← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 18044-2007 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 14/12/2007
OutcomeResultado
The amparo was granted against the Municipality of Tibás for violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and denied against the Ministry of Health.Se declaró con lugar el recurso contra la Municipalidad de Tibás por violar el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y sin lugar contra el Ministerio de Salud.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber grants an amparo action filed by a neighbor of San Juan de Tibás against the local Municipality and the Ministry of Health. The Chamber finds that garbage accumulation in a vacant lot near Ricardo Saprissa Stadium, caused by deficient municipal collection services, violates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment under Article 50 of the Constitution. The Municipality attempted to justify its inaction based on lack of resources, but the Chamber reiterates that such an excuse is inadmissible for fundamental rights. The Ministry of Health, which issued multiple health orders and criminally reported the Municipality, is not condemned. The ruling orders the Mayor to immediately resolve the problem, under penalty of imprisonment for non-compliance, and condemns the Municipality to pay costs, damages, and losses.La Sala Constitucional declara con lugar un recurso de amparo interpuesto por un vecino de San Juan de Tibás contra la Municipalidad local y el Ministerio de Salud. La Sala determina que la acumulación de basura en un lote baldío cercano al Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, originada por el deficiente servicio de recolección municipal, constituye una violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, protegido por el artículo 50 constitucional. La Municipalidad intentó justificarse por falta de recursos, pero la Sala reitera que esa excusa es inaceptable tratándose de derechos fundamentales. El Ministerio de Salud, que emitió múltiples órdenes sanitarias y denunció penalmente a la Municipalidad, no es condenado. La sentencia ordena al Alcalde resolver de inmediato el problema, bajo apercibimiento de prisión en caso de desobediencia, y condena a la Municipalidad al pago de costas, daños y perjuicios.
Key excerptExtracto clave
In the case before us, from the evidence in the record and the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—given under the gravity of oath, with timely warning of the criminal consequences provided in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of an environmental contamination problem is duly accredited, caused by garbage and other waste deposited by the neighbors of the canton of Tibás due to the deficient garbage collection service provided by the local Municipality. [...] For this Court it is unacceptable that the petitioner, as well as the other neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected by having to endure this type of situation, without the responsible institutions—such as the respondent Municipality in this case—making their actions effective, and even being the cause of the situation that provokes the contamination. For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal is granted regarding the Municipality of Tibás.En el caso que nos ocupa, de la prueba que obra en autos, y de los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas –que se tienen dados bajo la gravedad de juramento, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias incluso penales previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta jurisdicción-, se tiene debidamente acreditada la existencia de un problema de contaminación ambiental, originado por la basura y otros desechos que son depositados por los vecinos del cantón de Tibás, debido al deficiente servicio de recolección de basura que brinda la Municipalidad local. [...] Para este Tribunal resulta inaceptable que el amparado, así como los demás vecinos, vean afectada su salud y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, por tener que soportar este tipo de situaciones, sin que las instituciones responsables para velar por ello, como lo es la Municipalidad recurrida en este caso, haga efectivas sus actuaciones, y más bien sea el causante de la situación que provoca la contaminación, por lo que en razón de todo lo expuesto, el recurso resulta procedente en cuanto a la Municipalidad de Tibás.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"la simple excusa de falta de medios materiales para enfrentar los problemas por parte del Estado, no es admisible, porque [en] estos casos la Administración tiene la obligación de dar prioridad a las soluciones y realizar con sus recursos limitados, lo que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico sea necesario para llevarlas a cabo con prontitud"
"The mere excuse of lack of material means to face problems on the part of the State is not admissible, because [in] these cases the Administration has the obligation to prioritize solutions and, with its limited resources, do what is necessary under the legal system to carry them out promptly."
Considerando V
"la simple excusa de falta de medios materiales para enfrentar los problemas por parte del Estado, no es admisible, porque [en] estos casos la Administración tiene la obligación de dar prioridad a las soluciones y realizar con sus recursos limitados, lo que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico sea necesario para llevarlas a cabo con prontitud"
Considerando V
"El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales."
"The State must assume a double behavior of doing and not doing; on the one hand, it must refrain from itself attacking the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of enacting measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements."
Considerando III
"El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales."
Considerando III
Full documentDocumento completo
* 070112840007CO * * 070112840007CO * Res. Nº 2007018044 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and forty-one minutes on the fourteenth of December, two thousand seven.
Recurso de amparo, filed by Max Fernández López, of legal age, bearer of identity card number 1-754-721, against the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of San Juan de Tibás.
Resultando:
1.- By document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:05 hours on August 21, 2007, the petitioner files a recurso de amparo against the Ministry of Health and the Municipality of San Juan de Tibás and states that under the bridge that crosses the Río Virilla, about four hundred meters from the Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, there is a large amount of waste of all kinds, which ends up directly in the river, thereby increasing its pollution. To this is added the proliferation of shanties under the bridge, where the area has been fenced off and turned into a sort of private garbage dump. He considers that the omission or inertia of the respondent authorities in resolving this situation puts at risk the health of the canton's inhabitants, as well as the environment and the natural or scenic beauty, in violation of Articles 21, 50, and 89 of the Political Constitution.
2.- Reports under oath María Luisa Ávila Agüero, in her capacity as Minister of Health (folio 12 of the case file), that this matter has been addressed by the Dirección Región Central Sur, and the Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Tibás, so she will refer to the actions of said health authorities. She indicates that according to the report of Dr. Priscilla Umaña Rojas, Director of the Área Rectora de Salud de Tibás, it is apparent that the respective sanitary orders have been issued, both to the Acting Mayor and his Municipal Council, as well as the pertinent complaints before the Courts of Justice (folio 13 of the case file). In sanitary order No. DARST 07-04-07 issued to the Municipal Mayor and the President of the Municipal Council of Tibás, they were ordered the following: “…to carry out in a sanitary manner the collection, hauling, and final disposal of the canton's waste, so as to eliminate the sources of environmental contamination that are forming. This order also includes cleaning, and hauling of the waste that has accumulated in gutters, storm drains, vacant lots, rivers, and streams located at different points in the Canton. As well as, not depositing garbage at the municipal yard… This order must be complied with immediately and permanently…” She alleges that due to the non-compliance with sanitary orders No. DARST-25-03-07 and DARST-24- 03-07, a complaint was filed before the Courts of Justice. She indicates that regarding the dwellings located at the site, they were declared uninhabitable and their eviction was ordered; however, the deadline is still in effect. Once evicted, their demolition will be coordinated with the Municipality. She requests that the filed recurso be dismissed.
3.- Reports under oath Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Tibás (folio 102 of the case file), that the legal department together with the cadastre department proceeded to conduct an inspection of the place, and carried out an on-site inspection. He alleges that the Municipality of Tibás, to avoid the problem, fenced off the place with barbed wire and placed barrels so that individuals cannot pass through to dump garbage at the site. He indicates that garbage was observed at the place and it was determined that a cleanup will be carried out. Likewise, it could be observed that garbage is dumped on a lot nearby; said lot has a padlock on the gate. He reports that they proceeded to speak with the neighbors and asked them to prevent garbage from continuing to be dumped at the site, since it is prohibited.
4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.
Drafted by Magistrate Sosto López; and,
Considerando:
I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly proven, either because they have been so accredited or because the respondent has omitted to refer to them as provided in the initial order:
II.- Purpose of the recurso. The petitioner states that near the Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, there is a large amount of waste that has turned the area into a private garbage dump. He considers that the omission or inertia of the respondent authorities in resolving the situation puts at risk the health of the Canton's inhabitants, as well as the environment.
