider whether any unconstitutionality exists.
Based on the foregoing, in this Tribunal's view, the legislators did not justify their stated constitutional doubts sufficiently and adequately. This in turn prevents the Tribunal from ruling on the matter, since, as has already been noted, it would be improper for the Sala to issue any opinion without certainty as to the aspects raised by the legislators, who are the parties competent to formulate constitutional doubts in these proceedings.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the referral submitted is found to lack the required foundation; consequently, analysis of the referred aspects of the bill in question is neither possible nor admissible on those terms.
In light of the foregoing, there is no basis to answer the referral, and it is so declared.
IV.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are hereby notified that if any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, have been submitted to the file, these must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment.
otherwise, any material not retrieved within this time limit will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena at session N° 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session N° 43-12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.
Por tanto:
The referral is hereby dismissed.
--- Fernando Castillo V. President Fernando Cruz C.
The content you submitted does not contain any Spanish legal text to translate. What was provided is HTML markup with embedded base64-encoded JPEG image data — binary image content, not readable legal prose.
To translate the excerpt, please paste the **plain text** of the Spanish legal document (the actual sentences, articles, considerandos, tables, etc.). You can copy the text directly from the source PDF or document, or paste the readable HTML if it contains Spanish text in standard characters.
The content you submitted appears to be raw HTML containing a base64-encoded JPEG image, not a Spanish legal text excerpt. The only readable text fragment at the end is `Luis Fdo.` — which is an incomplete name, not a translatable passage.
To proceed, please paste the actual Spanish legal text you want translated — plain prose, article numbers, considerandos, and so on. If the document is in a Word or PDF file, copy the text directly from it rather than the HTML source of an editor embedding the file as an image.
Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).
EV Generación de Machote: D:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\MODELOS\S4CONL005.dpj Res. Nº 2026016433 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 denominado “Aprobación del Contrato de Financiamiento nro. 9653-CR suscrito entre la República de Costa Rica y el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento (BIRF) para Financiar el Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo nro. 24.761.
Resultando:
1.- La consulta se recibió en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 10:54 horas del 30 de abril de 2026. Se indica que, la consulta se fundamenta en el artículo 96 inciso b) de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Someten a consideración de la Sala Constitucional el proyecto de ley denominado expediente legislativo nro. 24.761, “Aprobación del Contrato de Financiamiento nro. 9653-CR suscrito entre la República de Costa Rica y el Banco Internacional de Reconstrucción y Fomento (BIRF) para Financiar el Programa de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo Territorial Resiliente al Clima”. El objetivo del Programa es desarrollar la capacidad institucional adecuada y pertinente para la recuperación de la infraestructura dañada por desastres y una mejor gestión del riesgo de desastres en los territorios con enfoque prospectivo y un desarrollo económico, social y ambiental territorial resiliente al clima e inclusivo que mitigue los costos financieros por las atenciones de las emergencias y la rehabilitación y reconstrucción de los servicios públicos afectados por eventos futuros de desastre asociados a fenómenos relacionados con el clima. El proyecto de ley fue iniciado el 12 de noviembre de 2025, publicado en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta nro. 227 del 3 de diciembre de 2025. Ingresó al orden del día de la Comisión de Hacendarios el 11 de diciembre de 2025. Fue dictaminado el 14 de abril de 2026 y el 21 de abril de 2026, fue votado en primer debate. Los tres aspectos que cuestionan del proyecto son: el cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública. Lo anterior, con base en la siguiente fundamentación: “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.° 24.761, APROBACIÓN DEL CONTRATO DE FINANCIAMIENTO N° 9653-CR SUSCRITO ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA Y EL BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y FOMENTO (BIRF) PARA FINANCIAR EL “PROGRAMA DE RECONSTRUCCIÓN Y DESARROLLO TERRITORIAL RESILIENTE AL CLIMA”. A todas luces 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 aumentar el acceso a infraestructura y servicios resilientes a desastres y al clima en regiones seleccionadas de la República de Costa Rica. El proyecto consiste en la urgente reconstrucción de desastres y clima para la recuperación del Prestatario, incluyendo, entre otros: (a) infraestructura gris y verde para abordar inundaciones fluviales y pluviales en regiones seleccionadas; (b) obras de estabilización de taludes; (c) reparación, reconstrucción y reemplazo de puentes y de la infraestructura crítica de la red vial; y (d) estudios a nivel de cuenca y evaluaciones de vulnerabilidad para informar las inversiones en reconstrucción. Asimismo, incluye la realización de estudios de ingeniería detallados) para el sistema nacional y subnacional de gestión de riesgos de desastres, incluyendo, entre otros: (i) la construcción, adaptación, remodelación y equipamiento de almacenes e instalaciones de almacenamiento para la respuesta a desastres; (ii) refugios multipropósito de emergencia; (iii) reemplazo de la sede de la Entidad Implementadora del Proyecto (incluyendo un centro de operaciones de emergencia y un área de almacenamiento para suministros de emergencia), y la construcción, adaptación, remodelación y equipamiento de instalaciones para servir como salas de situación regionales del sistema nacional de gestión de riesgos del Prestatario; y (b) fortalecimiento de los sistemas de alerta temprana ("EWS") con un enfoque de cuenca, incluyendo, entre otros, la adquisición de instrumentación y equipo para la organización de nuevos sistemas de alerta temprana y el refuerzo de los existentes; todo ello incorporando estándares de eficiencia energética y medidas inteligentes para el clima, para la reducción del impacto ambiental y la resiliencia, particularmente en la ocurrencia de inundaciones y otros eventos hidrometeorológicos. El riesgo al que se expone el país para realizar este proyecto sin transgredir la normativa ambiental vigente es exponencial, por lo tanto se solicita considerar si se estaría ante una inconstitucionalidad. 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 PÚBLICA. 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 hasta USD 388.748.447,70, en donde USD 350.000.000 corresponde al crédito del BIRF, USD 20.000.000 de una donación proveniente del “Mecanismo Global de Financiamiento Concesional” (Global Concessional Financing Facility - GFCC) como un esfuerzo para apoyar a los países afectados por flujos migratorios y USD 18.748.447,70 son aportados por el FNE administrado por la CNE, estos últimos financiarán únicamente los proyectos del Componente I. El Prestatario es el Gobierno de la República de Costa Rica a través del Ministerio de Hacienda. 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 sostenibilidad financiera del país se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad”. Solicitan que se estime la presente Consulta Facultativa planteada, y se valore si lo aquí señalado violenta la Constitución Política.
