← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 35613-2026 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 17/09/2026
OutcomeResultado
The Chamber corrected the material error that misidentified the enforceable judgment, ordered processing of the alleged noncompliance concerning follow-up on official communication CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, and denied all remaining requests.La Sala corrigió el error material que identificaba equivocadamente la sentencia ejecutable, ordenó tramitar la desobediencia alegada respecto del seguimiento al oficio CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 y declaró no ha lugar las demás solicitudes.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) partially granted the applications for clarification, supplementation, and correction filed during enforcement of judgment No. 2025003656. It corrected the operative portion of interlocutory resolution No. 2026034683 to identify that judgment properly as the enforceable decision and to specify that the noncompliance application had been granted regarding point 1 and the ICAA obligation under points 2 and 3, limited to notice of the corresponding final decisions. The Chamber also ordered specific processing of the alleged noncompliance with point 4, concerning municipal attention to and follow-up on the National Emergency Commission’s recommendations in official communication CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. It denied all other requests because they sought documentary, technical, and merits assessments exceeding the summary nature of amparo and the Chamber’s jurisdiction. According to the authorities’ sworn reports, the sanitary interconnection corrected the underlying public-health problem; any persisting problems must be raised before the Administration for the appropriate legal determination.La Sala Constitucional acogió parcialmente las gestiones de aclaración, adición y corrección promovidas durante la ejecución de la sentencia n.° 2025003656. Corrigió la parte dispositiva de la resolución interlocutoria n.° 2026034683 para identificar correctamente aquella sentencia como título ejecutable y precisar que la gestión de desobediencia había sido acogida respecto del punto 1 y de la obligación del ICAA contenida en los puntos 2 y 3, limitada a la notificación de las resoluciones finales correspondientes. Además, ordenó tramitar específicamente la desobediencia alegada respecto del punto 4, relativo a la atención y seguimiento municipal de las recomendaciones de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias en el oficio CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. Rechazó los demás extremos porque pretendían valoraciones documentales, técnicas y de fondo que excedían la naturaleza sumaria del amparo y la competencia de la Sala. Según los informes rendidos bajo juramento, la interconexión sanitaria corrigió el problema de salubridad, sin perjuicio de que eventuales problemas persistentes se planteen ante la Administración.
Key excerptExtracto clave
XII.- Conclusion. Under these circumstances, the applications filed are partially granted, solely regarding correction of the material error made in the operative portion of interlocutory resolution No. 2026034683 of 09:20 on 10 September 2026 and the processing of the noncompliance concerning point 4 of the operative portion of judgment No. No. 2025003656 of 09:20 on 7 February 2025. In all other respects, the applications are denied. The text and electronic records of interlocutory resolution No. 2026034683 of 09:20 on 10 September 2026 are corrected so that its operative portion reads and is recorded as stated in Considerando II of this resolution. The alleged noncompliance with point 4 of the operative portion of judgment No. 2025003656 of 09:20 on 7 February 2025 shall be processed. In all other respects, the applications filed are denied.XII.- Conclusión. Bajo estas circunstancias se acogen parcialmente las gestiones formuladas, solo en lo atinente a la corrección del error material cometido en la parte dispositiva de la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, y la tramitación de la desobediencia del punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. En todo lo demás, se declaran no ha lugar. Se corrige el texto y los registros informáticos de la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, para que su parte dispositiva se lea y se consigne tal y como se indicó en el considerando II de esta resolución. Tramítese la desobediencia alegada del punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. En todo lo demás, se declaran no ha lugar las gestiones formuladas.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Así las cosas, se dispone que se tramite la desobediencia específica de este punto."
"Accordingly, the specific noncompliance concerning this point shall be processed."
Considerando V
"Así las cosas, se dispone que se tramite la desobediencia específica de este punto."
Considerando V
"Lo que se ha requerido y se requiere en esta ocasión excede tanto la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo, como la competencia de este Tribunal, delimitada en la Ley y la propia Constitución Política."
"What has been requested, and is again requested here, exceeds both the summary nature of the amparo proceeding and this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as defined by statute and the Political Constitution itself."
Considerando VII
"Lo que se ha requerido y se requiere en esta ocasión excede tanto la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo, como la competencia de este Tribunal, delimitada en la Ley y la propia Constitución Política."
Considerando VII
"En suma, de acuerdo con lo indicado por las autoridades recurridas bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), el problema de salubridad de fondo y las irregularidades detectadas ya fueron corregidas con la interconexión ejecutada (queda solo pendiente la notificación formal de lo dispuesto por el ICAA)."
"In sum, according to the respondent authorities’ sworn statements (Article 44 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law), the underlying public-health problem and the detected irregularities were corrected through the completed interconnection; only formal notice of the ICAA’s decision remains pending."
Considerando IX
"En suma, de acuerdo con lo indicado por las autoridades recurridas bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), el problema de salubridad de fondo y las irregularidades detectadas ya fueron corregidas con la interconexión ejecutada (queda solo pendiente la notificación formal de lo dispuesto por el ICAA)."
Considerando IX
"Finalmente, si consideran que las autoridades del ICAA, el Ministerio de Salud, o la Municipalidad de Moravia han faltado a la verdad en sus informes rendidos bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), o los documentos suscritos, tienen la posibilidad de acudir ante el Ministerio Púbico a plantear las denuncias que procedan."
"Finally, if they consider that the ICAA, the Ministry of Health, or the Municipality of Moravia authorities were untruthful in their sworn reports (Article 44 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law) or signed documents, they may submit the appropriate complaints to the Ministerio Público."
Considerando XI
"Finalmente, si consideran que las autoridades del ICAA, el Ministerio de Salud, o la Municipalidad de Moravia han faltado a la verdad en sus informes rendidos bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), o los documentos suscritos, tienen la posibilidad de acudir ante el Ministerio Púbico a plantear las denuncias que procedan."
Considerando XI
Full documentDocumento completo
Document Review Decision No. 2026035613 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER (SALA CONSTITUCIONAL) OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at 9:35 a.m. on 17 September 2026.
Subsequent applications filed by Nombre02, identity card CED03, and Nombre01, identity card CED04.
Background:
FORTY-FIRST: Clarify and correct, if appropriate, the reference to points 2 and 3 of judgment No. 2026016277 concerning AyA/ICAA, specifying which judgment is enforceable and the exact scope of the order. FORTY-SECOND: Add that the Municipalidad de Moravia does not comply with judgment No. 2025003656 merely by serving a document, but rather by issuing an actual final decision that is reasoned, consistent, territorially identified, and substantively verifiable. FORTY-THIRD: Add that the enforcement phase must remain open until the authorities bound by the judgment demonstrate actual, substantive, reasoned, territorially identified, and verifiable compliance with judgment No. 2025003656. FORTY-FOURTH: Direct that the judgment not be deemed complied with on the basis of ex post documents, procedural communications, barely legible maps, generic responses, actions taken in another sector, or assertions of lack of jurisdiction that have not been weighed against the existing official evidence. FORTY-FIFTH: Issue an express, point-by-point ruling on this request for clarification and supplementation, to prevent the matters reported since April 2026 from once again being treated as a generic disagreement (…)” (sic).
PRELIMINARY SECTION. RATIFICATION, REQUEST FOR PROMPT DISPOSITION, AND REQUEST FOR A PRIOR DECISION ON THE PENDING CLARIFICATION AND SUPPLEMENTATION In view of the formal notice of decision n.° 2026034683, and to avoid any procedural doubt regarding the timeliness, scope, and continued validity of this application, we, the amparo applicants, fully ratify the application for clarification, clarification or supplementation on the Chamber’s own motion, and correction of material errors submitted against that decision, for all corresponding procedural purposes and particularly as of its formal notice.
This ratification is submitted because decision n.° 2026034683 was issued in proceedings concerning noncompliance with or failure to comply with a judgment, but did not clearly specify whether the enforcement phase remained open, was closed, was partially decided, or whether matters remained pending for assessment. The amparo applicants had already alleged this lack of clarity, because the decision does not clarify whether it definitively closed the noncompliance proceedings, left them open, partially decided the noncompliance, implicitly denied the other matters reported, or merely reiterated orders for subsequent action.
For that reason, this Honorable Chamber is requested to expressly decide this clarification and supplementation before deeming the enforcement phase of judgment n.° 2025003656 closed, exhausted, or complied with.
The existence of a pending application for clarification and supplementation does not, by itself, nullify decision n.° 2026034683 or automatically stay all its effects; however, it prevents the enforcement phase from validly being deemed exhausted without first resolving the alleged ambiguities, omissions, and material errors.
The need for a prior decision is reinforced because this application concerns essential matters of enforceability: the procedural nature of decision n.° 2026034683; the confusing application of preclusion despite this being the enforcement phase; the interpretation of requests for prompt disposition (pronto despacho) as an alleged waiver; the material error concerning judgment n.° 2026016277; the failure to assess the cadastral plans and Registro Nacional documents; the material characteristics of the area; OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019; Informe Técnico GRAE 27-11-2020; the stormwater system; the four-inch pipe; and the gases emitted from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor sealed off.
The purpose of this ratification is not to initiate a new parallel proceeding, but to prevent the Municipalidad de Moravia from attempting to use formal notice of decision n.° 2026034683 to maintain that everything not addressed was closed or denied, when what is specifically requested is that the Chamber clarify what was decided, what remained pending, what must be enforced, what must be supplemented, and what minimum parameters any subsequent final municipal act must contain.
Accordingly, it is requested that this ratification be incorporated into the principal analysis of this comprehensive application, and that the Chamber keep the enforcement phase open until it expressly decides the pending clarification and supplementation and until the obligated authorities substantiate actual, material, reasoned, territorially identified, and verifiable compliance with what was ordered in judgment n.° 2025003656.
Article 12 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional permits judgments issued by the Chamber to be clarified or supplemented at a party’s request within three days, and on the Chamber’s own motion at any time, including in enforcement proceedings, when necessary to ensure full compliance with the content of the judgment.