III.- Regarding the Fundamental Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment. This Tribunal, in judgment No. 6322-03, developed the jurisprudential treatment that the Chamber has given to this constitutional foundation, which is summarized for the purposes of study in this amparo and supplemented with other considerations. Prior to the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber's jurisprudence had already recognized the protection and preservation of the environment as a fundamental right (judgment number 2233-93), deriving it from the provisions of Articles 21 (right to health), 69 (constitutional requirement for "rational exploitation of the land"), and 89 (protection of natural beauty), all of the Constitution, based on the following considerations:
"V.)- Human life is only possible in solidarity with the nature that sustains and supports us, not only for physical nourishment, but also as psychological well-being: it constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free of contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. This is how Article 21 of the Political Constitution states: 'Human life is inviolable.' It is from this constitutional principle that the right to health, to physical, mental, and social well-being undeniably emerges, a human right that is inextricably linked to the right to health and the State's obligation to protect human life.
Likewise, from a psychological and intellectual point of view, the state of mind depends also on nature, so that as the landscape becomes a useful space for rest and leisure, its preservation and conservation becomes an obligation. This last aspect is protected in Article 89 of the Constitution, which literally reads: 'Among the cultural aims of the Republic are: to protect natural beauty, to conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and to support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress.' Protecting nature from an aesthetic point of view is not commercializing it or transforming it into merchandise; it is educating citizens so that they learn to appreciate the aesthetic landscape for its intrinsic value" (judgment number 3705-93, at fifteen hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three).
"XIII.- The term 'natural beauty' was the term used at the time the Constitution was enacted (November 7, 1949), which today has developed into a specialty of law: environmental law, which recognizes the need to preserve the environment not only as a cultural purpose, but as a vital necessity of every human being. In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment surpasses the recreational or cultural interests that are also important aspects of life in society, and also constitutes a capital requirement for life itself. [...]
[...]
Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, derived from the right to life, and through it, of a right to a healthy environment. By way of example, we can cite judgments 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment as a constitutionally protected individual right" (judgment number 6240-93, at fourteen hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).
"Norm 69, the Political Charter speaks of the 'rational exploitation of the land,' which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, that protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the resources that have been indicated, are canons of the constitutional order" (judgment number 2233-93).
From Article 69 of the Fundamental Charter derives the principle of rational exploitation of the land, and it imposes, on both private individuals and the State in its broadest sense, the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources:
"II. The protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to all equally: to public institutions, by enforcing the current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; to private individuals, by complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, air, and water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be harmful to the quality of human life" (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours forty-one minutes on August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
As this Tribunal has already indicated, Article 50 of the Constitution was reformed by Law number 7412, of June third, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and granting citizens full standing to defend it, thus giving express content therein to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from constitutional Articles 21, 69, and 89:
"[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason] it does not consider it useless, much less objectionable, that it be recognized expressly and clearly individualized, [...]" (judgment number 1394-94, at fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
"II.- It follows then that the position assumed by this Tribunal in this regard, is now confirmed by the cited constitutional reform, a reform that is nothing but a reflection of the conception that man, while having the right to make use of the environment, also has the obligation to protect and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations" (judgment number 5668-94, at eighteen hours on September twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-four).
The cited Article 50 also outlines the Social State of Law, so we can conclude that the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of the environment is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve the quality of life for all, which necessitates the intervention of the Public Powers over the factors that can alter its balance and hinder the person from developing and living in a healthy environment. The incidence that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals, but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor of said rights, and, secondly, because the activity of the State is directed toward the satisfaction of the interests of the community. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of "environment" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, that is, soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework is formed, without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more integral manner, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects referring to the economy, to the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:
"For the foregoing, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, as this is merely part of the environment. The policy of nature protection is also applied to other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It is, then, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts out and thus achieve unifying the legal framework we call Environmental Law" (judgment number 5893-95, at nine hours forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, cited above, and number 2988-99, at eleven hours fifty-seven minutes on April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).
Protection of environmental law, a State duty. Starting from the reform of constitutional Article 50, in which environmental law was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the State's obligation to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established—in a conclusive manner—with which the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a safeguarding and governing function in this matter was derived, according to the provisions of the constitutional norm in question itself, a function that environmental legislation develops. This is how the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right.
"Prima facie to guarantee is to ensure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and prevent any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action directed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a double behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand it must refrain from itself threatening the right to have a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must assume the task of dictating the measures that allow it to comply with constitutional requirements" (judgment number 9193-2000, at sixteen hours twenty-eight minutes on October seventeenth, two thousand).
In this line of thought, it must be considered that the regulations establish the Ministry of Environment and Energy as the governing body of the sector of natural resources, energy, and mines, as provided in Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June fourth, nineteen ninety:
"The functions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall be the following:
ch) Dictate, by executive decree, mandatory norms and regulations relating to the rational use and protection of natural resources, energy, and mines.
IV.- Specific case.- In the case before us, from the evidence in the record, and from the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—which are accepted as given under oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided in Article 44 of the Law that governs this jurisdiction—the existence of a problem of environmental pollution is duly accredited, caused by garbage and other waste deposited by the residents of the canton of Tibás, due to the deficient garbage collection service provided by the local Municipality. Now, the respondent Mayor accepts what was stated by the petitioner, and indicates that to avoid the problem the place was fenced off with barbed wire and barbed barrels, to prevent passage and so that in this way people cannot dump garbage at the site. Likewise, he determined that a cleanup will be carried out at the site, for which reason the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred. In effect, regardless of whether the Municipality of Tibás cleans the referred land, it is unacceptable that due to the lack of municipal services, the residents must use a vacant lot to dump garbage, since evidently and repeatedly a source of contamination is produced that endangers public health. It is opportune to bear very much in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, it corresponds to each municipality in its jurisdiction to look after local interests and services to the exclusion of any other interference that is incompatible with the concept of the local, so that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.
Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:
"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees and prices, which shall be set taking into account the effective cost plus ten percent (10%) profit to develop them. Once set, they shall enter into effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.
Users shall pay for the services of public lighting, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other municipal urban or non-urban service established by law, to the extent they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services.
In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them, without causing injury to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Tribunal, it is unacceptable that the protected party, as well as the other neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure these types of situations, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality in this case, making their actions effective, and rather being the cause of the situation that provokes the contamination, for which reason, based on all that has been set forth, the recurso is admissible regarding the Municipality of Tibás.
V.- On the action of the Ministry of Health. On the other hand, the Chamber notes that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have had an active participation regarding the environmental problem generated around the issue of garbage collection, and the dumps that have emerged. As observed from the evidentiary elements in the record, since August 2005 the first Sanitary Order was issued to said municipal entity, so that it would immediately and permanently comply with the duty to collect, haul, and dispose of the canton's waste, to eliminate the sources of environmental pollution. In the same sense, at least 25 more Sanitary Orders are observed, the most recent being from March of this year. The non-compliance with these provisions led to the filing of criminal complaints against the municipal authorities by officials of the Ministry of Health; however, the problem raised by the petitioner persists, as indicated previously. In this regard, it is pertinent to point out that constitutional jurisprudence has been constant in the sense that the lack of budgets (economic, material resources, and/or qualified personnel) cannot constitute a limit between respect for and violation of fundamental rights, that is, it cannot be a reason for the Administration not to act and take concrete actions so that, through its management, it finds a solution to the problems that private individuals require of it in environmental matters; for which reason, in the various acciones de amparo brought before this Chamber, in which the respondent institution has justified its inaction on these grounds, the Chamber has compelled it to fulfill its constitutional obligations, to give effective content to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, contained in constitutional Article 50, precisely in consideration of the value of the human person and the environment as such (natural resources, biodiversity, surroundings):
"[...] this Tribunal considers as insufficient the administrative action aimed at remedying the problem of contamination, which the interested parties vehemently accuse. The Ministry has stated in a more or less express manner, that the prolongation of the problem under examination is due to purely reasons of scarcity of human and material resources. However, that is not a valid excuse." This Chamber has already stated on other occasions that, given the hierarchy and transcendence of the human and constitutional value at stake; that is, the health of persons, as well as their right to a healthy environment, and ultimately, their right to breathe and live in an atmosphere within health standards; the mere excuse of a lack of material resources on the part of the State to address the problems is not admissible, because in these cases the Administration has the obligation to prioritize solutions and to carry out, with its limited resources, whatever is necessary under the legal system to implement them promptly.-" (Judgment number 0695-96, at fifteen hours and forty-two minutes of February seventh, nineteen ninety-six).
