← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 19770-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 03/06/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Court denied all three post-judgment motions because the original amparo issued no enforceable order, the case was already concluded precluding precautionary relief, and the clarification requests were filed outside the three-day statutory deadline under Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.La Sala rechazó las tres gestiones post-sentencia porque el amparo original no emitió ninguna orden ejecutable, el proceso ya había fenecido impidiendo medidas cautelares, y las solicitudes de aclaración fueron presentadas fuera del plazo de tres días del artículo 12 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional.
SummaryResumen
The Sala Constitucional denied three post-judgment motions filed by the Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ecología in an amparo against the Ministry of Health over refusal to disclose information on the technical closure of the Río Azul landfill. The original amparo (Res. 2026001727) was granted but issued no specific order, finding the request already addressed via SICOP referral. The petitioner then filed: (1) a non-compliance claim; (2) a request for precautionary measures against exceptional authorizations allowing seven GAM municipalities to dump solid waste in Limón's landfill; and (3) a clarification and supplementary-measures request. All three were denied: the first because the original judgment contained no enforceable directive; the second because precautionary measures are unavailable once a case is concluded; and the third because the clarification requests were filed beyond the three-day statutory deadline under Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.La Sala Constitucional rechaza tres gestiones post-sentencia formuladas por la Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ecología en un amparo contra el Ministerio de Salud por negativa de acceso a información sobre el cierre técnico del relleno sanitario de Río Azul. El amparo original (Res. 2026001727) fue declarado con lugar, pero sin emitir orden alguna al concluir que la solicitud ya había sido atendida mediante remisión al SICOP. El recurrente planteó: (1) reclamo de incumplimiento de sentencia; (2) solicitud de medidas cautelares ante la autorización excepcional otorgada por el Ministerio de Salud a siete municipios del GAM para depositar residuos sólidos en el relleno de Limón; y (3) solicitud de aclaración y medidas complementarias. La Sala deniega todas: la primera porque la sentencia no emitió orden ejecutable alguna; la segunda porque no caben medidas cautelares en proceso fenecido; y la tercera porque las solicitudes de aclaración se presentaron fuera del plazo de tres días del artículo 12 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional.
Key excerptExtracto clave
The Court did not issue any order in this case whose compliance could be claimed by the petitioner. This is because it was found that the petitioner's request had already been addressed. Therefore, it is improper to request compliance with the judgment, since no order was issued. Accordingly, the motion is denied. The request is considered addressed in the context of this proceeding (notified to the respondent administration on December 2, 2025), and the amparo is therefore granted without a special award of costs, damages, or losses, as explained below. The motions must be rejected. On one hand, it is improper to request precautionary measures in a case that has concluded, since such measures are by their very nature 'precautionary,' as their name indicates. On the other hand, both motions were filed after the three-day deadline established by Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law for requesting clarification or addition to a judgment. For the foregoing reasons, the motions are denied.Ahora bien, según se desprende de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia, transcrita en el considerando anterior, la Sala no emitió una orden en este expediente, cuyo cumplimiento pueda ser reclamado por el accionante. Lo anterior, por cuanto se estimó que su gestión había sido atendida. En ese tanto, resulta improcedente solicitar el cumplimiento de la sentencia, toda vez que no se dispuso orden alguna. Ergo, no ha lugar a la gestión formulada. se considera atendida la gestión con ocasión de este proceso (notificado a la Administración accionada el 2 de diciembre de 2025), por lo que se declara con lugar el recurso, sin especial condenatoria en costas, daños y perjuicios, según se explica de seguido. Al respecto, las gestiones deben ser rechazadas. Por un lado, resulta improcedente solicitar medidas cautelares en un proceso que ha fenecido, dado que tales medidas son por naturaleza 'cautelares', como su nombre indica. Por otro, ambas gestiones fueron planteadas una vez superado el plazo de tres días que el artículo 12 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece para solicitar la aclaración y adición de una sentencia. En virtud de lo expuesto, no ha lugar a las gestiones.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Las sentencias que dicte la Sala podrán ser aclaradas o adicionadas, a petición de parte, si se solicitare dentro de tercero día, y de oficio en cualquier tiempo, incluso en los procedimientos de ejecución, en la medida en que sea necesario para dar cabal cumplimiento al contenido del fallo."
"Judgments issued by the Court may be clarified or supplemented, at the request of a party if submitted within three days, or ex officio at any time, including in enforcement proceedings, to the extent necessary to give full effect to the ruling."
Considerando I — Artículo 12 Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional
"Las sentencias que dicte la Sala podrán ser aclaradas o adicionadas, a petición de parte, si se solicitare dentro de tercero día, y de oficio en cualquier tiempo, incluso en los procedimientos de ejecución, en la medida en que sea necesario para dar cabal cumplimiento al contenido del fallo."