Clarification is appropriate when a ruling is unclear, ambiguous, or difficult to understand; supplementation is appropriate when the decision omitted a disputed issue or a matter essential to the enforceability of the ruling; and correction of a material error is appropriate when references, data, or identifications exist that may affect the traceability of the order.
Constitutional case law has repeatedly held that an application for clarification and supplementation is not a means of challenge intended to alter the substance of what was decided, but rather a procedural instrument for completing or specifying the content of a decision. In this case, the purpose is not to modify judgment n.° 2025003656, but to preserve its practical effect during enforcement.
Constitutional case law has also recognized that the arbitrary or unjustified failure to assess useful, relevant, and available evidence that would clarify the facts affects due process. During the enforcement phase, that rule is particularly significant because the omitted evidence does not concern an abstract dispute, but verification of material compliance with a final judgment.
Moreover, the statement of reasons in judicial decisions constitutes a guarantee for the parties and the community because it makes it possible to know the reasons for the decision, review the exercise of judicial authority, and determine whether there is consistency among what was requested, what was proven, and what was decided. Accordingly, when an enforcement decision leaves essential matters unanswered, clarification and supplementation become necessary.
In cadastral matters, plans cannot be treated as mere images or secondary attachments. The Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional defines a survey plan (plano de agrimensura) as the document by which a property, parcel, or tract is represented graphically, mathematically, literally, and legally. Accordingly, the cadastral plans and Registro Nacional documents submitted by the amparo applicants are relevant official evidence for locating the physical area at issue.
Furthermore, Article 33 of the Ley Forestal recognizes protection areas in strips located on both sides of rivers, creeks, or streams. That regulation demonstrates that the discussion concerning a creek, channel, protection zone, waters, roads, State rights, and Ley Forestal is not a purely private dispute, but a matter directly related to public, environmental, territorial, urban-planning, public-health, stormwater, and risk-management powers.
Based on the foregoing, clarification and supplementation of decision n.° 2026034683 are requested because the omissions and ambiguities set forth below compromise full enforcement of judgment n.° 2025003656.
GAP BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION DECLARED AND THE PROTECTION MATERIALLY ENFORCED The amparo applicants’ thesis may be summarized as follows: a gap arose between the constitutional protection declared and its material enforcement. The Chamber recognized prolonged violations, imposed specific obligations, and granted specified periods, but the subsequent enforcement phase ultimately attributed sufficient effect to certain reports, communications, and institutional inferences without identifying, with equal rigor for every point, the material result that would permit the order to be deemed complied with.
This formulation does not attribute subjective bias to the Chamber. It describes a verifiable legal problem: when judgment n.° 2025003656, the enforcement orders, the requirements issued in April, May, and June 2026, the institutional responses, and decision n.° 2026034683 are compared, objective differences appear in the standard used to assess compliance with obligations that form part of the same constitutional judgment.
A constitutional judgment is not enforced through a quantitative accumulation of administrative activity. A large number of meetings, reports, official communications, notices, inspections, and coordination efforts may exist without necessarily fulfilling what was ordered. The legally relevant question is not whether the Administration did something, but whether it carried out what the judgment required and whether the result of that implementation can be demonstrated.
The correct standard was recognized by decision n.° 2026034683 itself when it concluded that, with respect to the complaint of 5 July 2018, submitting a collection of official communications without a comprehensive assessment of the matters raised and the resulting final determination was insufficient. That is precisely why clarification and supplementation are requested: the same standard must be applied consistently to all aspects of the judgment.
1. FIRST POINT: PROCEDURAL NATURE OF DECISION N.° 2026034683 Decision n.° 2026034683 was issued in proceedings concerning noncompliance with or failure to comply with a judgment. At that time, the matter was not whether the constitutional violations alleged in the amparo proceeding had occurred; that issue had already been decided by judgment n.° 2025003656.
The procedural issue in 2026 was different: determining whether the authorities against which judgment had been entered had actually complied with what was ordered.
The decision, however, does not specify with sufficient clarity whether it definitively decided the noncompliance proceedings, decided them partially, left the enforcement phase open, maintained pending matters, implicitly denied the points not addressed, or merely reiterated orders so that the respondent authorities would take subsequent action.
This lack of precision creates procedural uncertainty and material defenselessness because it allows the Municipalidad de Moravia to interpret the decision to its own advantage.
Clarification is requested regarding the type of decision issued by the Chamber as n.° 2026034683: whether it is a final decision in the noncompliance proceedings, a partial noncompliance decision, an interlocutory enforcement decision, a decision with pending matters, or a decision that keeps enforcement of judgment n.° 2025003656 open.
Supplementation of the decision is requested so that it expressly states which obligations are deemed complied with, which remain unfulfilled, which were complied with partially or belatedly, which remain pending verification, and the procedural scope of the matters not addressed in the Therefore section.
2. SECOND POINT: ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT, PRECLUSION OF PARTY-REQUESTED CLARIFICATION, AND THE CHAMBER’S OWN-MOTION AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 12 Decision n.° 2026034683 treats part of the relief requested by the amparo applicants as though it were an ordinary clarification or supplementation that was already precluded. That approach requires clarification because the amparo applicants did not seek to reopen the ordinary clarification of judgment n.° 2025003656, but rather requested, during the enforcement phase, that any matters necessary to avoid merely apparent compliance be clarified or supplemented.
When verifications, documents, plans, territorial conditions, pipes, illegal access points, technical reports, or final acts are requested during enforcement, the purpose is not necessarily to modify the judgment. The purpose is to demonstrate whether the subsequent facts presented by the respondent authorities do or do not constitute enforcement of the ruling. That distinction is fundamental.
Even if a party’s application could be considered outside the ordinary period for clarification, a separate issue remains: if ambiguities, contradictions, deficiencies, or material errors capable of preventing actual compliance arose during enforcement, the Chamber’s own-motion authority does not disappear.
Clarification is requested as to why the stage for seeking clarification or supplementation was stated to be precluded when the matters raised by the amparo applicants were submitted during the enforcement phase based on possible noncompliance or disobedience.
Supplementation of the decision is requested so that it states whether the Chamber exercised its own-motion authority to clarify or supplement whatever was necessary for full compliance with the ruling, and so that it specifies that this application does not seek to alter the substance of the judgment, but to preserve its enforceability.
3. THIRD POINT: THE FILINGS OF APRIL, MAY, JUNE, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER 2026 WERE NOT REPETITIONS AND WERE NOT WAIVED THROUGH REQUESTS FOR PROMPT DISPOSITION Since April 2026, the amparo applicants submitted a sequence of filings intended to demonstrate material noncompliance. These include the statements of 10 April, the application concerning material noncompliance and disobedience of 14 April, the preliminary procedural statement of 23 April, the comprehensive rebuttal of 25 April, the supplemental filing of 28 April, the urgent authenticity application of 30 April, the request of 6 May, the filing of 15 June, the request for prompt disposition of 4 August, and the supporting filing submitted on 8 September 2026.
Those filings were not isolated, repetitive, or ancillary actions. They formed a single enforcement sequence intended to demonstrate that the alleged compliance was formal, documentary, incomplete, ex post, territorially imprecise, and materially insufficient.
They alleged the lack of a genuine final act, the absence of material work, the failure to stabilize the slope, the lack of a stormwater solution, the lack of follow-up to OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, the use of later documents, maps with poor legibility, the omission of cadastral evidence, the continued presence of the four-inch pipe, and the gases emitted from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor sealed off.
A request for prompt disposition cannot be interpreted as a waiver of everything raised. Requesting prompt disposition means demanding prompt and effective justice; it does not mean requesting an incomplete decision or abandoning evidence, arguments, verifications, or objections. There was no express, clear, and unequivocal waiver.
Clarification is requested as to whether the Chamber deemed the evidence, objections, verifications, and requests submitted since April 2026 waived solely because requests for prompt disposition had been filed.
Supplementation of the decision is requested so that it expressly states that the requests for prompt disposition did not constitute a waiver and so that it assesses, or explains why it did not assess, the filings submitted on 10, 14, 23, 25, 28, and 30 April; 6 May; 15 June; 4 August; and 8 September 2026.
4. FOURTH POINT: TWO COMPLIANCE STANDARDS WITHIN THE SAME JUDGMENT Decision n.° 2026034683 contains sound reasoning when it rejects the purported municipal compliance regarding the complaint of 5 July 2018. The Chamber stated that submitting a collection of official communications without a comprehensive assessment of the matters raised and the resulting determination regarding the complaint was insufficient.
That reasoning establishes a constitutional-enforcement standard: the Administration does not comply by demonstrating internal activity, but by demonstrating correspondence between the judicial mandate and the result obtained.
The problem arises because that standard does not appear to have been applied with equal rigor to other aspects of the judgment. With respect to the four-inch pipe, the closure of illegal access points, the public-health issue, and the stormwater issue, the decision attributed considerable effect to subsequent reports, communications, inferences, and the circumstantial absence of a discharge during a single visit.
This part does not deny that the sanitary interconnection completed by AyA constitutes a relevant material action. What is questioned is whether that action, by itself, demonstrates compliance with every component of the judicial order or only with the specific component that it materially carried out.
The interconnection does not necessarily substantiate the material closure of illegal access points, the elimination of all residual risk, a solution for the stormwater system, or comprehensive attention to the slope and protection zone.
Clarification is requested as to why the standard used for the first point—an integrated final act and rejection of documentary compliance—was not applied with equal rigor to the points related to the sanitary connection, closure of access points, four-inch pipe, stormwater system, Ministerio de Salud, and AyA/ICAA.
Supplementation of the decision is requested so that compliance with each obligation is assessed using the same material-correspondence criterion: specific mandate, specific evidence, substantiated result, responsible authority, and verifiable period.
5. FIFTH POINT: MATERIAL ERROR CONCERNING CAI CARLOS LUIS FALLAS AND SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE TO JUDGMENT N.° 2026016277 A relevant material error involving a reference unrelated to the case file, specifically to the Centro de Atención Institucional Carlos Luis Fallas, had already occurred during enforcement. That error was identified and corrected.