In the same vein, one may consult judgments number 4504-93, at seventeen hours and thirty-six minutes of September eighth, nineteen ninety-three; 3705-93, at fifteen hours of May thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three, number 7154-94, at sixteen hours and forty-eight minutes of December second, nineteen ninety-four, number 0915-95, at sixteen hours and six minutes of February fifteenth, number 4149-95, at nine hours and thirty minutes of July twenty-eighth; both of nineteen ninety-five, number 0459-96, at fifteen hours and nine minutes of January twenty-second, nineteen ninety-six, and number 0726-98, at twelve hours and twenty-one minutes of February sixth, nineteen ninety-eight.
VI.- In accordance with the cited precedents, the excuse offered by the representatives of the respondent Municipality is unacceptable, since a scarcity of human and material resources can never be a justification for addressing pollution problems, which indisputably affect the health of persons. As indicated previously, in the present case there is no doubt whatsoever about the environmental pollution generated by the garbage dump located near the Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, and the consequent danger to the health of the inhabitants of that canton, thereby violating Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution. It is evident that the neglect for more than two years, which the respondent Municipality has shown with respect to the pollution problem raised herein, as well as the repeated sanitary orders issued by the Ministry of Health, is the main reason for granting this appeal. The foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, violates the rights of the petitioners who, as neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the Municipality of Tibás, making their actions effective; therefore, for all the reasons stated, the appeal must be granted, as is hereby ordered.
Therefore:
The appeal for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is declared WITH MERIT. Consequently, Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or whoever holds that office, is ordered to immediately resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited in a vacant lot of that canton. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a penalty of imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and fails to comply with it or fails to enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. The Municipality of Tibás is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Regarding the Ministry of Health, the appeal is declared WITHOUT MERIT. LET this resolution be NOTIFIED to Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or to whoever holds that office, PERSONALLY. Let it be communicated.- Luis Fernando Solano C.
President Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C. Federico Sosto L.
Jorge Araya G. Alexander Godínez V.
It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more integral manner, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects referring to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:
"For the foregoing reasons, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, as nature is merely a part of the environment. The policy of protecting nature also extends to other aspects such as the protection of game, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It involves, then, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts aside and thus achieve the unification of the legal body we call Environmental Law" (judgment number 5893-95, at nine forty-eight hours on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, cited above, and 2988-99, at eleven fifty-seven hours on April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).
**Protection of environmental law, a State duty.** Starting from the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, in which environmental law was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established—in definitive terms—whereby the State becomes the guarantor of the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is under this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a protective and governing function in this matter was derived, according to the constitutional norm under discussion, a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right.
"*Prima facie*, to guarantee is to secure and protect the right against some risk or necessity, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action aimed at sheltering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of dictating the measures that allow for compliance with constitutional requirements" (judgment number 9193-2000, at sixteen twenty-eight hours on October seventeenth, two thousand).
In this order of ideas, it must be considered that the regulations establish the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía) as the governing body of the natural resources, energy, and mines sector, according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June fourth, nineteen ninety:
"The functions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall be the following:
ch) To issue, by executive decree, mandatory rules and regulations relating to the rational use and protection of natural resources, energy, and mines.
**IV.- Specific case.-** In the case before us, from the evidence on record, and from the reports issued by the respondent authorities—which are deemed given under oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of an environmental pollution problem has been duly credited, caused by garbage and other waste deposited by residents of the canton of Tibás, due to the deficient garbage collection service provided by the local Municipality. Now, the respondent Mayor accepts what was indicated by the petitioner, and indicates that to avoid the problem, the place was fenced with barbed wire and barrels with spikes, to prevent passage and so that in this way people cannot throw garbage at the site. Likewise, it determined that a cleanup would be carried out at the site, so the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred. In effect, regardless of whether the Municipality of Tibás cleans the referenced land, it is unacceptable that due to the lack of municipal services, residents must use a vacant lot to throw garbage, since evidently and repeatedly, a source of contamination is produced that endangers public health. It is opportune to keep very much in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, it corresponds to each municipality in its jurisdiction to look after local interests and services to the exclusion of any other interference incompatible with the concept of what is local, so that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.
Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:
"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge rates and prices, which shall be fixed taking into consideration the effective cost plus a ten percent (10%) utility profit to develop them. Once fixed, they shall come into effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.
Users must pay for public lighting services, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green zones, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, insofar as they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services." In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them, without causing injury to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Court, it is unacceptable that the protected party, as well as the other residents, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure these types of situations, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality in this case, making their actions effective, and instead being the cause of the situation that provokes the contamination, therefore, for everything stated, the recourse is admissible against the Municipality of Tibás.
**V.- On the actions of the Ministry of Health.** On the other hand, the Chamber observes that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have had an active participation regarding the environmental problem generated around the issue of garbage collection, and the dumps that have arisen. As observed from the evidentiary elements on record, since August 2005, the first Sanitary Order was issued to said municipal entity, so that it would immediately and permanently comply with the duty to collect, haul, and dispose of the canton's waste, to eliminate the sources of environmental pollution. In the same sense, at least 25 more Sanitary Orders are observed, the most recent being from March of this year. The non-compliance with these provisions led to the filing of criminal complaints against the municipal authorities by officials of the Ministry of Health; however, the problem raised by the petitioner persists, as indicated previously. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that constitutional case law has been consistent in the sense that the lack of budgets (economic, material resources, and/or qualified personnel) cannot constitute a limit between respect for and violation of fundamental rights, that is, it cannot be a reason for the Administration not to act and take concrete actions so that through its management it finds a solution to the problems that individuals require of it in environmental matters; for this reason, in the various *amparo* actions brought before this Chamber, in which the respondent institution has justified its inaction on this ground, the Chamber has compelled it to fulfill its constitutional obligations, to give effective content to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, contained in Article 50 of the Constitution, precisely in consideration of the value of the human person and the environment as such (natural resources, biodiversity, surroundings):
"[...] this Court considers the administrative action aimed at remedying the pollution problem, which the interested parties vehemently claim, as insufficient. The Ministry has stated, in a more or less express manner, that the prolongation of the problem under examination is due to reasons purely of scarcity of human and material resources. However, **that is not a valid excuse.** On other occasions, this Chamber has already said that given the hierarchy and transcendence of the human and constitutional value at stake; that is, the health of people, as well as their right to a healthy environment, and ultimately, to their right to breathe and live in an atmosphere within health standards; **the simple excuse of lack of material means to face the problems by the State is not admissible, because** [in] **these cases the Administration has the obligation to give priority to solutions and to carry out with its limited resources, whatever is necessary according to the legal system to execute them promptly.-**" (Judgment number 0695-96, at fifteen forty-two hours on February seventh, nineteen ninety-six).
In an identical sense, one may consult judgments number 4504-93, at seventeen thirty-six hours on September eighth, nineteen ninety-three; 3705-93, at fifteen hours on May thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three; number 7154-94, at sixteen forty-eight hours on December second, nineteen ninety-four; number 0915-95, at sixteen six hours on February fifteenth; number 4149-95, at nine thirty hours on July twenty-eighth; both of nineteen ninety-five; number 0459-96, at fifteen nine hours on January twenty-second, nineteen ninety-six; and number 0726-98, at twelve twenty-one hours on February sixth, nineteen ninety-eight.