Considerando I — Artículo 12 Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional
"no se trata de una remisión genérica a un portal web, como alega el interesado, toda vez que el citado oficio incluía una imagen de la página de Sicop, donde se especificaban los números de procedimiento, su descripción y los números de solicitud de contratación, de manera que el justiciable podía acudir a tal página a extraer la información de su interés."
"This was not a generic referral to a web portal, as the petitioner claims, since the cited letter included an image of the SICOP page specifying the procedure numbers, their descriptions, and the procurement request numbers, so that the petitioner could access that page to extract the information of interest."
Considerando III — cita de Resolución N° 2026001727
"no se trata de una remisión genérica a un portal web, como alega el interesado, toda vez que el citado oficio incluía una imagen de la página de Sicop, donde se especificaban los números de procedimiento, su descripción y los números de solicitud de contratación, de manera que el justiciable podía acudir a tal página a extraer la información de su interés."
Considerando III — cita de Resolución N° 2026001727
"la disconformidad con la respuesta brindada no está cubierta por la protección constitucional del numeral 27. En caso de que el justiciable pretenda una auditoría, deberá acudir a las vías respectivas, toda vez que el proceso de amparo es incompatible con semejantes petitorias."
"Disagreement with the answer provided is not covered by the constitutional protection of Article 27. If the petitioner seeks an audit, they must pursue the appropriate channels, since the amparo process is incompatible with such requests."
Considerando III — cita de Resolución N° 2026001727
"la disconformidad con la respuesta brindada no está cubierta por la protección constitucional del numeral 27. En caso de que el justiciable pretenda una auditoría, deberá acudir a las vías respectivas, toda vez que el proceso de amparo es incompatible con semejantes petitorias."
Considerando III — cita de Resolución N° 2026001727
Full documentDocumento completo
EV Template Generation: D:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\MODELOS\S4SENAMH002.dpj File No.: 25-036064-0007-CO Ruling No. 2026019770 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). San José, at nine hours and twenty-five minutes on the third of June, two thousand and twenty-six.
Petition (gestión) filed in case no. 25-036064-0007-CO, which is a writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) brought by Nombre01, national identity card CED01, on behalf of the ASOCIACIÓN PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LA ECOLOGÍA against the MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Whereas:
"Re: Formal transmittal of official letter CARTA-MS-DRRSHC-ARSL-00645-2026, dated February 9, 2026, signed by Dr. Guisselle Lucas Bolívar in her capacity as Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Limón. Request for precautionary measures to protect the fundamental rights of the population of the Province of Limón, in case 25-036064-0007-CO. Honorable Justices: I address this honorable Constitutional Chamber in my capacity as petitioner, Nombre01, representative of the Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ecología, within case 25-036064-0007-CO, for the purpose of formally transmitting official letter CARTA-MS-DRRSHC-ARSL-00645-2026, dated February 9, 2026, signed by Dr. Guisselle Lucas Bolívar in her capacity as Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Limón. Said document responds to a prior request for information regarding the exceptional authorizations granted for the disposal of solid waste (desechos sólidos) originating from seven cantons (cantones) of the Greater Metropolitan Area (Gran Área Metropolitana, GAM) at the sanitary landfill of the Province of Limón.
However, far from constituting an adequate and proportionate response, the aforementioned official letter reveals irrational, disproportionate, and technically and scientifically unfounded administrative action that flagrantly violates the fundamental rights of the population of Limón, enshrined in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica and in the applicable environmental and health regulations. Below I set out in detail the grounds for this critique, requesting that this Chamber immediately adopt precautionary measures to safeguard the collective interests at stake.
I.Contextual Background and Critique of the Administrative Action. The official letter transmitted reports on the exceptional authorizations issued by various regional health directorates to the municipalities of Paraíso, Oreamuno, Jiménez, Belén, Escazú, Curridabat, and Alajuelita, permitting the disposal of their solid waste at the Limón sanitary landfill. These authorizations, detailed as follows: • Municipality of Paraíso: CARTA-MS-DRRSCE-0518-2025. • Municipality of Oreamuno: CARTA-MS-DRRSCE-0761-2025. • Municipality of Jiménez: CARTA-MS-DPRSA-USA-1042-2025. • Municipality of Belén: CARTA-MS-DRRSCN-URS-IT-1099-2025. • Municipality of Escazú: CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-1848-2025. • Municipality of Curridabat: MS-DRRSCS-0162-2026. • Municipality of Alajuelita: RESOLUCIÓN-MS-DRRSCS-2979-2025. These authorizations extend until April 28, 2026, without specifying intermediate deadlines, alternative solutions in the medium or long term, or prior assessments of the landfill's capacity.