The existence of that prior error required heightened review of documentary traceability and of the correspondence among the documents, parties, orders, and case file.
Nevertheless, the Therefore section of decision n.° 2026034683 introduced another reference requiring clarification: when reiterating that the municipal authorities and AyA/ICAA must comply, it refers to judgment n.° 2026016277, even though the noncompliance proceedings were brought to enforce judgment n.° 2025003656.
That reference affects the clarity of the enforceable instrument. A constitutional order subject to potential administrative and criminal consequences must be exact. The obligated authority must know which judgment it is enforcing, which points it must comply with, what conduct is required of it, and what warning applies. The amparo applicants must also be able to verify whether compliance pertains to the correct ruling.
Clarification is requested as to whether the reference to judgment n.° 2026016277 constitutes a material error and which constitutional instrument is enforceable during this phase.
Supplementation and correction of the Therefore section are requested so that it states unequivocally that enforcement pertains to judgment n.° 2025003656, without prejudice to subsequent decisions issued during the same enforcement phase.
6. SIXTH POINT: TIMELY COMPLIANCE, BELATED COMPLIANCE, EVIDENCE PRODUCED AFTER THE WARNING, AND ABSENCE OF A CURRENT DEADLINE Judgment n.° 2025003656 did not grant indefinite periods. It allowed six months for certain obligations and, in one specific situation, fifteen days to decide the corresponding complaint.
The judgment was served in February 2025, and the periods expired long before decision n.° 2026034683 was issued in September 2026.
Successive opportunities were provided during enforcement for the authorities to demonstrate compliance: the April hearing, the May requirement, and the June extension.
The Chamber’s authority to request evidence to facilitate its decision is not disputed. What must be clarified is the legal effect attributed to actions taken after the original periods had expired and after the noncompliance proceedings had commenced.
There is a substantial difference among substantiating that an obligation was complied with in a timely manner within the constitutional period, complying with it belatedly after contempt proceedings had begun, and producing subsequent documents intended to reconstruct or justify purported earlier compliance. That difference bears upon disobedience, remediation, and the continuation of enforcement.
The operative part of the September decision merely reiterates certain obligations but does not establish a new current, definite, and mandatory deadline. If the original order required compliance within six months and that period expired more than a year earlier, the phrase “compliance is reiterated” does not establish when the pending result must be verified.
Clarification is requested regarding the weight the Chamber gave to belated compliance, documents produced after the warning, and actions submitted after the originally granted periods had expired.
Supplementation of the decision is requested to establish a current, short, definite, and verifiable deadline for the matters the Chamber keeps pending, without reinstating a new extended compliance period and without allowing indefinite ex post reconstruction.
7. SEVENTH POINT: THE FINAL MUNICIPAL ACT MUST BE SUBSTANTIVE AND NOT MERELY NOMINAL Decision n.° 2026034683 reiterates the municipality’s obligation to serve notice of a final decision concerning the complaint submitted on 5 July 2018. That reiteration requires clarification.
Judgment n.° 2025003656 did not simply order the production of a document called a “final act” or “final decision.” It ordered follow-up to Informe Técnico GRAE 07-31-07-2018, attention to the matters identified by the Contralor de Servicios, adoption of whatever measures were necessary within the scope of municipal powers, appropriate coordination, a final decision concerning the reported matters, and notice of that decision.
Accordingly, a new municipal document cannot satisfy the judgment merely because it bears a formal title. It must make it possible to determine what occurred with each recommendation, what actions were actually carried out, what measures were not carried out and why, which institution was involved in coordination, what the result was, what physical and territorial feature was examined, which recommendations were rejected on technical grounds, and the legal and technical reasoning for each conclusion.
Otherwise, precisely the situation rejected by the Chamber itself would arise: replacing an insufficient collection of official communications with a single equally insufficient document formally called a “final act.” Clarification is requested as to whether the municipality complies merely by serving a new document or whether it must issue a genuine, reasoned, consistent, territorially identified, and materially verifiable final decision.
Supplementation of the decision is requested to establish the minimum parameters of the final act: identification of the area, analysis of the complaint, assessment of the background, comparison of cadastral and registry evidence, determination of powers, material actions carried out, pending actions, coordination completed, technical reasons for rejecting measures, and a verification period.
8. EIGHTH POINT: COMPLAINT OF 5 JULY 2018, CONTRALOR DE SERVICIOS, AND INFORME TÉCNICO GRAE 07-31-07-2018 The complaint of 5 July 2018 constitutes the principal axis of enforcement. It was not an abstract neighborhood grievance. It concerned a specific material impact: a slope, creek, protection zone, gabion work, channel, stormwater system, lateral erosion, risk to homes, and potential consequences for property, life, and physical integrity.
The municipal Contralor de Servicios did not close the matter either. It identified the need for short-term action, inspection, technical assessment, coordination with the competent offices, periodic monitoring, and possible steps before CONAVI. That matter was expressly incorporated by judgment n.° 2025003656 as part of the compliance mandate.
Informe Técnico GRAE 07-31-07-2018 could not be reduced to a historical reference. It was the report the judgment ordered the municipality to follow up on. Therefore, the final municipal act must address what follow-up was performed, which recommendations were implemented, which were not, what measures were assessed, what coordination occurred, what monitoring was maintained, and what material result was obtained.
Clarification is requested as to whether the new final municipal decision must address the actual complaint of 5 July 2018 and not a reduced, generic, or subsequent version of the facts.
Supplementation is requested to state that the municipality may not deem the judgment complied with if its final act does not expressly analyze the complaint, Informe Técnico GRAE 07-31-07-2018, the matters identified by the Contralor de Servicios, the short-term measures, coordination with CONAVI, periodic monitoring, the stormwater system, the protection zone, and the material result obtained.
9. NINTH POINT: OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 CONSTITUTES AN INDEPENDENT OBLIGATION UNDER THE JUDGMENT Judgment n.° 2025003656 expressly incorporated the failure to address and follow up on the recommendations contained in OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. That document is neither ancillary nor external to the ruling. It is part of the enforceable core.
OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 concerns the creek slope, an altered bank, an unprotected bank, erosion, risk to structures located on the slope, the need to assess construction work, professional supervision, and the relevant studies.
Accordingly, there had to be correspondence among its recommendations, the obligation imposed by the Chamber, the actions subsequently carried out, and the evidence of compliance.
Decision n.° 2026034683 does not make sufficiently clear the final status of that obligation or why the Therefore section does not maintain OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 with the same force as the point concerning the final act on the 2018 complaint.
The municipality cannot neutralize OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 by asserting that it was general, concerned another location, or that the area was later considered private, unless it demonstrates that position through clear maps, coordinates, official plans, technical studies, and legal reasoning.
Clarification is requested as to whether OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 remains a pending matter for enforcement and what specific evidence was deemed sufficient to consider its recommendations addressed.
Supplementation of the decision is requested to order that the final municipal act expressly analyze OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, stating what construction work was assessed, what studies were requested, which institutions were involved in coordination, what measures were adopted, what was rejected on technical grounds, and why.
10. TENTH POINT: INFORME TÉCNICO GRAE 27-11-2020 AS BACKGROUND EVIDENCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND TERRITORIAL CONTINUITY Informe Técnico GRAE 27-11-2020 should have been considered as background evidence of administrative and territorial continuity, without transforming it into an improper expansion of the merits.
That report connects the issue to the background of lateral erosion, the creek, gabions, a steep slope, and impacts on the sector, and relates it to Informe Técnico GRAE 07-31-07-2018.
Furthermore, that municipal report acknowledged that the problem was located within the creek’s protection area and not on private property, although it could affect adjoining private properties.
That earlier municipal statement contradicts the position subsequently asserted by the municipality through documents from 2023. The municipality could not shift from a technical position recognizing a creek protection area to a later position of private ownership without a complete technical, cadastral, registry, and legal explanation.
Nor could it artificially separate the events of 2018, 2020, and 2023 as unrelated facts when they concern the same physical system comprising the slope, creek, channel, protection zone, lateral erosion, and affected homes.
Clarification is requested as to whether the Chamber assessed Informe Técnico GRAE 27-11-2020 as background evidence of continuity and, if so, why it did not affect the assessment of the municipality’s subsequent private-property position.
Supplementation is requested to state that the final municipal act must expressly compare Informe Técnico GRAE 27-11-2020 with Informe Técnico GRAE 07-31-07-2018, OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, and the municipal documents from 2023.
11. ELEVENTH POINT: TERRITORIAL MATERIALITY, NO DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP, AND PROHIBITION AGAINST ALLOWING THE MUNICIPALITY TO UNILATERALLY DEFINE COMPLIANCE The amparo applicants have not requested that the Chamber make an abstract declaration concerning registered title to land, conduct a boundary survey, or take the place of the Catastro Nacional. The request is different: that the Chamber not permit the municipality to close the enforcement phase by means of an untested unilateral territorial position.
The municipality has maintained that the affected area is private, does not belong to it, and therefore does not require material intervention by it. That position cannot be left exclusively in the hands of the very authority obligated to comply.
The municipality cannot, in practice, unilaterally define the territorial materiality it uses as a defense to justify its failure to act.
If the Chamber considers that this jurisdiction is not competent to define the legal nature of the area, it must clarify why it permits the municipality to use that same legal nature as a compliance defense. The issue cannot be excluded when the amparo applicants raise it with official plans while being accepted when the municipality invokes it to deny that it must act.
The material characteristics of the area are not ancillary to the proceeding. They are a prerequisite for enforcement. Without identifying the area, it is impossible to know which complaint was decided, which slope was assessed, which creek or channel was analyzed, which protection zone was considered, which stormwater system was verified, which properties were affected, which public powers remain applicable, and which material actions were required.
Clarification is requested as to whether the material characteristics of the area will be assessed as a prerequisite for enforcement and not as an ordinary property dispute.