**VI.-** In accordance with the cited precedents, the excuse offered by the representatives of the respondent Municipality is unacceptable, since scarcity of human and material resources can never be a justification for addressing pollution problems, which indisputably affect people's health. As indicated previously, in the present case there is no doubt whatsoever about the environmental pollution generated by the garbage dump located near the Ricardo Saprissa Stadium, and the consequent danger to the health of the inhabitants of that canton, thereby injuring Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution. It is evident that the neglect for more than two years, which the respondent Municipality has shown regarding the pollution problem raised herein, as well as the repeated sanitary orders issued by the Ministry of Health, is the main reason for upholding the present recourse. The foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, injures the rights of the protected parties who, as residents, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure these types of situations, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the Municipality of Tibás, making their actions effective, therefore, for everything stated, the recourse must be upheld, as is hereby ordered.
**Por tanto:** The recourse is declared WITH MERITS for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or whoever holds that position in his stead, is ordered to immediately resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited in a vacant lot of that canton. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an *amparo* proceeding, and fails to comply with it or fails to enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely penalized. The Municipality of Tibás is sentenced to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment of the contentious-administrative proceeding. Regarding the Ministry of Health, the recourse is declared WITHOUT MERITS. **NOTIFY this resolution to** Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or to whoever holds that position in his stead, **<u>in PERSONAL form</u>. Let it be communicated.-** Luis Fernando Solano C.
Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C. Federico Sosto L.
Jorge Araya G. Alexander Godínez V.
…** **II.- Object of the appeal.** The appellant states that near the Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, there is a large quantity of waste that has turned the area into a private garbage dump. He considers that the omission or inertia of the respondent authorities in resolving the situation puts the health of the inhabitants of the Canton at risk, as well as the environment.
**III.- On the Fundamental Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment.** This Court in judgment No. 6322-03 developed the jurisprudential treatment that the Chamber has given to this constitutional foundation, which is summarized for the purposes of study in this amparo and is complemented with other considerations. Prior to the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber’s jurisprudence had already recognized the protection and preservation of the environment as a fundamental right (judgment number 2233-93), deriving it from the provisions of Articles 21 (right to health), 69 (constitutional requirement for the “*rational exploitation of the land*”) and 89 (protection of natural beauties), all of the Constitution, based on the following considerations:
“**V.)-** Human life is only possible in solidarity with the nature that sustains us and supports us, not only for physical nourishment, but also for psychological well-being: it constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free of contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. Thus, Article 21 of the Political Constitution states: ‘Human life is inviolable.’ It is from this constitutional principle that the right to health, to physical, mental and social well-being undeniably derives, a human right that is indissolubly linked to the right to health and to the State's obligation to protect human life.
Likewise, from a psychological and intellectual point of view, the state of mind also depends on nature, so that when the landscape becomes a useful space for rest and free time, its preservation and conservation is an obligation. This last aspect is protected in Article 89 of the Constitution, which literally says: ‘Among the cultural ends of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress.’ Protecting nature from an aesthetic point of view is not commercializing it nor transforming it into merchandise; it is educating the citizen so that they learn to appreciate the aesthetic landscape for its intrinsic value" (judgment number 3705-93, at fifteen hundred hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three).
“**XIII.-** The term ‘natural beauties’ was the one used at the time the Constitution was enacted (November 7, 1949), which today has developed into a specialty of law: environmental law, which recognizes the need to preserve the environment not only as a cultural end, but as a vital necessity for every human being. In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment surpasses the recreational or cultural interests that are also important aspects of life in society, but rather constitutes a capital requirement for life itself. [...]
[...]
Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, derived from the right to life, and through it, a right to a healthy environment. By way of example, we can cite judgments 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment, as a constitutionally protected individual right" (judgment number 6240-93, at fourteen hundred hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).
"Norm 69, the Political Charter speaks of the ‘rational exploitation of the land,’ which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, those protections and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the indicated resources, are canons of the constitutional order" (judgment number 2233-93).
From Article 69 of the Fundamental Charter, the principle of rational exploitation of the land is derived, and the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources is imposed on both private individuals and the State in its broadest sense:
“**II.** The protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally: *to public institutions*, by enforcing current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; *to private individuals*, by complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, air, and water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in their composition, content, or quality will also be detrimental to the quality of human life" (judgment number 4480-94, at ten hours forty-one minutes on August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
As this Court has already indicated, Article 50 of the Constitution was reformed through Law number 7412, of June third, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and grant citizens full standing to defend it, thereby giving express content to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which, in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from Articles 21, 69, and 89 of the Constitution:
“[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason it] does not consider it useless nor, much less, objectionable that it be recognized in an express and clearly individualized manner, [...]" (judgment number 1394-94, at fifteen hours twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
“**II.-** It is thus that the position assumed by this Court on the matter is seen confirmed in actuality by the cited constitutional reform, a reform which is nothing but a reflection of the conception that man, while he has the right to make use of the environment, also has the obligation to protect and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations" (judgment number 5668-94, at eighteen hundred hours on September twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-four).
The cited Article 50 also outlines the Social State of Law, so we can conclude that the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of the environment is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve everyone's quality of life, which makes necessary the intervention of Public Powers regarding factors that can alter its balance and hinder a person's development and unfolding in a healthy environment. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the State's activity finds its primary reason for being, in that by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals, but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor of the same, and secondly, because the State's activity is directed toward satisfying the interests of the community. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of "environment" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, i.e., soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, sanitation, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more integral manner, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects relating to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:
"Therefore, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, for nature is only part of the environment. The policy of nature protection also extends to other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It deals, then, with a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts out and thus achieve a unification of the legal set we call Environmental Law" (judgment number 5893-95, at nine hours forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, supra cited, and number 2988-99, at eleven hours fifty-seven minutes on April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).
**Protection of environmental law, a State duty.** Starting from the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, in which environmental law was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the State's obligation to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established—in a categorical manner—whereby the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is in accordance with this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a protective and governing function in this matter was derived, as provided by the constitutional norm itself under commentary, a function which environmental legislation develops. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right.
"Prima facie, to guarantee is to secure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede any activity that threatens the right, and to preserve is an action aimed at covering the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a double behavior of doing and of not doing; on one hand, it must refrain from itself threatening the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must take on the task of issuing the measures that allow compliance with constitutional requirements" (judgment number 9193-2000, at sixteen hours twenty-eight minutes on October seventeenth, two thousand).
In this line of thought, it must be considered that the regulations establish the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía) as the governing body of the sector of natural resources, energy, and mines, according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June fourth, nineteen ninety:
"The functions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall be the following:
ch) To issue, by executive decree, mandatory standards and regulations concerning the rational use and protection of natural resources, energy, and mines.
IV.- Specific Case.- In the case at hand, from the evidence in the record and from the reports rendered by the respondent authorities – which are deemed given under oath, with a timely warning of the consequences, including criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction – the existence of an environmental pollution problem is duly accredited, caused by garbage and other waste deposited by residents of the canton of Tibás, due to the deficient garbage collection service provided by the local Municipality. Now, the respondent Mayor accepts what the petitioner states and indicates that, to avoid the problem, the site was fenced with barbed wire and barrels of spikes to prevent passage and, in this way, prevent people from dumping garbage there. Likewise, he determined that a cleanup would be carried out at the site, for which reason the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred. Indeed, regardless of whether the Municipality of Tibás cleans up the referenced land, it is unacceptable that, due to the lack of municipal services, residents must use a vacant lot to dump garbage, since it evidently and repeatedly creates a source of pollution that endangers public health. It is appropriate to bear in mind that, according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, each municipality within its jurisdiction is responsible for safeguarding local interests and services to the exclusion of any other interference incompatible with the concept of local affairs, so that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.
Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:
"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge fees and prices, which shall be set taking into consideration the effective cost plus a ten percent (10%) utility for developing them. Once set, they shall take effect thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.