This measure was adopted without consulting the community of Limón, freely authorizing the indiscriminate arrival of external waste, which is entirely irrational and disproportionate. First, this action ignores the environmental feasibility permit (viabilidad ambiental) granted to the sanitary landfill in 2008 by administrative resolution of the MINISTERIO DE SALUD and SETENA, which was designed exclusively to serve the needs of a specific population in the Province of Limón, without accounting for the additional volume originating from the GAM. This permit, grounded in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (N° 7554, article 17 et seq.), requires environmental impact assessments (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) that take into account the site's carrying capacity, health risks, and long-term sustainability. By failing to anticipate the exponential increase in waste (estimated at thousands of tons per month from seven cantons), the environmental precautionary principle is violated, as enshrined in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which obliges the State to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.
Second, the absence of prior consultation with the community of Limón contravenes the principle of citizen participation, established in the Ley de Biodiversidad (N° 7788, article 6) and in the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention, ratified by Costa Rica through Law N° 8295). The local population, as the primary party affected, has neither been informed nor consulted regarding a decision that exposes their health and well-being, maximizing risks such as contamination of aquifers, toxic gas emissions, and proliferation of disease vectors, in violation of the Ley General de Salud (N° 5395, articles 147 and 148), which prohibits actions that endanger public health without mitigation measures. Furthermore, the failure to determine the useful life of the sanitary landfill—an indispensable technical requirement under the Reglamento para la Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 38271-S-MINAE, article 22)—exposes the Province of Limón to an imminent collapse in the medium or short term, leaving its inhabitants without an adequate site for the disposal and treatment of their own waste.
This omission is devoid of scientific and technical basis, since it is not grounded in hydrogeological studies, volumetric capacity assessments, or demographic projections, in contravention of the principle of administrative rationality (Ley de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa, N° 8508, article 11). The Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Limón, by recording these authorizations without defined timeframes or alternative solutions, acts to the detriment of local rights, prioritizing external interests without proportionate justification.
II.Violation of Fundamental Rights and Applicable Legal Framework. The challenged action infringes fundamental constitutional rights, including: • Right to a healthy environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution): Jurisprudence of this Chamber (for example, judgment 2009-014567) has established that any measure that increases environmental risks must be subject to rigorous assessments and community consultation, under penalty of nullity. The indiscriminate disposal of external waste accelerates the saturation of the landfill, generating toxic leachates and contaminants that threaten Caribbean biodiversity and the health of the population, in contravention of the Plan Nacional de Gestión Integral de Residuos (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 36003-S). • Right to health (Article 21 of the Political Constitution and the Ley General de Salud, N° 5395): Prolonged exposure to inadequately controlled waste increases the incidence of respiratory, dermatological, and vector-borne diseases, especially in vulnerable communities in Limón.
This Chamber has recognized in rulings such as 2015-002345 that such risks justify immediate precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm. • Principle of proportionality and reasonableness (Article 11 of the Political Constitution): The measure is disproportionate in that it fails to balance the temporary benefits for the GAM against the permanent harm to Limón, violating the proportionality test established in constitutional jurisprudence (judgment 2018-010234). There is no compelling necessity nor a less harmful alternative, such as the implementation of regional landfills in the GAM. • Right to participation and non-discrimination (Articles 9 and 33 of the Political Constitution): The Province of Limón, historically marginalized, is turned into a "dump" for metropolitan waste without any voice in the decision, constituting territorial discrimination prohibited by the Ley contra la Discriminación (N° 9342).
III.Request for Precautionary Measures. Given the imminent and irreparable risk to the population of Limón, I request that this honorable Chamber immediately adopt precautionary measures, pursuant to Article 48 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional (N° 7135), consisting of: 1. The provisional suspension of the exceptional authorizations detailed in the transmitted official letter, until a comprehensive environmental impact assessment and community consultation are conducted. 2. The order to the MINISTERIO DE SALUD to determine the useful life of the Limón sanitary landfill, based on independent technical studies, and to propose alternative solutions in the medium and long term for the GAM. 3. The imposition of strict deadlines and continuous monitoring for any future disposal, ensuring compliance with health and environmental standards. These measures are appropriate given the evidence of imminent violation, as this Chamber has ruled in analogous cases (e.g., judgment 2020-005678 regarding sanitary landfills). I am grateful for the attention given and trust in the prompt intervention of this Chamber to restore the constitutional balance."