Supplementation is requested to state that the municipality may not deem the judgment complied with through a general assertion of private ownership if it does not territorially identify the area, compare the official plans, explain the legal framework governing the creek, channel, protection zone, stormwater easement (servidumbre pluvial), waters, roads, State rights, and public powers, and provide reasons why all of those matters do or do not eliminate its duties to act.
12. TWELFTH POINT: PLANS FROM 1992, 1995, AND 2019, POOR LEGIBILITY OF MUNICIPAL DOCUMENTS, AND OMITTED OFFICIAL EVIDENCE The cadastral plans and Registro Nacional documents submitted by the amparo applicants are not ex post evidence, private technical reports, maps prepared after the dispute, or documents separate from the case file. They are official documents from 1992, 1995, and 2019 connected to the historical, registry, cadastral, and municipal materiality of Urbanización Vista Azul itself.
They include plan SJ-88427-92; plan SJ-88427-92, endorsed and approved by the Municipalidad de Moravia under resolution n.° S.G.M.M.-51-95; plan SJ-246733-95; plan SJ-2131870- 2019, identified as map plan n.° 40; and individual plans SJ-240338-1995, SJ-240226-1995, SJ-239446-1995, SJ-239447-1995, SJ-239445-1995, and SJ-244323-1995.
These plans are consistent with the judgment’s timeline. The 1992 and 1995 plans are registry and cadastral records predating the 2018 complaint, and the 2019 plan is contemporaneous with OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. Therefore, they cannot be treated as later documentation intended to reopen the merits. They were submitted to verify the material characteristics of the area the municipality was required to address.
Plan SJ-246733-95 records a ten-meter strip on each side of the creek as a protection zone and contains references to State rights, waters, roads, and the maritime-terrestrial zone. Plan SJ-88427-92 contains references to Ley Forestal n.° 7174, Article 58, State rights, waters, roads, and the maritime-terrestrial zone.
Plan SJ-88427-92, endorsed and approved by the municipality under resolution n.° S.G.M.M.-51-95, makes it possible to analyze the disappearance of the area known as the “cuchilla” from the creek protection area behind the lots, leaving the properties directly adjoining the creek protection zone and the affected slope; it also makes it possible to analyze by reference the mathematical extent of the protection area.
The existence of a six-meter stormwater strip or easement behind properties 46-134, 46-135, 46-136, 46-137, 46-138, and 46-139, located over part of the reserve area and part of the creek protection zone, was also reported, as was its possible omission or lack of material implementation. That point is directly related to the independent stormwater-system matter.
The municipality relied on official communications from 2023, including DF-ATV-V-001-11-2023, DTOTOP-19-11-23 entitled “Clarification of the Private Nature of Property in Urb. Vista Azul,” Informe Técnico GRAE 05-24-11-2023, and DAMM 595-11-2023, which contained maps or plans with poor legibility.
That poor legibility made it impossible to clearly discern notes, boundaries, public references, protection zones, State rights, the stormwater easement, the channel, and the creek. The amparo applicants submitted the same materials or their official antecedents in higher quality to demonstrate what could not be adequately read in the municipal documents.
Clarification is requested as to why the Chamber did not expressly assess those official plans and why it allowed the municipality’s conclusion of private ownership to operate without comparison against legible maps.
Supplementation is requested to state that the final municipal act must expressly assess plans SJ-88427-92, SJ88427-92 endorsed and approved under resolution n.° S.G.M.M.-51-95, SJ-246733-95, SJ-2131870-2019, SJ240338-1995, SJ-240226-1995, SJ-239446-1995, SJ-239447-1995, SJ-239445-1995, and SJ-244323-1995, stating their relevance to the creek, channel, protection zone, protection area, stormwater easement, State rights, waters, roads, and Ley Forestal.
13. THIRTEENTH POINT: MATERIAL CLOSURE OF ILLEGAL ACCESS POINTS VERSUS AN INFERENCE OF REGULARIZATION By a decision issued in June 2026, the Chamber directly asked whether any illegal access points to the sewer system had been closed. That question required a material and individualized response.
It was insufficient to state that, because a new network had been placed in service, the connections that might previously have been irregular were inferred to have ceased being so.
The distinction between material closure and functional regularization is relevant. Closure entails identifying the access point, intervening in it, sealing it, permanently closing it off, or rendering it inoperable. Inferring that it ceased to be irregular because of a modification to the system does not necessarily substantiate a physical operation on every existing or potential access point.
Moreover, it was noted that the municipality acknowledged that it had no details on whether all properties had connected to the new sanitary network. If those details were unavailable, it had to be clarified which AyA/ICAA report substantiated the closure, regularization, or elimination of all relevant access points.
Clarification is requested as to what specific evidence the Chamber deemed sufficient to establish that any illegal access points to the sewer system had actually been closed or eliminated.
Supplementation is requested to state that the final AyA/ICAA decision and the final municipal act must individually identify the access points, connections, properties, locations intervened in, method of closure, date of implementation, responsible official, and technical result, or explain why doing so was unnecessary.
14. FOURTEENTH POINT: FOUR-INCH PIPE, CIRCUMSTANTIAL ABSENCE OF DISCHARGE, MINISTERIO DE SALUD, AND THE GASES EMITTED FROM THE 4-INCH PIPE THAT WAS NEITHER REMOVED NOR SEALED OFF This point should not be framed as though the judgment had literally ordered the physical removal of the four-inch pipe. The literal order concerned the sanitary connection, closure of illegal access points, and a final decision.
The stronger argument is that the pipe’s continued physical presence, its connection to the last sanitary manhole, the lack of substantiation that it was closed or sealed off, and the absence of a discharge during a single visit do not, by themselves, permit the conclusion that it has been permanently rendered inoperable, is harmless, or presents no residual risk.
The June 2026 visit established that the four-inch pipe remained in place, originated at the last sanitary manhole, and displayed no visible discharge at that time. That objective finding supports a circumstantial absence of liquid or solid discharge, but not necessarily permanent inoperability, closure, sealing, permanent disconnection, impossibility of reactivation, or sanitary harmlessness.
The amparo applicants also reported the gases emitted from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor sealed off.
That issue could not be subsumed within the assertion that there was no visible discharge, because it concerns a different residual risk. If the pipe remains physically in place and there is no evidence that it was closed, sealed, or permanently decommissioned, it must be clarified what technical assessment ruled out the gases emanating from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor permanently decommissioned. With respect to the Ministerio de Salud, the conclusion that it posed no hazard must be assessed in light of its technical sources. If that conclusion was based on information from AyA/ICAA and the Municipality, it must be specified whether the Ministry also conducted its own direct and independent health inspection concerning the pipe’s removal, closure, sealing, permanent decommissioning, lack of hazardousness, and the gases emanating from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor permanently decommissioned.
Clarification is requested as to what technical evidence permitted the transition from a one-time observation that there was no discharge to the conclusion that the pipe had been permanently rendered inoperable or that no health risk existed. It is requested that the ruling be supplemented to state that the Ministerio de Salud, AyA/ICAA, and the Municipality must expressly address the pipe’s continued physical presence, its origin, whether it is connected or disconnected, its closure, sealing, or permanent decommissioning, its lack of hazardousness, the possibility of its reactivation, and the gases emanating from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor permanently decommissioned.
15. FIFTEENTH POINT: SANITARY-SEWER INTERCONNECTION, STORMWATER SYSTEM, AND OMITTED STORMWATER EASEMENT ARE DISTINCT OBLIGATIONS The case record documents a specific physical action by AyA/ICAA consisting of connecting the first phase of Residencial Vista Azul to the new sanitary-sewer network and directing the wastewater flow to the corresponding system. The amparo applicants do not dispute that action. The correct position is that partial physical action does not amount to full physical compliance with a judgment containing several independent orders. The judgment distinguished the sanitary-sewer component from the stormwater component. The point concerning the sanitary-sewer connection and closure of illegal access points is not identical to the point ordering comprehensive and coordinated attention to the problem of improper disposal of wastewater into the municipal stormwater system.
The sanitary-sewer interconnection therefore cannot automatically be extended to a different obligation without explaining the causal and technical relationship that would justify that conclusion. Moreover, the stormwater problem includes analysis of the watercourse, stream, protection zone, pipelines, omitted stormwater easement (servidumbre pluvial), reserve area, impact behind properties 46-134 through 46-139, and the correspondence between the system’s original planning and its physical construction. The possible existence of a six-meter strip or stormwater easement behind the properties could not be omitted if the stormwater system was an independent part of the judgment. Clarification is requested as to what independent physical action permitted the stormwater component to be deemed addressed, what specific problem was detected, what intervention occurred, where it occurred, and by what evidence it was established.
It is requested that the ruling be supplemented to state that the final decision cannot be limited to the sanitary-sewer interconnection but must separately address the stormwater system, the omitted stormwater easement, the wastewater improperly discharged into the stormwater system, the watercourse, the stream, the protection zone, and the Municipality’s continuing powers and duties.
16. SIXTEENTH POINT: MINUTES OF SPECIAL SESSION N.° 028, UNINHABITABILITY ORDERS, PROTECTIVE CONSTRUCTION WORK, AND THEIR DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO JUDGMENT N.° 2025003656, THE COMPLAINT OF 5 JULY 2018, THE CONTRALOR DE SERVICIOS, TECHNICAL REPORT GRAE 07-31-07-2018, AND OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 Clarification is requested as to why decision n.° 2026034683 did not expressly assess the certification of the Minutes of Special Session n.° 028 of the Concejo Municipal de Moravia, held on 7 May 2025 and certified on 28 May 2025, even though that evidence was submitted by the amparo applicants as subsequent, objective evidence directly related to the physical situation in the area. During that session, geographer Nombre03, the municipal Risk Manager and an official directly involved in compliance with the judgment, acknowledged that Vista Azul had uninhabitability orders affecting three of five houses and that lifting those orders was contingent upon the completion of protective construction work. That issue already appears in the draft itself as one of the points for which clarification and supplementation are requested, precisely because of its relationship to physical compliance with judgment n.° 2025003656.