Users must pay for public lighting services, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green zones, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, as long as they are provided, even if they show no interest in such services." In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them, without causing injury to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Court, it is unacceptable that the protected party, as well as the other residents, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality in this case, making their actions effective, and instead being the cause of the situation that provokes the pollution. Therefore, for all the reasons set forth, the recourse is admissible with respect to the Municipality of Tibás.
V.- Regarding the actions of the Ministry of Health. On the other hand, the Chamber appreciates that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have had an active participation regarding the environmental problem generated around the issue of garbage collection and the dumps that have emerged. As observed from the evidentiary elements in the record, starting in August 2005, the first Sanitary Order was issued to said municipal entity, so that it would immediately and permanently comply with the duty to collect, haul, and dispose of the canton's waste, to eliminate the sources of environmental pollution. In the same sense, at least 25 more Sanitary Orders are observed, the most recent being from March of this year. The non-compliance with these provisions led to the filing of criminal complaints against the municipal authorities by officials of the Ministry of Health; however, the problem raised by the petitioner persists, as indicated above. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that constitutional jurisprudence has been constant in the sense that a lack of budgets (economic resources, materials, and/or qualified personnel) cannot constitute a boundary between respect for and violation of fundamental rights; that is, it cannot be a reason for the Administration not to act and take concrete actions so that, through its management, it finds a solution to the problems that individuals require of it in environmental matters. For this reason, in the various amparo actions brought before this Chamber, where the respondent institution has justified its inaction on this ground, the Chamber has compelled it to fulfill its constitutional obligations, to give effective content to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, contained in constitutional Article 50, precisely in consideration of the value of the human person and the environment itself (natural resources, biodiversity, surroundings):
"[...] this Court considers the administrative action aimed at remedying the pollution problem, which the interested parties vehemently allege, to be insufficient. The Ministry has stated, more or less expressly, that the prolongation of the problem under examination is due to purely reasons of a shortage of human and material resources. However, that is not a valid excuse. On other occasions, this Chamber has already stated that, given the hierarchy and transcendence of the human and constitutional value at stake, that is, people's health, as well as their right to a healthy environment, and ultimately, their right to breathe and live in an atmosphere within health standards, the simple excuse of a lack of material means to face problems on the part of the State is not admissible, because in these cases, the Administration has the obligation to give priority to solutions and to do, with its limited resources, what is necessary according to the legal system to carry them out promptly.-" (Judgment number 0695-96, of fifteen hours forty-two minutes of February seven, nineteen ninety-six).
In identical sense, judgments number 4504-93, of seventeen hours thirty-six minutes of September eight, nineteen ninety-three; 3705-93, of fifteen hours of May thirty, nineteen ninety-three, number 7154-94, of sixteen hours forty-eight minutes of December two, nineteen ninety-four, number 0915-95, of sixteen hours six minutes of February fifteen, number 4149-95, of nine hours thirty minutes of July twenty-eight; both of nineteen ninety-five, number 0459-96, of fifteen hours nine minutes of January twenty-two, nineteen ninety-six, and number 0726-98, of twelve hours twenty-one hours of February six, nineteen ninety-eight, may be consulted.
VI.- In accordance with the cited background, the excuse offered by the representatives of the respondent Municipality is unacceptable, since a shortage of human and material resources can never be a justification for addressing pollution problems, which indisputably affect people's health. As indicated above, in the present case, there is no doubt whatsoever about the environmental pollution generated by the garbage dump located near the Ricardo Saprissa Stadium, and the consequent danger to the health of the inhabitants of that canton, thereby violating constitutional Articles 21 and 50. It is evident that the neglect for more than two years that the respondent Municipality has shown with respect to the pollution problem raised here, as well as the repeated sanitary orders issued by the Ministry of Health, is the main reason for upholding this recourse. The foregoing, in the opinion of this Court, injures the rights of the protected parties, who as neighbors see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the Municipality of Tibás, making their actions effective. Therefore, for all the reasons set forth, the recourse must be upheld, as is hereby ordered." 6322-03 developed the jurisprudential treatment that the Chamber has given to this constitutional foundation, which is summarized for the purposes of study in this amparo and complemented with other considerations. Prior to the reform of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber's jurisprudence had already recognized the protection and preservation of the environment as a fundamental right (judgment number 2233-93), deriving it from the provisions of Articles 21 (right to health), 69 (constitutional requirement for the "<i>rational exploitation of the land</i>") and 89 (protection of natural beauties), all of the Constitution, based on the following considerations:
"<b>V.)-</b> Human life is only possible in solidarity with the nature that sustains and supports us, not only for physical sustenance, but also for psychological well-being: it constitutes the right that all citizens have to live in an environment free from contamination, which is the basis of a just and productive society. Thus, Article 21 of the Political Constitution states: 'Human life is inviolable.' It is from this constitutional principle that the right to health, to physical, mental, and social well-being undeniably emerges, a human right that is inextricably linked to the right to health and the State's obligation to protect human life.
Likewise, from a psychological and intellectual point of view, one's state of mind also depends on nature, so that when the landscape becomes a useful space for rest and leisure, its preservation and conservation is an obligation. This last aspect is protected in constitutional Article 89, which literally states: 'Among the cultural purposes of the Republic are: to protect natural beauties, to conserve and develop the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation, and to support private initiative for scientific and artistic progress.' Protecting nature from an aesthetic point of view is not commercializing it or transforming it into merchandise; it is educating the citizen to learn to appreciate the aesthetic landscape for its intrinsic value" (judgment number 3705-93, of fifteen hundred hours on July thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three).
"<b>XIII.-</b> The term 'natural beauties' was the one used at the time the Constitution was enacted (November 7, 1949), which today has developed into a legal specialty: environmental law, which recognizes the need to preserve the environment not only as a cultural purpose, but as a vital necessity for every human being. In this sense, the concept of the right to a healthy environment surpasses recreational or cultural interests, which are also important aspects of life in society, and furthermore constitutes a fundamental requirement for life itself. [...]
[...]
Thus, it is clear that there is no longer any doubt about the constitutional protection of the right to health, carried by the right to life and, through it, to a right to a healthy environment. By way of example, we can cite judgments 1580-90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; which have recognized the right to health and to a healthy environment as a constitutionally protected individual right" (judgment number 6240-93, of fourteen hundred hours on November twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-three).
"Norm 69, the Political Charter, speaks of the 'rational exploitation of the land,' which constitutes a fundamental principle. Consequently, that protection and preservation, as well as the rational exploitation of the resources indicated, are canons of the constitutional order" (judgment number 2233-93).
From Article 69 of the Fundamental Charter, the principle of rational exploitation of the land is derived, and the obligation to protect and preserve renewable natural resources is imposed on both individuals and the State in its broadest sense:
"<b>II. </b>The protection of the environment is a task that corresponds to everyone equally: <u>to public institutions</u>, enforcing the current legislation and promoting efforts that prevent or eliminate dangers to the environment; <u>to individuals</u>, complying with those provisions and collaborating in the defense of the soil, the air, and the water, since any harmful change resulting from a human act in the composition, content, or quality of these will also be detrimental to the quality of human life" (judgment number 4480-94, of ten hours and forty-one minutes on August nineteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
As this Tribunal has already indicated, Article 50 of the Constitution was reformed through Law number 7412, of June third, nineteen ninety-four, precisely with the objective of making a declaration of the State's obligation to protect the environment and granting citizens full standing to defend it, thus giving express content within it to the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in its jurisprudential development, this Chamber had recognized as derived from constitutional Articles 21, 69, and 89:
"[...], this Chamber has established that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is a fundamental right, as such already enshrined and guaranteed by the Law of the Constitution, [for which reason] it does not consider it useless, much less, objectionable that it be recognized expressly and clearly individualized, [...]" (judgment number 1394-94, of fifteen hours and twenty-one minutes on March sixteenth, nineteen ninety-four).