"RE: Urgent request for clarification, supplementary measures, and reinforced enforcement compliance in Case 25-036064-0007-CO (Resolution No. 2026001727), given the absolute and persistent failure to effectively deliver public information by the MINISTERIO DE SALUD and the concerning pattern of non-compliance with this Chamber's rulings. Honorable Justices: I, Nombre01, of legal age, resident of Limón, in my capacity as petitioner and President of the ASOCIACIÓN PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LA ECOLOGÍA, appear before this Constitutional Chamber with due respect, but with firmness and institutional concern. As of today, March 31, 2026, I have not received the requested information in any form whatsoever—not in official format, not certified, not even as a plain copy. The MINISTERIO DE SALUD, through official letter MS-DSA-UGSA-0138-2026 of January 22, 2026, merely provided web links and a screenshot of the Public Procurement System (Sistema de Compras Públicas, SICOP) page, indicating that I must 'extract from that page the information of my interest.' This evasive and dilatory response does not meet the constitutional or legal standard for effective delivery of public information.
Links and screenshots are volatile, lack authenticity, digital signature, or certification, and do not constitute an official document with evidentiary value. This practice distorts the fundamental right of access to public information enshrined in Article 27 of the Political Constitution and in Law N° 10.554 (Ley Marco de Acceso a la Información Pública of 2024), which requires that information be delivered proactively, promptly, completely, accessibly, and in reliable and official formats. It is particularly serious that, having granted the amparo, the Public Administration continues to evade its constitutional obligation more than two months later. This conduct not only affects my individual right, but also severely obstructs citizen oversight in environmental and public procurement matters. In the present case, the specific information regarding the technical closure of the sanitary landfill is of fundamental importance.
This is environmental data of high public interest that is essential for full access to public environmental information and, in particular, for monitoring the State's compliance with its obligations in the area of environmental protection and waste management. Without this official and verifiable information, it is impossible to effectively exercise the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, or to carry out rigorous citizen oversight over compliance with the environmental regulations applicable to the technical closure of the sanitary landfill. Unfortunately, this case does not appear to be isolated. The public administration has been losing respect for the Constitutional Chamber's rulings, precisely due to the perception of a lack of effective follow-up and the absence of real sanctions for non-compliance. When this honorable Chamber's judgments are not effectively and promptly complied with, and coercive or accountability mechanisms are not activated, a dangerous precedent of impunity is created that erodes constitutional supremacy, weakens effective judicial protection, and undermines citizens' trust in institutions.
This situation takes on greater significance in the international context. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in its report Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Costa Rica (published in March 2026), has clearly and emphatically identified serious deficiencies in our country regarding access to public information. Costa Rica meets only 56% of the normative criteria and 46% of the practical criteria on public information, well below the OECD average (72% and 62%, respectively). Among the most severe criticisms are the absence of governmental data that is 'open by default,' the lack of an independent oversight body, the non-existence of statistics on information requests, and, in particular, the non-imposition of sanctions for non-compliance. The OECD emphasizes that these weaknesses undermine the fight against corruption and erode trust in institutions.
The present case is a concrete example of the structural failures denounced by the OECD: a formally insufficient response that prevents the real exercise of the right of access, in a context where judicial rulings appear to lack the follow-up and consequences necessary to ensure their compliance. For the reasons set out above, and in defense of the principle of constitutional supremacy, the right to effective judicial protection, and the very authority and credibility of this Chamber, I respectfully request: 1. That it be expressly clarified that the mere provision of web links, images, or screenshots does not satisfy the constitutional or legal standard for effective delivery of public information. 2. That the MINISTERIO DE SALUD be immediately ordered to deliver the requested information—particularly the specific details regarding the technical closure of the sanitary landfill—in official, complete, certified, and authentic format (by means of a document signed by a competent official, with the corresponding digital signature or certification), within a maximum period of five business days. 3.
That effective supplementary measures be adopted to guarantee full compliance with the judgment, including the requirement of a detailed report on the reasons for non-compliance, and such actions as this Chamber deems necessary to prevent similar dilatory practices and reinforce respect for its rulings. Attachments: • Copy of official letter MS-DSA-UGSA-0138-2026 from the MINISTERIO DE SALUD. This honorable Chamber, as the supreme guardian of fundamental rights and the Political Constitution, has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to act with the speed and firmness that the case demands. Strengthening the follow-up of its judgments and ensuring their effective compliance will not only resolve my claim, but will also send a clear message: the rulings of the Constitutional Chamber must be complied with, and impunity for non-compliance will not be tolerated. In this way, it will contribute to restoring institutional respect, strengthening transparency, protecting the right to a healthy environment, and aligning Costa Rica with international public integrity standards."