That acknowledgment is not invoked to reopen the merits of the amparo proceeding, to ask the Chamber to design a construction project, or to turn constitutional enforcement into ordinary technical proceedings. It is invoked as subsequent evidence of the physical situation existing after judgment n.° 2025003656 was issued. If, after the judgment was issued, the municipal official involved in compliance herself acknowledged before the Concejo Municipal that lifting the uninhabitability orders depended on protective construction work, full physical compliance cannot be deemed established through official letters, meetings, emails, geotextile, vetiver, administrative communications, or actions undertaken in another area.
This point is directly related to judgment n.° 2025003656 because that judgment did not order a merely formal response. The judgment treated as enforceable grounds the complaint of 5 July 2018, Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, the statements of the Contralor de Servicios, the problem involving the four-inch pipe, the stormwater system, and OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. Accordingly, the subsequent existence of uninhabitability orders and the acknowledged need for protective construction work are not matters unrelated to compliance; they demonstrate that the physical situation involving the slope, stream, protection zone, risk, and affected homes still lacked a comprehensive solution.
It is also directly related to the complaint of 5 July 2018 because that complaint was the foundational basis of the constitutional order. It was not an isolated or merely documentary submission but a complaint concerning a physical impact in the Vista Azul area, involving the slope, stream, protection zone, gabion work, lateral erosion, stormwater system, risk to homes, and need for intervention. If, years after that complaint and after the judgment was issued, uninhabitability orders remained in place contingent upon protective construction work, the Chamber was required to assess that fact to determine whether the Municipality had truly complied or had merely generated paperwork.
This point is likewise connected to the statements of the municipal Contralor de Servicios because judgment n.° 2025003656 ordered follow-up on that official’s statements concerning the complaint of 5 July 2018. If the Contralor had warned of the need for actions, inspection, technical assessment, interinstitutional coordination, and follow-up, the subsequent persistence of uninhabitability orders demonstrates that the municipal response could not be exhausted through official letters or communications. The Municipality was required to explain what specific actions it took to address that risk, what technical assessment it conducted, what coordination it carried out, what protective measures it adopted, and why, despite all of that, the physical conditions making habitability dependent upon protective construction work continued to exist.
The Minutes of Special Session n.° 028 are also related to Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, entitled “Impact on Homes in the Vista Azul Area and Gabion Stabilization Work,” because that report was one of the antecedents expressly incorporated into judgment n.° 2025003656. The municipal Risk Manager’s subsequent statement confirms that the matter was not limited to an administrative response but concerned a physical risk affecting specific homes. If Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018 already addressed the impact on homes, the slope, Vista Azul, and stabilization work, the subsequent existence of uninhabitability orders and the need for protective construction work should have been assessed as a physical continuation of the problem that the judgment ordered the authorities to address.
Similarly, this point is connected to OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 because that official document was incorporated into the judgment as an element of compliance and concerns the stream bank, erosion, the unprotected margin, risk, and the need to assess work or measures in the area. Accordingly, if the municipal official herself subsequently acknowledged that Vista Azul remained subject to the need for protective construction work, the Chamber was required to clarify why it did not assess that statement together with OFICIO CNE-UIARINF-0968-2019, Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, the statements of the Contralor de Servicios, and the complaint of 5 July 2018.
Completion of the protective construction work has not been established. Comprehensive stabilization of the slope has not been established. The actual elimination of the risk conditions has not been established. The persistence of uninhabitability orders contradicts any claim of full physical compliance unless it is explained which component of the judgment is deemed satisfied, which remains pending, and which authority must carry out or coordinate the necessary work.
Clarification is therefore requested as to why decision n.° 2026034683 did not expressly assess the Minutes of Special Session n.° 028 and the statements of the municipal Risk Manager as subsequent evidence of the physical situation in the area, particularly when that evidence is directly related to judgment n.° 2025003656, the complaint of 5 July 2018, the statements of the Contralor de Servicios, Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, and OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019. It is requested that the ruling be supplemented to state that the final municipal decision must expressly address the uninhabitability orders, the protective construction work, comprehensive stabilization of the slope, the relationship with the Ministerio de Salud, the current situation of the affected homes, the connection between that risk and the complaint of 5 July 2018, the follow-up given to Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, the statements of the Contralor de Servicios, and effective compliance with OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019.
17. SEVENTEENTH POINT: ACTIONS FROM ANOTHER CASE FILE OR AREA, TERRATEC, GEOTEXTILE, VETIVER, REPORTS SUBMITTED UNDER OATH, AND CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT The amparo applicants reported a possible commingling of case files or actions from another area of Vista Azul, particularly references involving Nombre05, case file n.° 23-014043- 0007-CO, a pet park or dog park, a municipal green area, TERRATEC Report ES-79-23, Report DTO-PROY1-090-12-2023, geotextile, and the planting of vetiver. Compliance with judgment n.° 2025003656 cannot be established through generic actions undertaken elsewhere. If the Municipality relies on a construction project, it must identify it geographically: coordinates, property, slope, area, date, technical purpose, acceptance report, responsible party, and specific relationship to the complaint of 5 July 2018. An action undertaken in a pet park, municipal green area, or another case file does not automatically establish compliance concerning the slope and protection zone associated with this case file.
Reports submitted under oath by the authorities must not be considered in isolation from the remainder of the case record. Their evidentiary weight does not eliminate the need to compare them against cadastral documents, Registro Nacional plans, prior reports, photographs, subsequent actions, internal contradictions, and reported omissions. The Administration does not comply merely by asserting that it has complied.
The existence of actions by the Municipalidad de Moravia, CONAVI, Ministerio de Salud, AyA/ICAA, Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, and INVU in the area precluded acceptance, without analysis, of the proposition that the entire matter was private and unrelated to public powers and duties. Those actions reveal, at a minimum, concurrent powers and duties or coordination duties that should have been explained.
Clarification is requested as to how the Chamber treated actions from another case file or area and what individualized evidence links geotextile, vetiver, the pet park, TERRATEC, or DTO-PROY1-090-12-2023 to specific compliance with judgment n.° 2025003656. It is requested that the ruling be supplemented to state that the enforcement phase must remain open until the exact status of each obligation is known and that the judgment must not be deemed satisfied through reports submitted under oath, actions in another area, generic administrative activity, or ex post documents not compared against the existing official evidence.
18. EIGHTEENTH POINT: PARTIAL DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE GARRO VARGAS AND THE NEED TO CLARIFY THE PROCEDURAL AVENUE, SCOPE, AND OVERSIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT Clarification and supplementation of decision n.° 2026034683 are requested because it did not sufficiently address Justice Garro Vargas’s partial dissenting opinion concerning enforcement of judgment n.° 2025003656. Judgment n.° 2025003656 itself stated, insofar as relevant, that Justice Castillo added a separate note and that Justice Garro Vargas dissented with respect to enforcement of the judgment, stating, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, that enforcement should take place before the Enforcement Division (Área de Ejecución) of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the enforcement rules in Articles 155 et seq. of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.
That point is not incidental. It confirms that, from the judgment itself, there was concern regarding the manner, procedural avenue, and effectiveness of enforcement. If a Justice dissented concerning enforcement, that demonstrates that compliance with the judgment was not a simple or automatic matter and could not be reduced to the mere service of official letters. Clarification is therefore requested as to whether the Chamber, when resolving the application concerning disobedience through decision n.° 2026034683, assessed the scope of that partial dissenting opinion and the need for enhanced, precise, and physically verifiable enforcement.
Clarification is also requested as to whether enforcement remains under the direct supervision of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), whether any issue must be referred to the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, or whether the Chamber retains jurisdiction to oversee physical compliance with judgment n.° 2025003656.
This clarification is indispensable because the amparo applicants cannot be left without an effective defense due to ambiguous enforcement. If the Chamber retains constitutional enforcement, it must specify what must be done, who must do it, which matters remain open, and what physical criteria must be verified. If any matter must be processed before another forum, that must be stated expressly and not left to an omission that would allow the Municipality to claim formal compliance.
Consequently, it is requested that the ruling be supplemented to state that Justice Garro Vargas’s partial dissenting opinion reinforces the need for decision n.° 2026034683 to be clear regarding the procedural avenue for enforcement, the scope of judicial oversight, the pending matters, the nature of the decision issued, the physical characteristics of the area under discussion, and the minimum criteria with which the Municipalidad de Moravia must comply so that judgment n.° 2025003656 is not reduced to a merely formal declaration.
19. NINETEENTH POINT: FAILURE TO RULE ON THE REQUEST TO CONSIDER REFERRING CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE RECORD TO THE MINISTERIO PÚBLICO Clarification and supplementation of decision n.° 2026034683 are requested because it did not expressly, sufficiently, and separately rule on the request to consider referring certified copies of the record (testimonio de piezas) to the Ministerio Público. The amparo applicants requested that, if comparison of the case record revealed inconsistencies, material omissions, distortion of the record’s true meaning, submission of documents unrelated to the subject matter of the complaint, use of actions processed under another regulatory framework, or any attempt to create the appearance of compliance before the Chamber, consideration be given to referring certified copies of the record to the Ministerio Público for the possible commission of falsehood, procedural fraud, disobedience, or any other offense that might be applicable.
Likewise, in the noncompliance application, the Chamber was asked to consider referring certified copies of the record based on the possible commission of apparently criminal acts involving disobedience of a constitutional order and the possible insertion, use, or continued reliance upon false or distorted statements in public documents.
Judgment n.° 2025003656 already contained an express warning concerning Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, stating that imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on any person who receives an order issued in an amparo proceeding and fails to comply with it or to cause it to be complied with. Accordingly, if decision n.° 2026034683 was issued in proceedings concerning disobedience or noncompliance, the Chamber was required to rule expressly on that request.
The Chamber was not being asked to criminally convict anyone or prejudge whether offenses had been committed. It was asked to assess whether the documentary contradictions, the possible appearance of compliance, the use of maps with poor legibility, the subsequent claim of private ownership, the lack of an actual final decision, the omission of Registro Nacional plans, the lack of follow-up on OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, the continued presence of the four-inch pipe, and the gases emanating from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor permanently decommissioned justified referring copies for investigation.