"<b>II.- </b>Thus, the position assumed by this Tribunal on the matter is currently confirmed by the cited constitutional reform, a reform that is nothing other than a reflection of the conception that man, while having the right to make use of the environment, also has the obligation to protect and preserve it for the enjoyment of future generations" (judgment number 5668-94, of eighteen hundred hours on September twenty-eighth, nineteen ninety-four).
The cited Article 50 also outlines the Social State of Law, so we can conclude that the Political Constitution emphasizes that the protection of the environment is an adequate mechanism to safeguard and improve the quality of life for all, which makes the intervention of the Public Powers on the factors that can alter its balance and hinder a person's development and life in a healthy environment necessary. The impact that the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has within the activity of the State finds its first reason for being in that, by definition, rights are not limited to the private sphere of individuals but also have transcendence in the very structure of the State, in its role as guarantor of the same, and, secondly, because the activity of the State is directed towards the satisfaction of the interests of the collectivity. In constitutional jurisprudence, the concept of "environment" has not been limited to the primary elements of nature, be it soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, biological diversity in flora and fauna, and the landscape; from which the environmental framework is formed, without which basic demands—such as food, energy, housing, health, and recreation—would be impossible. It is important to highlight that this term has been understood in a more integral manner, establishing a "macro-environmental" concept, by also encompassing aspects related to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others:
"Therefore, Environmental Law should not be associated only with nature, as this is only part of the environment. The policy for the protection of nature also extends to other aspects such as the protection of hunting, forests, natural parks, and natural resources. It is, then, a macro-environmental concept, so as not to leave important concepts out and thus manage to unify the legal body we call Environmental Law" (judgment number 5893-95, of nine hours and forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and in the same sense, numbers 3705-93, supra cited, and number 2988-99, of eleven hours and fifty-seven minutes on April twenty-third, nineteen ninety-nine).
**Protection of environmental law, a State duty.** Following the reform of constitutional Article 50, in which environmental law was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established—in a categorical manner—by which the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is by virtue of this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Political Constitution, that the State's responsibility to exercise a tutelary and governing function in this matter was derived, according to the provisions of the constitutional norm itself under commentary, a function that environmental legislation develops. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right.
"Prima facie, to guarantee is to secure and protect the right against some risk or need, to defend is to forbid, prohibit, and impede any activity that violates the right, and to preserve is an action directed at shielding the right in advance from possible dangers in order to make it endure for future generations. The State must assume a dual behavior of doing and not doing; on the one hand, it must refrain from itself attacking the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and on the other hand, it must undertake the task of dictating the measures that allow the constitutional requirements to be met" (judgment number 9193-2000, of sixteen hours and twenty-eight minutes on October seventeenth, two thousand).
In this vein, it must be considered that the regulations establish the Ministry of Environment and Energy as the governing body of the natural resources, energy, and mines sector, according to the provisions of Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June fourth, nineteen ninety:
"Functions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall be the following:
ch) To issue, through executive decree, binding rules and regulations relating to the rational use and protection of natural resources, energy, and mines.
**IV.- Specific Case.-** In the case before us, from the evidence in the record and the reports rendered by the respondent authorities—which are deemed given under the gravity of oath, with timely warning of the consequences, including the criminal ones, provided for in Article 44 of the Law governing this jurisdiction—the existence of an environmental contamination problem has been duly proven, caused by garbage and other waste that is deposited by the residents of the canton of Tibás, due to the deficient garbage collection service provided by the local Municipality. Now, the respondent Mayor accepts the petitioner's claims and indicates that to avoid the problem, the site was fenced off with barbed wire and barbed barrels to impede passage so that people cannot throw garbage at the site. Likewise, he determined that a cleanup would be carried out at the site. Therefore, the Chamber considers that in the present case, a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment has indeed occurred. In effect, regardless of whether the Municipality of Tibás cleans the referenced land, it is unacceptable that due to the lack of municipal services, the residents must use a vacant lot to dump garbage, since evidently and repeatedly, a source of contamination is produced that endangers public health. It is appropriate to keep in mind that according to our democratic system and as established by the Political Constitution itself, it corresponds to each municipality in its jurisdiction to look after local interests and services, to the exclusion of any other interference that is incompatible with the concept of the local, so that everything related to the collection, treatment, and disposal of garbage and solid waste belongs to the sphere of local interests and services.
Additionally, Article 74 of the current Municipal Code establishes:
"For the services it provides, the municipality shall charge rates and prices, which shall be fixed taking into consideration the effective cost plus ten percent (10%) profit to develop them. Once fixed, they shall enter into force thirty days after their publication in La Gaceta.
Users must pay for the services of public lighting, cleaning of public roads, garbage collection, maintenance of parks and green areas, municipal police service, and any other urban or non-urban municipal service established by law, to the extent they are provided, even if they do not demonstrate interest in such services." In accordance with the foregoing, municipal entities cannot shirk the duties constitutionally entrusted to them without causing harm to the fundamental rights of the petitioners. For this Tribunal, it is unacceptable that the protected party, as well as the other residents, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected by having to endure this type of situation, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the respondent Municipality in this case, making their actions effective, and instead being the cause of the situation that provokes the contamination. Therefore, by reason of all the foregoing, the remedy is admissible with respect to the Municipality of Tibás.
**V.- Regarding the performance of the Ministry of Health.** On the other hand, the Chamber appreciates that the authorities of the Ministry of Health have had an active participation regarding the environmental problems generated around the issue of garbage collection and the dumps that have emerged. According to what is observed from the evidentiary elements in the record, since August 2005, the first Sanitary Order was issued to said municipal entity, so that it would immediately and permanently comply with the duty to collect, haul, and dispose of the canton's waste, to eliminate the sources of environmental contamination. In the same sense, at least 25 more Sanitary Orders are observed, the most recent being from March of this year. The non-compliance with these provisions led to the filing of criminal complaints against the municipal authorities by officials of the Ministry of Health; however, the problem raised by the petitioner persists, as previously indicated.
In this regard, it is pertinent to note that constitutional jurisprudence has been consistent in the sense that the lack of resources (economic resources, materials, and/or qualified personnel) cannot constitute a limit between respect for and violation of fundamental rights, that is, it cannot be a reason for the Administration not to act and take concrete actions so that, through its management, it finds a solution to the problems that individuals require of it in environmental matters; for which reason, in the various amparo actions brought before this Chamber, in which the respondent institution has justified its inaction on this ground, the Chamber has compelled it to fulfill its constitutional obligations, to give effective content to the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, contained in Article 50 of the Constitution, precisely in consideration of the value of the human person and the environment as such (natural resources, biodiversity, surroundings):
"[...] this Tribunal considers the administrative action aimed at remedying the pollution problem, which the interested parties vehemently allege, to be insufficient. The Ministry has stated more or less expressly that the prolongation of the problem under examination is due to purely reasons of scarcity of human and material resources. However, **that is not a valid excuse.** On other occasions, this Chamber has already said that given the hierarchy and transcendence of the human and constitutional value at stake; that is, people's health, as well as their right to a healthy environment, and ultimately, their right to breathe and live in an atmosphere within health standards; **the simple excuse of a lack of material means to confront the problems on the part of the State is not admissible, because** [in] **these cases the Administration has the obligation to give priority to the solutions and to carry out with its limited resources, whatever is necessary according to the legal system to execute them promptly.-**" (Judgment number 0695-96, of fifteen hours forty-two minutes of February seventh, nineteen ninety-six).
In the identical sense, one may consult judgments number 4504-93, of seventeen hours thirty-six minutes of September eighth, nineteen ninety-three; 3705-93, of fifteen hours of May thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three, number 7154-94, of sixteen hours forty-eight minutes of December second, nineteen ninety-four, number 0915-95, of sixteen hours six minutes of February fifteenth, number 4149-95, of nine hours thirty minutes of July twenty-eighth; both of nineteen ninety-five, number 0459-96, of fifteen hours nine minutes of January twenty-second, nineteen ninety-six, and number 0726-98, of twelve hours twenty-one hours of February sixth, nineteen ninety-eight.