2.- Por oficio PSC-0023-2026, del 30 de abril de 2026, la Secretaría de este Tribunal comunicó al presidente de la Asamblea Legislativa de la recepción de esta consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad, en estudio de admisibilidad.
3.- En la substanciación del proceso se ha observado las formalidades de ley.
Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,
Considerando:
I.- Sobre la Consulta Legislativa de Constitucionalidad y la admisibilidad de la Consulta que ahora se conoce. La opinión consultiva previa sobre los proyectos legislativos puede ser requerida de manera preceptiva -inciso a del artículo 96 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional- o facultativa -incisos b, c y ch del artículo 96 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional-. En este último caso se tienen tres supuestos: en el primero, es el mismo órgano parlamentario quien la realiza -cuando se presente por no menos de diez diputados-; en el segundo, se trata de la consulta de proyectos de ley referidos a la competencia constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones o la Contraloría General de la República, consulta que debe ser presentada por éstos mismos órganos; y, en el tercero, la consulta la puede presentar el Defensor de los Habitantes cuando considere que se infringen derechos o libertades fundamentales. De igual manera, señala el artículo 98 de la ley de esta jurisdicción, que en el caso de proyectos de ley distintos de las reformas constitucionales, la Consulta Legislativa deberá interponerse después que el proyecto haya sido aprobado en primer debate y antes de recibir la aprobación definitiva en segundo debate; esta previsión como requisito de admisibilidad de la Consulta Legislativa, encuentra asidero porque es luego del primer debate que logra tenerse mayor certeza sobre las probabilidades de aprobación del texto sometido a consulta –véase, entre otras, sentencias de esta Sala números 193-90 y 2017-11714-. En el caso que ahora se conoce, con base en lo dispuesto por el inciso c) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, once diputados y diputadas presentan una consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad, respecto del proyecto de ley nro. 24.155, denominado "Reforma a los artículos 5, 7 y 12 de la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Profesionales en Criminología 8831, de 12 de mayo de 2010”, el cual fue aprobado en primer debate el pasado 22 de octubre de 2024. No obstante, aprecia la Sala que el solo cumplimiento de este requisito dista de tener por debidamente cumplidos los requisitos de admisibilidad para la totalidad de la consulta que ahora se formula, como en efecto se dirá.
II.- Sobre la expresión de los motivos como requisitos de admisibilidad de las consultas legislativas. 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 lo siguiente:
“…Finalmente, este Tribunal advierte que solo estudiará los alegatos planteados en forma puntual por las legisladoras y los legisladores consultantes, de acuerdo con el ordinal 99 mencionado ut supra y reiterada jurisprudencia constitucional (sentencias nros. 2018005758, 2017019636, 2017003262, 2016018351, 2016012413, 2015001240, 2014018836, 2014003969, 2013013344, 2012017705, 2012015840, 2012013367, 2012002675, 2011015968, 2011015655, 2011014966, 2011012611, 2011005274, 2011005268, 2011000992, 2011000905, 2010016202, 2010012026 y 2010-007630), según la cual las consultas facultativas de constitucionalidad se restringen a analizar lo cuestionado de manera específica, sin que la Sala, en esta vía procesal, extienda el control de constitucional motu proprio a otros temas. Este Tribunal no debe fungir como una especie de asesoría legal con un espectro indefinido de acción, sino, específicamente, como una instancia que, con carácter preventivo en cuanto al fondo y vinculante respecto de la forma, coadyuva en el proceso de formación de las leyes, pero solo despejando las dudas u objeciones de constitucionalidad sometidas a su conocimiento de manera concreta y razonada”. (Sentencia nro. 2024-29411, de las 9:55 horas del 8 de octubre de 2024) 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.
III.- Sobre la consulta planteada. Las diputadas y diputados consultantes manifiestan tener dudas de constitucionalidad respecto de dos normas del proyecto de ley en cuestión, exponiendo únicamente los siguientes motivos:
A partir de lo anterior, en criterio de este Tribunal, las personas legisladoras no justificaron suficiente y adecuadamente las dudas de constitucionalidad que manifiestan tener. De manera que, lo anterior impide a este Tribunal pronunciarse al respecto, pues tal y como ya se ha indicado, resultaría impropio para la Sala emitir criterio alguno sin la certeza de los aspectos consultados por las personas legisladoras, que son quienes tienen la competencia para plantear las dudas de constitucionalidad en estos procesos.
Por todo lo expuesto, se considera que la consulta planteada carece de la fundamentación requerida, por lo que, en esos términos no resulta posible ni admisible el análisis de los aspectos consultados del proyecto de ley en cuestión.
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 --
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.