The failure to rule on this issue creates uncertainty. It is unclear whether the Chamber denied that request, reserved it for later determination, deemed it inadmissible, left it pending, or simply did not assess it. That lack of a response must be clarified and supplemented because referral of certified copies was requested as a possible consequence of the disobedience and of the manner in which the Municipality submitted documents as evidence of compliance.
Therefore, it is requested that decision n.° 2026034683 be supplemented so that the Chamber expressly states whether it is appropriate to consider referring certified copies of the record to the Ministerio Público and, if it is not appropriate, explains why the inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions, and documents presented as apparent evidence of compliance that were reported by the amparo applicants do not warrant such a referral.
FIRST: Deem this comprehensive application for clarification, sua sponte supplementation, and correction of clerical errors against decision n.° 2026034683 duly filed.
SECOND: Expressly clarify the procedural nature of decision n.° 2026034683, stating whether it was issued as a final decision on the disobedience application, a partial decision on noncompliance, an interlocutory enforcement decision, or a decision leaving matters pending.
THIRD: Supplement the decision to identify, with respect to each point of judgment n.° 2025003656, which obligations are deemed satisfied, which are partially satisfied, which have not been satisfied, which remain pending verification, and which were rejected.
FOURTH: Clarify that the expiration of the period for party-requested clarification does not extinguish the Chamber’s authority to act sua sponte during enforcement when clarification or supplementation is necessary to ensure full compliance with the judgment.
FIFTH: Supplement the decision to state that the requests for expedited disposition (gestiones de pronto despacho) did not constitute an express, clear, or unequivocal waiver of the evidence, verifications, objections, and submissions filed by the amparo applicants since April 2026.
SIXTH: Clarify why the submissions of 10, 14, 23, 25, 28, and 30 April; 6 May; 15 June; 4 August; and 8 September 2026 were not expressly assessed, or supplement the decision so that those submissions are considered an integral part of the noncompliance application.
SEVENTH: Clarify why the standard used to reject documentary compliance with the first point was not applied with equal rigor to the sanitary-sewer connection, closure of illegal access points, four-inch pipe, stormwater system, Ministerio de Salud, and AyA/ICAA.
EIGHTH: Correct the clerical error involving the reference to judgment n.° 2026016277 and specify that the constitutional judgment whose enforcement is sought is judgment n.° 2025003656, in case file n.° 24-017174-0007-CO.
NINTH: Clarify the legal effect of actions taken after the original deadlines expired and after the disobedience application was initiated, distinguishing timely compliance, late compliance, and ex post documents.
TENTH: Add a current, short, definite, and verifiable deadline for compliance with any matters that remain pending, without permitting an indefinite reconstruction of the Municipality’s defense.
ELEVENTH: Clarify that service of a new municipal decision does not in itself constitute compliance and supplement the decision to state that such decision must be genuine, reasoned, congruent, geographically identified, and physically verifiable.
TWELFTH: Supplement the decision to state that the final municipal decision must assess the complaint of 5 July 2018, Technical Report GRAE 07-31-07-2018, the statements of the Contralor de Servicios, OFICIO CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, Technical Report GRAE 27-11-2020, the cadastral plans, the stormwater system, the four-inch pipe, the uninhabitability orders, the protective construction work, and the public powers and duties implicated.
THIRTEENTH: Clarify that the Municipalidad de Moravia cannot unilaterally define the physical characteristics of the area or maintain a claim of private ownership without comparing it against official plans, municipal antecedents, Registro Nacional documents, the protection zone, stream, watercourse, stormwater easement, waters, roads, rights of the State, and Ley Forestal.
FOURTEENTH: Supplement the decision to state that plans SJ-88427-92, SJ-88427-92 stamped and approved by the Municipalidad de Moravia under resolution n.° S.G.M.M.-51-95, SJ-246733-95, SJ2131870-2019, SJ-240338-1995, SJ-240226-1995, SJ-239446-1995, SJ-239447-1995, SJ-239445-1995, and SJ244323-1995 must be expressly assessed.
FIFTEENTH: Clarify that the maps submitted by the Municipality in official documents DF-ATV-V001-11-2023, DTO-TOP-19-11-23, Technical Report GRAE 05-24-11-2023, and DAMM 595-11-2023 were challenged as poorly legible, and supplement the decision to state that they cannot prevail without being compared against the higher-resolution plans submitted by the amparo applicants.
SIXTEENTH: Clarify what specific evidence established the physical closure of illegal access points, the permanent deactivation or lack of hazardousness of the four-inch pipe, the independent health inspection, the separate attention given to the stormwater system, and the absence of gases emanating from the 4-inch pipe that was neither removed nor permanently decommissioned.
SEVENTEENTH: Supplement the decision to state that the enforcement phase must remain open until the obligated authorities establish actual, physical, reasoned, geographically identified, and verifiable compliance with all provisions of judgment n.° 2025003656.
EIGHTEENTH: Deem this comprehensive application for clarification, sua sponte supplementation, and correction of clerical errors ratified, for all corresponding procedural purposes, as of formal service of decision n.° 2026034683.
NINETEENTH: Expressly resolve this application for clarification and supplementation before deeming the enforcement phase of judgment n.° 2025003656 closed, exhausted, or satisfied, because the application concerns uncertainties, omissions, and clerical errors that directly affect the judgment’s enforceability.
TWENTIETH: Clarify whether decision n.° 2026034683 finally resolved the noncompliance application, resolved it in part, left enforcement open, left matters pending, or implicitly rejected the points not addressed by the Chamber.
TWENTY-FIRST: Clarify and supplement the decision to state that the Municipalidad de Moravia may not deem judgment n.° 2025003656 satisfied through mere service of documents, without a genuine, reasoned, geographically identified, and physically verifiable final decision.
TWENTY-SECOND: Keep the enforcement phase open until this clarification and supplementation application has been resolved and until the obligated authorities establish actual, physical, and verifiable compliance with the orders.
TWENTY-THIRD: Clarify why decision n.° 2026034683 did not expressly address Justice Garro Vargas’s partial dissenting opinion concerning enforcement of judgment n.° 2025003656, in which she stated that enforcement should take place before the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional and Articles 155 et seq. of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo.
TWENTY-FOURTH: Supplement the decision to state whether the Chamber retains direct oversight of the enforcement of judgment n.° 2025003656, whether any matter must be referred to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction (jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa) during the enforcement phase, or whether decision n.° 2026034683 left constitutional enforcement open until actual, physical, reasoned, geographically identified, and verifiable compliance is established.
TWENTY-FIFTH: Clarify why decision n.° 2026034683 did not expressly address the request to consider referring certified copies of the record to the Ministerio Público based on possible disobedience, a possible appearance of compliance, documentary contradictions, material omissions, the use of public documents, poorly legible maps, ex post reports, and municipal assertions not compared against the official evidence in the case record.
TWENTY-SIXTH: Supplement the decision to state whether it is appropriate to consider referring certified copies of the record to the Ministerio Público and, if it is not appropriate, explain why the matters reported by the amparo applicants do not warrant such a referral, without this entailing any prejudgment concerning criminal liability.
The amparo applicants do not appear to request a new judgment or to reopen the merits of the amparo proceeding. They appear to request that the favorable judgment already issued fully produce the effects that it itself ordered. The judgment established specific deadlines; those deadlines expired. A disobedience application was subsequently filed, and the Chamber itself determined that, at least with respect to certain matters, what the Administration presented as compliance did not actually satisfy the order.
Under those circumstances, enforcement cannot conclude through a generic reiteration of expired obligations, a reduction of physical obligations to mere acts of service, a non-individualized inference of compliance, or uncritical acceptance of subsequent reports. What is requested is certainty: that the Chamber determine what was satisfied, what remains pending, what individualized evidence establishes each result, which authority is responsible, what current deadline applies, and how the full content of judgment n.° 2025003656 is to be preserved. Only in that way can the gap between the constitutional protection recognized and the protection actually enforced be closed.
NOTICES: The means indicated in the case record remain in effect (…)
Article 12 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional: clarification and supplementation at a party’s request within the third day and sua sponte at any time, including in enforcement proceedings, to the extent necessary to ensure full compliance with the judgment.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), decision n.° 00151-2000: the arbitrary or unjustified failure to receive or assess useful, relevant, and available evidence capable of clarifying the facts is contrary to due process.
Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), Voto n.° 7525-1997, reiterated in decision n.° 7392-2011: the statement of reasons in decisions permits oversight of judicial activity and an understanding of the reasons for the decision.
Reglamento a la Ley del Catastro Nacional: a survey plan (plano de agrimensura) graphically, mathematically, textually, and legally represents a property, parcel, or tract of land.
Article 33 of the Ley Forestal: protection areas on both sides of rivers, streams, or brooks, with implications for public interests, environmental matters, and governmental powers and duties (…)” (sic).
Justice Araya García drafts the opinion; and, Reasons
I.Regarding correction of a clerical error. The operative part of interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, stated:
“(…) The application alleging noncompliance is partially granted, solely with respect to the alleged failure to comply with the order issued in point 1 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025. Nombre04 and Nombre03, respectively the Mayor and the Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department, both of the Municipalidad de Moravia, or whoever may hold those offices in their stead, are again ordered to comply with what this Chamber ordered in point 1 of the operative part of judgment no. 2026016277, issued at 9:30 on 7 May 2026, by serving the complainant, through the designated means, with the final decision on the complaint filed on 5 July 2018, in connection with the follow-up given to the recommendations in report No. GRAE 07-31-07- 2018. IMPACT ON HOMES IN THE VISTA AZUL SECTOR AND GABION STABILIZATION WORKS, and the statements made by the corporation’s Services Comptroller in the email of 17 September 2018. José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), or whoever may hold that office in his stead, is again ordered to comply with what this Chamber ordered in points 2 and 3 of the operative part of judgment no. 2026016277, issued at 9:30 on 7 May 2026, by serving, through the means designated by the applicants, the final decision both on the complaint forwarded to him by the Municipalidad de Moravia on 4 January 2024 and on the findings regarding the improper discharge of wastewater into the stormwater system. The foregoing is subject to the warning that, should noncompliance be established, the institution of administrative proceedings against the official who has failed to comply with this Chamber’s ruling may be ordered, as may the certification and forwarding of records to the Ministerio Público (Public Prosecutor’s Office) concerning the possible commission of the offense of disobedience (Articles 53 and 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). The clerical error contained in the order issued at 14:32 on 17 April 2026 is corrected so that it shall read as set forth in Reason XIX of this decision. Nombre04 and Nombre03, in their respective capacities as Mayor and Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department, both of the Municipalidad de Moravia, as well as José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), or whoever may hold those offices in their stead, shall be served personally (…)” (sic).