The opinion is drafted by Justice Rueda Leal; and,
Considering:
I.Preliminary matter. The Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers this Chamber to supplement and clarify (adicionar y aclarar) its judgments in cases where appropriate, providing:
"Article 12.- The judgments issued by the Chamber may be clarified or supplemented, at the request of a party, if requested within the third day, and ex officio at any time, including in enforcement proceedings, to the extent necessary to give full effect to the content of the judgment." Thus, supplementation (adición) of a ruling is appropriate when a point raised in the original petition was not resolved in the judgment, and clarification (aclaración) is appropriate when the judgment was decided in obscure or ambiguous terms, making it difficult to understand. Supplementation and clarification are, therefore, mechanisms for completing a judgment or explaining the scope of a ruling.
"The amparo is granted, with no special award of costs, damages, or losses. Justice Rueda Leal appends a note. Justice Salazar Alvarado appends separate reasons and partially dissents, solely for purposes of indemnification, and orders the respondent party to pay costs, damages, and losses. Justice Garro Vargas partially dissents and orders an award of damages and losses, but not an award of costs. Be it notified." This resolution was notified to the respondent (tutelado) on January 20, 2026.
"Re: Formal transmittal of the official letter signed by Eng. Ricardo Morales Vargas and complaint regarding compliance with the judgment in case 25-036064-0007-CO (Resolution No. 2026001727). Honorable Justices: I address this honorable Constitutional Chamber in my capacity as petitioner, Nombre01, representative of the Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ecología, in case 25-036064-0007-CO, for the purpose of formally transmitting the official letter signed by Eng. Ricardo Morales Vargas, Acting Head of the Environmental Health Management Unit of the MINISTERIO DE SALUD, dated January 22, 2026, and, simultaneously, to file a complaint regarding non-compliance with the judgment issued in Resolution No. 2026001727. That resolution should, in theory, order the MINISTERIO DE SALUD to deliver in full the information requested that gave rise to the amparo, but it has been interpreted in an ambiguous manner by the respondent authority, resulting in a formal non-delivery thereof, thereby stripping the judicial decision of its practical content and undermining the constitutional rights invoked.
As this Chamber is aware, the amparo filed is grounded in the need to access detailed and complete information related to the technical closure process of the Río Azul sanitary landfill, including details of public tenders and other environmental matters managed by the MINISTERIO DE SALUD, in accordance with the principles of transparency and access to public information enshrined in Articles 27 and 30 of the Political Constitution, as well as in the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Resolution No. 2026001727 granted the amparo, with no special award of costs, damages, or losses, implicitly recognizing the respondent authority's obligation to provide the required information in an adequate and comprehensive manner. However, in response to my official letter AEL-001-2026 of January 22, 2026, Eng. Ricardo Morales Vargas issued official letter MS-DSA-UGSA-0138-2026 [note: adjusted per the user's indication, although the document provided references MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025; please verify whether this is an error], in which he merely reiterates that the request has been addressed to satisfaction, again referring to the SICOP website without formally delivering the requested information in its entirety.
I attach a complete copy of said official letter for the Chamber's review and detailed analysis, which sets out the following: • In its introduction, it responds to my comments regarding the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber, citing the "Por tanto" of the judgment that grants the amparo, and referring to section IV, where the legal provision is invoked that allows granting the amparo for purposes of indemnification and costs when the challenged act is revoked or suspended during the proceedings. • It further argues that the claim does not directly concern a patrimonial right, and in section III, it considers the petition addressed on the basis of prior official letter MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025, notified on December 2, 2025. • Specifically, it justifies the referral to the SICOP website, including an image in the prior official letter, alleging that this does not constitute a generic referral and that the petitioner may extract the information of interest, deeming the response adequate since the request concerned "details of the public tenders" without being limited to specific elements. • It concludes that, since no additional directive was issued in the final operative paragraph requiring the MINISTERIO DE SALUD to provide further information, this is consistent with Resolution No. 2026001727 and the request is considered addressed.
This position taken by the respondent authority represents a restrictive and ambiguous interpretation of the judgment, one that not only ignores the essence of the ruling—which seeks to guarantee effective access to information to safeguard environmental and third-generation rights—but also perpetuates the omission by failing to formally deliver the requested documents and data in their entirety. Such conduct strips the Chamber's resolution of its content, since it does not materialize in a concrete and verifiable delivery, which could constitute deliberate non-compliance with the ruling, subject to the sanctions provided in the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, including the possibility of precautionary measures or compulsory enforcement. In light of the foregoing, I respectfully request that this honorable Constitutional Chamber proceed to: 1. Receive the formal transmittal of the attached official letter and incorporate it into the file for proper assessment. 2.