**VI.-** In accordance with the cited background, the excuse offered by the representatives of the respondent Municipality is unacceptable, since scarcity of human and material resources can never be a justification for addressing pollution problems, which indisputably affect people's health. As indicated previously, in the present case there is no doubt whatsoever about the environmental pollution generated by the garbage dump located near the Ricardo Saprissa Stadium, and the consequent danger to the health of the inhabitants of that canton, thus violating Articles 21 and 50 of the Constitution. It is evident that the neglect for more than two years, which the appellant Municipality has shown with respect to the pollution problem raised here, as well as to the repeated sanitary orders issued by the Ministry of Health, is the main reason for granting this remedy. The foregoing, in the opinion of this Tribunal, injures the rights of the amparo petitioners who, as neighbors, see their health and their right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment affected, by having to endure these types of situations, without the institutions responsible for ensuring this, such as the Municipality of Tibás, making their actions effective, for which reason, based on all the foregoing, the remedy must be granted, as is hereby ordered.
**Por tanto:** The remedy is declared WITH MERITS for violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Consequently, Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or whoever exercises that position in his place, is ordered to immediately resolve the problem caused by the garbage deposited in a vacant lot in that canton. The foregoing, under the warning that, based on the provisions of Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo remedy, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. The Municipality of Tibás is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the administrative litigation proceeding. Regarding the Ministry of Health, the remedy is declared WITHOUT MERITS. **LET this resolution be NOTIFIED to** Jorge Salas Bonilla, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Tibás, or to whoever exercises that position in his place, **<u>in PERSON</u>. Let it be communicated.-** Luis Fernando Solano C.
Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C. Federico Sosto L.
Jorge Araya G. Alexander Godínez V.
* 070112840007CO * * 070112840007CO * Res. Nº 2007018044 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas y cuarenta y uno minutos del catorce de diciembre del dos mil siete.
Recurso de amparo, interpuesto por Max Fernández López, mayor, portador de la cédula de identidad número 1-754-721, contra el Ministerio de Salud y la Municipalidad de San Juan de Tibás.
Resultando:
1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:05 horas del 21 de agosto del 2007, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra el Ministerio de Salud y la Municipalidad de San Juan de Tibás y manifiesta que debajo del puente que pasa sobre el Río Virilla, a unos cuatrocientos metros del Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, existe una gran cantidad de desechos de todo tipo, los que van a dar directamente al río, con lo que se aumenta su contaminación. A lo que se agrega la proliferación de tugurios debajo del puente, en donde se ha cercado el área y se ha convertido en una suerte de botadero privado de basura. Considera que la omisión o inercia de las autoridades recurridas en resolver tal situación pone en riesgo la salud de los habitantes del cantón, así como el medio ambiente y las bellezas naturales o escénicas, en infracción de los artículos 21, 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política.
2.- Informa bajo juramento María Luisa Ávila Agüero, en su condición de Ministra de Salud (folio 12 del expediente), que el presente asunto ha sido atendido por la Dirección Región Central Sur, y la Dirección del Área Rectora de Salud de Tibás, por lo que se referirá a las actuaciones de dichas autoridades de salud. Indica que de acuerdo al informe de la Dra. Priscilla Umaña Rojas, Directora del Área Rectora de Salud de Tibás, se desprende que se han girado las órdenes sanitarias respectivas, tanto al Alcalde en Ejercicio como a su Concejo Municipal, así como las denuncias pertinentes antes los Tribunales de Justicia (folio 13 del expediente). En la orden sanitaria No. DARST 07-04-07 giradas al Alcalde Municipal y a la Presidenta del Concejo Municipal de Tibás, se les ordenó lo siguiente: “…efectuar en forma sanitaria la recolección, acarreo, y disposición final de los desechos del cantón, de manera que se eliminen los focos de contaminación ambiental que se están formando. Esta orden incluye también realizar la limpieza, y acarreo de los desechos que se han acumulado en caños, tragantes, lotes baldíos, ríos y quebradas situadas en diferentes puntos del Cantón. Así como, no depositar basura en el plantel municipal… El presente ordenamiento debe cumplirse en forma inmediata y permanente…” Alega que ante el incumplimiento de las ordenes sanitarias No. DARST-25-03-07 y DARST-24- 03-07, se presentó la denuncia ante los Tribunales de Justicia. Indica que en cuanto a las viviendas que se encuentran en el lugar, se declararon inhabitables y se ordenó su desalojo, sin embargo, el plazo está vigente. Una vez desalojadas, se coordinará con la Municipalidad su demolición. Solicita se desestime el recurso planteado.
3.- Informa bajo fe de juramento Jorge Salas Bonilla, en su condición de Alcalde Municipal de Tibás (folio 102 del expediente), que el departamento legal junto con el departamento de catastro, procedieron a realizar una inspección del lugar, y realizaron una inspección en el sitio. Alega que la Municipalidad de Tibás, para evitar el problema, cercó el lugar con alambre de púa y colocó barriles para que no puedan pasar particulares a botar basura en el sitio. Indica que se observó basura en el lugar y se determinó que se realizará una limpieza. Asimismo ser pudo observar que en un lote de la par se tira basura, dicho lote posee un candado en el portón. Informa que se procedió a hablar con los vecinos y se les pidió que impidieran se dejara de botar basura en el sitio, ya que es prohibido.
4.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.
Redacta el Magistrado Sosto López; y,
Considerando:
I.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
II.- Objeto del recurso. El recurrente afirma que cerca del Estadio Ricardo Saprissa, existe una gran cantidad de desechos que han convertido el área en un botadero de basura privado. Considera que la omisión o inercia de las autoridades recurridas en resolver la situación, pone en riesgo la salud de los habitantes del Cantón, así como el ambiente.
III.- Sobre el Derecho Fundamental a un Ambiente Sano y Ecológicamente Equilibrado. Este Tribunal en la sentencia No. 6322-03 desarrolló el tratamiento jurisprudencial que le ha dado la Sala a este fundamento constitucional, el cual se resume para los efectos de estudio en este amparo y se complementa con otras consideraciones. De previo a la reforma del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, la jurisprudencia de la Sala ya había reconocido la protección y preservación del medio ambiente como un derecho fundamental (sentencia número 2233-93), al derivarlo de lo dispuesto en los artículos 21 (derecho a la salud), 69 (exigencia constitucional a la "explotación racional de la tierra") y 89 (protección de las bellezas naturales), todos de la Constitución, con fundamento en las siguientes consideraciones:
"V.)- La vida humana sólo es posible en solidaridad con la naturaleza que nos sustenta y nos sostiene, no sólo para alimento físico, sino también como bienestar psíquico: constituye el derecho que todos los ciudadanos tenemos de vivir en un ambiente libre de contaminación, que es la base de una sociedad justa y productiva. Es así como el artículo 21 de la Constitución Política señala: «La vida humana es inviolable.» Es de este principio constitucional de donde innegablemente se desprende el derecho a la salud, al bienestar físico, mental y social, derecho humano que se encuentra indisolublemente ligado al derecho de la salud y a la obligación del Estado de proteger de la vida humana.
Asimismo, desde el punto de vista psíquico e intelectual, el estado de ánimo depende también de la naturaleza, por lo que también al convertirse el paisaje en un espacio útil de descanso y tiempo libre es obligación su preservación y conservación. Aspecto este último que está protegido en el artículo 89 constitucional, el cual literalmente dice: «Entre los fines culturales de la República están: proteger las bellezas naturales, conservar y desarrollar el patrimonio histórico y artístico de la Nación, y apoyar la iniciativa privada para el progreso científico y artístico». Proteger la naturaleza desde el punto de vista estético no es comercializarla ni transformarla en mercancía, es educar al ciudadano para que aprenda a apreciar el paisaje estético por su valor intrínseco" (sentencia número 3705-93, de las quince horas del treinta de julio de mil novecientos noventa y tres).