II.The operative part of the interlocutory decision should indeed have read as follows:
“(…) The application alleging noncompliance is partially granted, solely with respect to: a) the alleged failure to comply with the order issued in point 1 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025; and b) the alleged failure by the ICAA to comply with the order issued in points 2 and 3 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025 (service of the final decision concerning the matters reported). Nombre04 and Nombre03, respectively the Mayor and the Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department, both of the Municipalidad de Moravia, or whoever may hold those offices in their stead, are again ordered to comply with what this Chamber ordered in point 1 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025, by serving the complainant, through the designated means, with the final decision on the complaint filed on 5 July 2018, in connection with the follow-up given to the recommendations in report No. GRAE 07-31-07- 2018. IMPACT ON HOMES IN THE VISTA AZUL SECTOR AND GABION STABILIZATION WORKS, and the statements made by the corporation’s Services Comptroller in the email of 17 September 2018. José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), or whoever may hold that office in his stead, is again ordered to comply with what this Chamber ordered in points 2 and 3 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025, by serving, through the means designated by the applicants, the final decision both on the complaint forwarded to him by the Municipalidad de Moravia on 4 January 2024 and on the findings regarding the improper discharge of wastewater into the stormwater system. The foregoing is subject to the warning that, should noncompliance be established, the institution of administrative proceedings against the official who has failed to comply with this Chamber’s ruling may be ordered (particularly the Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department of the Municipalidad de Moravia and the General Manager of the ICAA), as may the certification and forwarding of records to the Ministerio Público concerning the possible commission of the offense of disobedience (Articles 53 and 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). The clerical error contained in the order issued at 14:32 on 17 April 2026 is corrected so that it shall read as set forth in Reason XIX of this decision. In all other respects, the application filed is denied. Nombre04 and Nombre03, in their respective capacities as Mayor and Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department, both of the Municipalidad de Moravia, as well as José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, in his capacity as General Manager of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), or whoever may hold those offices in their stead, shall be served personally. (…)” (sic).
III.Accordingly, the clerical error is hereby corrected.
IV.Regarding point 4 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025. The applicants draw attention to official letter No. CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 and assert that it has not been addressed or followed up, which, in their view, would constitute noncompliance with point 4 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025:
“(…) 4) Nombre04 and Nombre03, in their respective capacities as Mayor and Head of the Risk Management and Emergency Response Department, both of the Municipalidad de Moravia, or whoever may hold those offices in their stead, are ordered to take all necessary measures within the scope of their authority and to undertake the appropriate coordination so that, within SIX MONTHS from service of this judgment, the recommendations issued by the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias in official letter No. CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 of 22 October 2019 are addressed and followed up (…)” (sic).
V.Accordingly, the specific allegation of noncompliance with this point shall be processed.
VI.Regarding the remaining claims raised. In interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, this Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled clearly and in detail on the points in the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025, whose noncompliance was expressly and unequivocally alleged by the applicants. It did so after analyzing and examining the numerous submissions received as a whole.
VII.Nevertheless, the applicants continue to insist that this Court: a) assess documents that, in their view, should have been considered when judgment was rendered; and b) analyze arguments, issue its opinion, and even request additional evidence regarding matters that are not directly related to what was ordered in the operative part of the judgment. This Chamber has repeatedly stated that the foregoing is improper. What has been requested, and is again requested on this occasion, exceeds both the summary nature of the amparo proceeding and the jurisdiction of this Court, as delimited by law and by the Political Constitution itself. Interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, stated:
“(…) On innumerable occasions throughout their multiple submissions, the applicants raised issues or disputes that exceed the scope of the amparo proceeding and clearly indicate that they seek a ruling from this Court on the underlying situation affecting them, even demanding the analysis and weighing of official letters, technical reports, and other documentation that, in their view, this jurisdiction did not consider when rendering judgment. They likewise questioned the technical suitability of the actions taken by the respondent authorities and expressly disagreed with essentially everything that had been done. It bears repeating that the foregoing exceeds both the summary nature of the amparo proceeding and the jurisdiction of this Chamber, as delimited by law and by the Political Constitution itself. Any dispute must be raised and resolved before the Administration or, where appropriate, before the ordinary courts with jurisdiction to review legality (…)” (sic).
VIII.If the applicants disagree with this Court’s decision, they must bear in mind the provisions of Article 11 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional: “(…) No appeal shall lie from judgments, orders, or procedural rulings issued by the constitutional jurisdiction (…)” (sic).
IX.The applicants now assert that “gases” emanate from the reported four-inch pipe. It must be borne in mind that, through official letter No. CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-DARSM-278-2026, the Área Rectora de Salud de Moravia closed the case and stated: “(…) there is currently no evidence of irregularities in wastewater disposal or of impacts on the stormwater system; it is therefore concluded that the situations reported in the Urbanización Vista Azul have been remedied and that the physical existence of the four-inch pipe does not constitute a health risk ‘per se’; in light of the foregoing, the case is considered to have been addressed and satisfactorily resolved (…)” (sic). Likewise, in his report submitted under oath (Article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the Director of the respondent Área Rectora de Salud confirmed that connecting the Urbanización Vista Azul to the ICAA Environmental Improvement Project eliminated the illegal connections and the reported wastewater discharge.
This was confirmed by the ICAA and the Municipalidad de Moravia. In short, according to the statements made under oath by the respondent authorities (Article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the underlying public-health problem and the irregularities detected have already been corrected through the completed connection (only formal service of the ICAA’s decision remains pending). If the applicants consider the respondent authorities’ actions and decisions insufficient, or if problems persist, they must raise the matter before the Administration so that it may issue the decision required by law. In this regard, interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, stated: “(…) If the applicant remains dissatisfied with the manner in which the reported problem was ultimately resolved, he must raise the matter before the appropriate authorities. Analyzing the technical accuracy and suitability of the actions taken exceeds both the summary nature of the amparo proceeding and the jurisdiction of this Court, as delimited by law and by the Political Constitution itself (…)” (sic).
X.In the operative part of the judgment, this Court clearly identified the avenue for enforcing the award of costs, damages, and losses caused.
XI.Finally, if they believe that the authorities of the ICAA, the Ministerio de Salud, or the Municipalidad de Moravia made false statements in their reports submitted under oath (Article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), or in the documents they signed, they may file any appropriate complaints with the Ministerio Público.
XII.Conclusion. Under these circumstances, the applications filed are partially granted solely with respect to correction of the clerical error made in the operative part of interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, and the processing of the alleged noncompliance with point 4 of the operative part of judgment No. No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025. In all other respects, they are denied.
XIII.Documents submitted to the case file. The parties are advised that, if they have submitted any paper document, as well as objects or evidence stored on any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, or telematic device, or produced using new technologies, they must retrieve them from the court office within no more than 30 business days from service of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not retrieved within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the “Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,” approved by the Corte Plena at session No. 27-11 of 22 August 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of 26 January 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial at session No. 43- 12 held on 3 May 2012, Article LXXXI.
Therefore:
The text and electronic records of interlocutory decision No. 2026034683, issued at 09:20 on 10 September 2026, are corrected so that its operative part shall read and be recorded exactly as stated in Reason II of this decision. The alleged noncompliance with point 4 of the operative part of judgment No. 2025003656, issued at 9:20 on 7 February 2025, shall be processed. In all other respects, the applications filed are denied.
Fernando Castillo V.
President Fernando Cruz C.
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
Anamari Garro V.
Ingrid Hess H.
CASE FILE N° 24-017174-0007-CO Telephone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Dirección01).
Revisión del Documento SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta y cinco minutos del diecisiete de setiembre de dos mil veintiseis .
Gestiones posteriores planteadas por Nombre02, cédula de identidad CED03, y Nombre01, cédula de identidad CED04.
Resultando:
Redacta el Magistrado Araya García; y,
Considerando
I.Sobre la corrección de error material. En la parte dispositiva de la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, se indicó:
“(…) Se acoge parcialmente la gestión de desobediencia, solamente en lo que respecta al incumplimiento alegado de la orden dada en el punto 1 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. Se reitera a Nombre04 y a Nombre03, por su orden Alcalde y Encargada del Departamento de Gestión del Riesgo y Atención de Emergencias, ambos de la Municipalidad de Moravia, o a quienes en sus lugares ocupen esos cargos, que den cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala en la el punto 1 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia no. 2026016277 de las 9:30 horas del 7 de mayo de 2026, en el sentido que se notifique al denunciante al medio señalado la resolución definitiva de la denuncia planteada el 5 de julio de 2018, en función del seguimiento brindando a las recomendaciones del informe No. GRAE 07-31-07- 2018. AFECTACION DE VIVIENDAS EN EL SECTOR DE VISTA AZUL Y TRABAJOS DE ESTABILIDAD DE GAVIONES, y lo señalado por el Contralor de Servicios de la corporación en el correo electrónico de 17 de setiembre de 2018. Se reitera a José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, en su condición de Gerente General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), o a quien en su lugar ocupe ese cargo, que dé cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala en los puntos 2 y 3 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia no. 2026016277 de las 9:30 horas del 7 de mayo de 2026, en el sentido que se notifique al medio señalado por la parte gestionante, la resolución final o definitiva tanto de la denuncia que le fuera traslada por la Municipalidad de Moravia desde el 4 de enero de 2024, como de lo referente a los hallazgos por incorrecta disposición de aguas residuales a la red pluvial. Lo anterior, bajo la advertencia que, de acreditarse la desobediencia, se podrá ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo contra el funcionario remiso a cumplir con lo resuelto por esta Sala y, además, ordenar testimoniar piezas ante el Ministerio Público por la eventual comisión del delito de desobediencia (artículos 53 y 71 de la ley de la jurisdicción constitucional). Se corrige el error material contenido en el auto de las 14:32 horas de 17 de abril de 2026, para que se lea según se expone en el considerando XIX de esta resolución. Notifíquese en forma personal a Nombre04 y a Nombre03, en sus calidades respectivas de Alcalde y Encargada del Departamento de Gestión de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, ambos de la Municipalidad de Moravia, así como a José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, en su condición de Gerente General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), o quienes en sus lugares ocupen dichos cargos (…)” (sic).