Order the MINISTERIO DE SALUD to immediately deliver all of the information requested that gave rise to the amparo, in the exact terms in which it was requested by official letter AEL-001-2026, including but not limited to the complete details of the public tenders related to the technical closure process of the Río Azul sanitary landfill, procedure numbers, descriptions, procurement request numbers, and any other relevant data, without generic referrals to web portals that require additional extraction by the petitioner. 3. Verify effective compliance with the judgment and, if non-compliance is established, adopt the necessary enforcement measures, such as direct orders, peremptory deadlines, or administrative sanctions. Attachment: Copy of the official letter signed by Eng. Ricardo Morales Vargas, dated January 22, 2026. I am confident that this Chamber, as the supreme guarantor of constitutional rights, will act with the rigor and speed that the case warrants, ensuring the effectiveness of its rulings and the protection of the public environmental interest.
I remain available for any further clarification and respectfully request that I be notified of any developments or rulings through ...01." As is evident from the subject matter indicated by the petitioner, his purpose is to formally transmit an official letter from the Acting Head of the Environmental Health Management Unit of the MINISTERIO DE SALUD and to allege non-compliance with the judgment in this case.
Now, as can be seen from the operative part (parte dispositiva) of the judgment, transcribed in the preceding recital (considerando), the Chamber (Sala) did not issue any order in this case file (expediente) whose compliance could be demanded by the petitioner (accionante). This is because the Chamber found that the petitioner's request had already been addressed:
"Regarding the handling of the request through official communication (oficio) MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025, the appellant (recurrente) contests the referral to the Sicop website with respect to question 3. In this case, however, this does not constitute a generic referral to a web portal, as the interested party alleges, given that the cited official communication included an image of the Sicop page specifying procedure numbers, their description, and procurement request numbers, so that the party before the court (justiciable) could visit that page to extract the information of interest. It is explained that such a response is appropriate, since the appellant's request concerned the 'Details of public tenders…' and, although the appellant mentioned some of those details, it is equally true that the request was not limited to them, and it is therefore considered appropriate for the petitioner to extract the relevant information from that page.
Finally, with respect to the request for a judicial audit of items 1 and 2, it is noted that dissatisfaction with the response provided is not covered by the constitutional protection of Article 27. If the party before the court seeks an audit, the appropriate channels must be pursued, since amparo proceedings (proceso de amparo) are incompatible with such requests. Accordingly, the matter is considered addressed in the context of these proceedings (notified to the respondent Administration on December 2, 2025), and the remedy is therefore granted, without a special order as to costs, damages, and losses (costas, daños y perjuicios), as explained below." In light of the foregoing, it is improper to request enforcement of the judgment, since no order whatsoever was issued. Ergo, the motion (gestión) filed is not granted.
IV.The appellant's second written submission forwards an official communication from the director of the Health Regulatory Area (Área Rectora de Salud) of Limón and requests precautionary measures (medidas cautelares).
For his part, the petitioner's third motion requests "…clarification, complementary measures, and reinforcement of compliance…".
In this regard, both motions must be rejected. On one hand, it is improper to request precautionary measures in proceedings that have concluded, since such measures are by their nature "precautionary," as their name indicates. On the other hand, both motions were filed after the three-day period established in Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Act (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) for requesting clarification and supplementation (aclaración y adición) of a judgment. In view of the foregoing, the motions are not granted.
V.Documentation submitted to the case file. The parties are hereby notified that if any paper documents, objects, or evidence contained in any electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device have been submitted, these must be retrieved from the court office (despacho) within a maximum period of 30 business days (días hábiles) counted from the notification of this judgment. It is hereby warned that any materials 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 under Article XXVI of session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, published in the Official Judicial Gazette (Boletín Judicial) No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement of the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, approved under Article LXXXI of session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012.
Por tanto:
The motions filed are not granted.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Telephone: Telf01/ ALA-4TA (Telf02). Fax: Telf03 / Telf04. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección01, Dirección02, 100 m south of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).
EV Generación de Machote: D:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\MODELOS\S4SENAMH002.dpj SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinticinco minutos del tres de junio de dos mil veintiseis .
Gestión presentada en el expediente nro. 25-036064-0007-CO, que es amparo interpuesto por Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED01, a favor de la ASOCIACIÓN PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LA ECOLOGÍA contra el MINISTERIO DE SALUD.
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,
Considerando:
I.De previo. La Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a esta Sala para adicionar y aclarar sus sentencias en aquellos casos en que resulte procedente, al disponer:
“Artículo 12.- Las sentencias que dicte la Sala podrán ser aclaradas o adicionadas, a petición de parte, si se solicitare dentro de tercero día, y de oficio en cualquier tiempo, incluso en los procedimientos de ejecución, en la medida en que sea necesario para dar cabal cumplimiento al contenido del fallo.” Así, la adición de un pronunciamiento procede cuando un punto del planteamiento original del recurso no fue resuelto en el fallo y la aclaración cuando dicho fallo fue resuelto en términos oscuros o ambiguos, implicando de esta forma una difícil comprensión de este. La adición y la aclaración son, entonces, formas para complementar una sentencia o de explicar los alcances que tiene el fallo.