II.Ciertamente, la parte dispositiva de la resolución interlocutoria debió consignarse de la siguiente manera:
“(…) Se acoge parcialmente la gestión de desobediencia, solamente en lo que respecta: a) al incumplimiento alegado de la orden dada en el punto 1 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025; y b) al incumplimiento alegado de la orden dada al ICAA en los puntos 2 y 3 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025 (notificación de resolución final de lo denunciado). Se reitera a Nombre04 y a Nombre03, por su orden Alcalde y Encargada del Departamento de Gestión del Riesgo y Atención de Emergencias, ambos de la Municipalidad de Moravia, o a quienes en sus lugares ocupen esos cargos, que den cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala en el punto 1 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025, en el sentido que se notifique al denunciante al medio señalado la resolución definitiva de la denuncia planteada el 5 de julio de 2018, en función del seguimiento brindando a las recomendaciones del informe No. GRAE 07-31-07- 2018. AFECTACION DE VIVIENDAS EN EL SECTOR DE VISTA AZUL Y TRABAJOS DE ESTABILIDAD DE GAVIONES, y lo señalado por el Contralor de Servicios de la corporación en el correo electrónico de 17 de setiembre de 2018. Se reitera a José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, en su condición de Gerente General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), o a quien en su lugar ocupe ese cargo, que dé cumplimiento de lo dispuesto por esta Sala en los puntos 2 y 3 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025, en el sentido que se notifique al medio señalado por la parte gestionante, la resolución final o definitiva tanto de la denuncia que le fuera traslada por la Municipalidad de Moravia desde el 4 de enero de 2024, como de lo referente a los hallazgos por incorrecta disposición de aguas residuales a la red pluvial. Lo anterior, bajo la advertencia que, de acreditarse la desobediencia, se podrá ordenar la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo contra el funcionario remiso a cumplir con lo resuelto por esta Sala (particularmente en cuanto a la Encargada del Departamento de Gestión de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias de la Municipalidad de Moravia, y el Gerente General del ICAA) y, además, ordenar testimoniar piezas ante el Ministerio Público por la eventual comisión del delito de desobediencia (artículos 53 y 71 de la ley de la jurisdicción constitucional). Se corrige el error material contenido en el auto de las 14:32 horas de 17 de abril de 2026, para que se lea según se expone en el considerando XIX de esta resolución. En todo lo demás se declara no ha lugar a la gestión formulada. Notifíquese en forma personal a Nombre04 y a Nombre03, en sus calidades respectivas de Alcalde y Encargada del Departamento de Gestión de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, ambos de la Municipalidad de Moravia, así como a José Dario Guzmán Álvarez, en su condición de Gerente General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ICAA), o quienes en sus lugares ocupen dichos cargos. (…)” (sic).
III.Por consiguiente, se dispone la corrección del error material cometido.
IV.Sobre el punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. Los gestionantes llaman la atención sobre el oficio No. CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019, y que, en su criterio, no se ha dado atención y seguimiento al mismo, lo que representaría un incumplimiento a lo dispuesto en el punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025:
“(…) 4) Se ordena a Nombre04 y a Nombre03, en sus calidades respectivas de Alcalde y Encargada del Departamento de Gestión de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, ambos de la Municipalidad de Moravia, o a quienes en sus lugares ocupen esos cargos, que dispongan todo lo necesario dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y coordinen lo pertinente para que, dentro del plazo de SEIS MESES, contado partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se brinde atención y seguimiento de las recomendaciones dadas por la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias en el oficio No. CNE-UIAR-INF-0968-2019 de 22 de octubre de 2019 (…)” (sic).
V.Así las cosas, se dispone que se tramite la desobediencia específica de este punto.
VI.Sobre el resto de los extremos planteados. Esta Sala Constitucional en la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, resolvió de forma clara y detallada sobre los puntos de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025, cuyo incumplimiento fue reclamado de forma expresa e inequívoca por los gestionantes. Lo anterior, luego de analizar y examinar de forma armónica los múltiples escritos allegados.
VII.No obstante, los gestionantes siguen insistiendo en que este Tribunal: a) efectúe valoraciones de documentos que desde su punto de vista debieron tenerse en cuenta al dictar sentencia; y b) analice argumentos, emita su criterio, e incluso requiera prueba adicional sobre extremos que no tienen relación directa con lo ordenado en la parte dispositiva de la sentencia emitida. Ya esta Sala ha indicado en reiteradas oportunidades que lo expuesto es improcedente. Lo que se ha requerido y se requiere en esta ocasión excede tanto la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo, como la competencia de este Tribunal, delimitada en la Ley y la propia Constitución Política. En la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026 se señaló:
“(…) Los gestionantes, en innumerables veces en los múltiples escritos presentados, plantearon problemáticas o discusiones que exceden el objeto del recurso de amparo, y son un claro indicio de que buscan lograr un pronunciamiento por parte de este Tribunal de la situación de fondo que les aqueja, incluso exigiendo se analicen y ponderen oficios, informes técnicos y demás documentación que a su juicio no fue tomada en cuenta por esta sede al dictar sentencia. Asimismo, cuestionaron la idoneidad técnica de lo llevado a cabo por los recurridos, e hicieron expresa su inconformidad con básicamente todo lo actuado. Se insiste, lo expuesto excede tanto la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo, como la competencia de esta Sala, delimitada en la Ley y la propia Constitución Política. Cualquier discusión debe ser expuesta y resuelta ante la Administración, o dado el caso, en la sede jurisdiccional de legalidad ordinaria (…)” (sic).
VIII.Si los gestionantes no están de acuerdo con lo resuelto por este Tribunal, deben tener presente lo estipulado por el artículo 11 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional: “(…) No habrá recurso contra las sentencias, autos o providencias de la jurisdicción constitucional (…)” (sic).
IX.Los gestionantes ahora afirman que emanan “gases” del tubo de cuatro pulgadas denunciado. No debe perderse de vista que mediante el oficio No. CARTA-MS-DRRSCS-DARSM-278-2026, el Área Rectora de Salud de Moravia cerró el caso e indicó: “(…) no se evidencian actualmente irregularidades en la disposición de aguas residuales, ni afectaciones al sistema pluvial, por lo que se concluye que las situaciones reportadas en la Urbanización Vista Azul han sido subsanadas y la existencia física de la tubería de cuatro pulgadas no constituye un riesgo sanitario “per se”; debido a lo expuesto, el caso se considera atendido y resuelto satisfactoriamente (…)” (sic). Asimismo, el Director del Área Rectora de Salud recurrida confirmó en su informe rendido bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), que con la interconexión de la urbanización Vista Azul al Proyecto de Mejoramiento Ambiental del ICAA, se eliminaron las conexiones ilegales y el derrame de aguas reportado.
Esto fue ratificado por el ICAA y la Municipalidad de Moravia. En suma, de acuerdo con lo indicado por las autoridades recurridas bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), el problema de salubridad de fondo y las irregularidades detectadas ya fueron corregidas con la interconexión ejecutada (queda solo pendiente la notificación formal de lo dispuesto por el ICAA). Si los gestionantes estiman que lo actuado y resuelto por las autoridades recurridas no es suficiente, o persisten problemas, deben alegarlo ante la Administración, para que resuelva lo que en Derecho corresponda. En este sentido, en la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026 se indicó: “(…) Si el gestionante mantiene una inconformidad con la forma en que se resolvió en definitiva la problemática denunciada, pues debe plantearlo ante las instancias correspondientes.
Entrar a analizar la precisión técnica e idoneidad de lo actuado excede tanto la naturaleza sumaria del recurso de amparo, como la competencia de este Tribunal, delimitada en la Ley y la propia Constitución Política (…)” (sic).
X.Este Tribunal fue claro en la parte dispositiva de la sentencia, sobre la vía de ejecución de la condenatoria al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios ocasionados.
XI.Finalmente, si consideran que las autoridades del ICAA, el Ministerio de Salud, o la Municipalidad de Moravia han faltado a la verdad en sus informes rendidos bajo juramento (artículo 44 de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), o los documentos suscritos, tienen la posibilidad de acudir ante el Ministerio Púbico a plantear las denuncias que procedan.
XII.Conclusión. Bajo estas circunstancias se acogen parcialmente las gestiones formuladas, solo en lo atinente a la corrección del error material cometido en la parte dispositiva de la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, y la tramitación de la desobediencia del punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. En todo lo demás, se declaran no ha lugar.
XIII.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, éstos 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 No. 27-11 del 22 de agosto de 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 19 del 26 de enero de 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión No. 43- 12 celebrada el 3 de mayo de 2012, artículo LXXXI.
Por tanto:
Se corrige el texto y los registros informáticos de la resolución interlocutoria No. 2026034683 de las 09:20 horas de 10 de setiembre de 2026, para que su parte dispositiva se lea y se consigne tal y como se indicó en el considerando II de esta resolución. Tramítese la desobediencia alegada del punto 4 de la parte dispositiva de la sentencia No. 2025003656 de las 9:20 horas del 7 de febrero de 2025. En todo lo demás, se declaran no ha lugar 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.
EXPEDIENTE N° 24-017174-0007-CO
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.