“Se declara con lugar el recurso, sin especial condenatoria en costas, daños y perjuicios. El magistrado Rueda Leal consigna nota. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado consigna razones diferentes y salva parcialmente el voto, únicamente para efectos indemnizatorios, e impone a la parte accionada el pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios. La Magistrada Garro Vargas salva parcialmente el voto y ordena la condenatoria en daños y perjuicios, pero no la condenatoria en costas. Notifíquese”.
Esta resolución fue notificada al tutelado el 20 de enero de 2026.
“Asunto: Traslado formal del oficio suscrito por el Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas y reclamo de cumplimiento de la sentencia en el expediente 25-036064-0007-CO (Resolución N° 2026001727) Estimados Señores Magistrados: Me dirijo a esta honorable Sala Constitucional en mi condición de recurrente, Nombre01, representante de la Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ecología, dentro del expediente 25-036064-0007-CO, con el propósito de dar formal traslado del oficio suscrito por el Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas, Jefe a.i. de la Unidad de Gestión en Salud Ambiental del Ministerio de Salud, fechado el 22 de enero de 2026, y, simultáneamente, formular un reclamo por el incumplimiento de la sentencia emitida en la Resolución N° 2026001727. Dicha resolución, en teoría, debería ordenar al Ministerio de Salud la entrega íntegra de la información solicitada que originó el recurso de amparo, pero ha sido interpretada de manera ambigua por la autoridad recurrida, lo cual ha resultado en una no entrega formal de la misma, vaciando de contenido práctico la decisión judicial y menoscabando los derechos constitucionales invocados.
Como es de conocimiento de esta Sala, el recurso de amparo interpuesto se fundamenta en la necesidad de acceder a información detallada y completa relacionada con el proceso de cierre técnico del relleno sanitario de Río Azul, incluyendo detalles de licitaciones públicas y otros aspectos ambientales gestionados por el Ministerio de Salud, conforme a los principios de transparencia y acceso a la información pública consagrados en los artículos 27 y 30 de la Constitución Política, así como en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. La Resolución N° 2026001727 declaró con lugar el recurso, sin especial condenatoria en costas, daños y perjuicios, reconociendo implícitamente la obligación de la autoridad recurrida de proporcionar la información requerida de manera adecuada y exhaustiva. Sin embargo, en respuesta a mi oficio AEL-001-2026 de fecha 22 de enero de 2026, el Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas emitió el oficio MS-DSA-UGSA-0138-2026 [nota: ajustado según la indicación del usuario, aunque el documento proporcionado menciona MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025; verificar si es un error], en el cual se limita a reiterar que la solicitud ha sido atendida a satisfacción, remitiendo nuevamente a la página del SICOP (Sistema Integrado de Compras Públicas) sin entregar formalmente la información solicitada en su totalidad.
Adjunto copia íntegra de dicho oficio para su conocimiento y análisis detallado, el cual detalla lo siguiente: • En su introducción, responde a mis comentarios sobre el Voto de la Sala Constitucional, citando el “Por Tanto” de la sentencia que declara con lugar el recurso, y refiriéndose a la sección IV, donde se invoca la disposición legal que permite declarar con lugar el amparo para efectos de indemnización y costas cuando se revoca o suspende la actuación impugnada durante el proceso. • Amplía argumentando que la pretensión no se refiere directamente a un derecho patrimonial, y en la sección III, considera atendida la gestión con base en el oficio previo MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025, notificado el 2 de diciembre de 2025. • Específicamente, justifica la remisión a la página del SICOP, incluyendo una imagen en el oficio anterior, alegando que no se trata de una remisión genérica y que el recurrente puede extraer la información de su interés, estimando adecuada la respuesta ya que la solicitud versaba sobre “detalles de las licitaciones públicas” sin limitarse a elementos específicos. • Concluye que, al no emitirse en la parte resolutiva final ningún ordenamiento adicional hacia el Ministerio de Salud para brindar información ulterior, coincide con la Resolución N° 2026001727 y considera la solicitud atendida.
Este posicionamiento de la autoridad recurrida representa una interpretación restrictiva y ambigua de la sentencia, que no solo ignora la esencia del fallo —el cual busca garantizar el acceso efectivo a la información para resguardar derechos ambientales y de tercera generación—, sino que también perpetúa la omisión al no entregar formalmente los documentos y datos solicitados en su integridad. Tal conducta vacía de contenido la resolución de esta Sala, al no materializarse en una entrega concreta y verificable, lo que podría configurarse como un incumplimiento deliberado de lo resuelto, susceptible de las sanciones previstas en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, incluyendo la posibilidad de medidas cautelares o ejecución forzosa. En virtud de lo expuesto, solicito muy respetuosamente a esta honorable Sala Constitucional que proceda a: 1. Recibir el traslado formal del oficio adjunto y incorporarlo al expediente para su debida valoración. 2.
Ordenar al Ministerio de Salud la inmediata entrega de toda la información solicitada que originó el recurso de amparo, en los términos exactos en que fue realizada mediante el oficio AEL-001-2026, incluyendo pero no limitándose a los detalles completos de las licitaciones públicas relacionadas con el proceso de cierre técnico del relleno sanitario de Río Azul, números de procedimiento, descripciones, números de solicitud de contratación y cualquier otro dato relevante, sin remisiones genéricas a portales web que requieran extracción adicional por parte del recurrente. 3. Verificar el cumplimiento efectivo de la sentencia y, de constatarse el incumplimiento, adoptar las medidas necesarias para su ejecución, tales como requerimientos directos, plazos perentorios o sanciones administrativas. Adjunto: Copia del oficio suscrito por el Ing. Ricardo Morales Vargas, fechado 22 de enero de 2026.
Confío en que esta Sala, como máxima garante de los derechos constitucionales, actuará con la rigurosidad y celeridad que el caso amerita, asegurando la efectividad de sus resoluciones y la protección del interés público ambiental. Quedo a disposición para cualquier aclaración adicional y ruego que se me notifique cualquier avance o resolución a través de ...01”.
Tal como se desprende del asunto indicado por el justiciable, su pretensión es dar traslado formal a un oficio jefe a.i. de la Unidad de Gestión en Salud Ambiental del Ministerio de Salud y acusar el incumplimiento de la sentencia de este expediente.
Ahora bien, según se desprende de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia, transcrita en el considerando anterior, la Sala no emitió una orden en este expediente, cuyo cumplimiento pueda ser reclamado por el accionante. Lo anterior, por cuanto se estimó que su gestión había sido atendida:
“En cuanto a la atención de la gestión mediante el oficio MS-DSA-UGSA-0362-2025, el recurrente cuestiona que se remitió a la página del Sicop, en lo que concierne a la pregunta 3. En este caso, sin embargo, no se trata de una remisión genérica a un portal web, como alega el interesado, toda vez que el citado oficio incluía una imagen de la página de Sicop, donde se especificaban los números de procedimiento, su descripción y los números de solicitud de contratación, de manera que el justiciable podía acudir a tal página a extraer la información de su interés. Se explica que tal respuesta es atinente, toda vez que la solicitud del recurrente versaba sobre los “Detalles de las licitaciones públicas…” y, aunque él mencionaba algunos de tales detalles, no menos cierto es que tal petición no se limitaba a ellos, por lo que se estima adecuado que el petente extraiga de tal página la información de su interés.
Finalmente, con respecto a la solicitud de auditoría judicial de los puntos 1 y 2, se indica que la disconformidad con la respuesta brindada no está cubierta por la protección constitucional del numeral 27. En caso de que el justiciable pretenda una auditoría, deberá acudir a las vías respectivas, toda vez que el proceso de amparo es incompatible con semejantes petitorias. En ese tanto, se considera atendida la gestión con ocasión de este proceso (notificado a la Administración accionada el 2 de diciembre de 2025), por lo que se declara con lugar el recurso, sin especial condenatoria en costas, daños y perjuicios, según se explica de seguido”.
En ese tanto, resulta improcedente solicitar el cumplimiento de la sentencia, toda vez que no se dispuso orden alguna. Ergo, no ha lugar a la gestión formulada.
IV.El segundo escrito del recurrente da traslado a un oficio de la directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Limón y solicita medidas cautelares.
Por su parte, la tercera gestión del accionante solicita una “…aclaración, medidas complementarias y reforzamiento del cumplimiento…”.
Al respecto, las gestiones deben ser rechazadas. Por un lado, resulta improcedente solicitar medidas cautelares en un proceso que ha fenecido, dado que tales medidas son por naturaleza “cautelares”, como su nombre indica. Por otro, ambas gestiones fueron planteadas una vez superado el plazo de tres días que el artículo 12 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece para solicitar la aclaración y adición de una sentencia. En virtud de lo expuesto, no ha lugar a las gestiones.
V.Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidos en algún dispositivo de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en el plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. Se advierte que será destruido todo aquel material no retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en el artículo XXVI de la sesión nro. 27-11 del 22 de agosto de 2011, publicado en el Boletín Judicial nro. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012, así como en el acuerdo de Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, aprobado en el artículo LXXXI de la sesión nro. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo de 2012.
Por tanto:
No ha lugar a las gestiones formuladas.
Fernando Castillo V.
Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.