"XIII.- El término «bellezas naturales» era el empleado al momento de promulgarse la Constitución (7 de noviembre de 1949) que hoy se ha desarrollado como una especialidad del derecho: el derecho ambiental que reconoce la necesidad de preservar el entorno no como un fin cultural únicamente, sino como una necesidad vital de todo ser humano. En este sentido, el concepto de derecho al ambiente sano, supera los intereses recreativos o culturales que también son aspectos importantes de la vida en sociedad, sino que además constituye un requisito capital para la vida misma. [...]
[...]
De manera que es claro que ya no existe duda sobre la protección constitucional del derecho a la salud jalonado del derecho a la vida y por allí de un derecho al ambiente sano. A manera de ejemplo podemos citar las sentencias 1580- 90; 1833-91, 2362-91; 2728-91; 2233-93; 4894-93; que han reconocido el derecho a la salud y a un ambiente sano, como un derecho individual constitucionalmente protegido" (sentencia número 6240-93, de las catorce horas del veintiséis de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres).
"La norma 69, la Carta Política habla de la «explotación racional de la tierra» lo que constituye un principio fundamental. En consecuencia, son cánones del orden constitucional, aquella protección y preservación, así como la explotación racional de los recursos que se han indicado" (sentencia número 2233-93).
Del artículo 69 de la Carta Fundamental se deriva el principio de explotación racional de la tierra, y se impone, tanto a los particulares como al Estado en su acepción más amplia, la obligación de proteger y preservar los recursos naturales renovables:
"II. La protección del medio ambiente es una tarea que corresponde a todos por igual: a las instituciones públicas, haciendo respetar la legislación vigente y promoviendo esfuerzos que prevengan o eliminen peligros para el medio ambiente; a los particulares, acatando aquellas disposiciones y colaborando en la defensa del suelo, el aire y el agua, pues todo cambio nocivo resultante de un acto humano en la composición, contenido o calidad de éstos resultará también perjudicial para la calidad de vida del humano" (sentencia número 4480-94, de las diez horas cuarenta y un minutos del diecinueve de agosto de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).
Como ya ha indicado este Tribunal, el artículo 50 de la Constitución fue reformado mediante Ley número 7412, de tres de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, precisamente con el objetivo de hacer una declaratoria de la obligación del Estado de proteger el ambiente y otorgar a los ciudadanos plena acción para defenderlo, dando así contenido expreso en ella al derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que en su desarrollo jurisprudencial, esta Sala había reconocido como derivado de los artículos 21, 69 y 89 constitucionales:
"[...], esta Sala ha establecido que el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado es un derecho fundamental, como tal ya consagrado y garantizado por el Derecho de la Constitución, [motivo por el que] no considera inútil ni, mucho menos, objetable que se reconozca de manera expresa y claramente individualizado, [...]" (sentencia número 1394-94, de las quince horas veintiún minutos del dieciséis de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).
"II.- Se tiene entonces que la posición asumida por este Tribunal al respecto, se ve confirmada en la actualidad por la reforma constitucional de cita, reforma esta que no es sino reflejo de la concepción de que el hombre si bien tiene derecho a hacer uso del medio ambiente, tiene también la obligación de protegerlo y preservarlo para el disfrute de generaciones futuras" (sentencia número 5668-94, de las dieciocho horas del veintiocho de septiembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro).
El artículo 50 citado, también perfila el Estado Social de Derecho, por lo que podemos concluir que la Constitución Política enfatiza que la protección del ambiente es un mecanismo adecuado para tutelar y mejorar la calidad de vida de todos, lo que hace necesaria la intervención de los Poderes Públicos sobre los factores que pueden alterar su equilibrio y obstaculizar que la persona se desarrolle y desenvuelva en un ambiente sano. La incidencia que tiene el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado dentro de la actividad del Estado, encuentra su primera razón de ser, en que por definición, los derechos no se limitan a la esfera privada de los individuos, sino que tienen asimismo trascendencia en la propia estructura del Estado, en su papel de garante de los mismos y, en segundo término, porque la actividad del Estado se dirige hacia la satisfacción de los intereses de la colectividad. En la jurisprudencia constitucional el concepto de "ambiente", no ha sido limitado a los elementos primarios de la naturaleza, sea el suelo, el aire, el agua, los recursos marinos y costeros, los minerales, los bosques, la diversidad biológica en la flora y fauna, y el paisaje; a partir de los cuales se conforma el marco ambiental sin el cual las demandas básicas -como la alimentación, energía, vivienda, sanidad y recreación- serían imposibles. Es importante resaltar que este término se ha entendido de una manera más integral, estableciéndose un concepto "macro-ambiental", al comprender también aspectos referentes a la economía, a la generación de divisas a través del turismo, la explotación agrícola y otros:
"Por lo anterior, el Derecho Ambiental no debe asociarse sólo con la naturaleza, pues ésta es únicamente parte del ambiente. La política de protección a la naturaleza se vierte también sobre otros aspectos como la protección de la caza, de los bosques, de los parques naturales y de los recursos naturales. Se trata, entonces, de un concepto macro-ambiental, para no dejar conceptos importantes por fuera y así lograr unificar el conjunto jurídico que denominamos Derecho Ambiental" (sentencia número 5893-95, de las nueve horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del veintisiete de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y cinco; y en igual sentido, las número 3705-93, supra citada, y número 2988-99, de las once horas cincuenta y siete minutos del veintitrés de abril de mil novecientos noventa y nueve).
Tutela del derecho ambiental, un deber Estatal. A partir de la reforma del artículo 50 constitucional, en la cual se consagró expresamente el derecho ambiental como un derecho fundamental, se estableció también -en forma terminante- la obligación del Estado de garantizar, defender y tutelar este derecho, con lo cual, el Estado se constituye en el garante en la protección y tutela del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. Es a tenor de esta disposición, en relación con los artículos 20, 69 y 89 de la Constitución Política, que se derivó la responsabilidad del Estado de ejercer una función tutelar y rectora en esta materia, según lo dispone la propia norma constitucional en comentario, función que desarrolla la legislación ambiental. Es así como el mandato constitucional establece el deber para el Estado de garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho.
"Prima facie garantizar es asegurar y proteger el derecho contra algún riesgo o necesidad, defender es vedar, prohibir e impedir toda actividad que atente contra el derecho, y preservar es una acción dirigida a poner a cubierto anticipadamente el derecho de posibles peligros a efectos de hacerlo perdurar para futuras generaciones. El Estado debe asumir un doble comportamiento de hacer y de no hacer; por un lado debe abstenerse de atentar él mismo contra el derecho a contar con un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y por otro lado, debe asumir la tarea de dictar las medidas que permitan cumplir con los requerimientos constitucionales" (sentencia número 9193-2000, de las dieciséis horas veintiocho minutos del diecisiete de octubre del dos mil).
En este orden de ideas, debe considerarse que la normativa establece al Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía como el órgano rector del sector de los recursos naturales, energía y minas, según lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 de la Ley Orgánica de este ministerio, número 7152, de cuatro de junio de mil novecientos noventa:
"Serán funciones del Ministerio del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, las siguientes:
ch) Dictar, mediante decreto ejecutivo, normas y regulaciones, con carácter obligatorio, relativas al uso racional y a la protección de los recursos naturales, la energía y las minas.
IV.- Caso concreto.- En el caso que nos ocupa, de la prueba que obra en autos, y de los informes rendidos por las autoridades recurridas –que se tienen dados bajo la gravedad de juramento, con oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias incluso penales previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley que rige esta jurisdicción-, se tiene debidamente acreditada la existencia de un problema de contaminación ambiental, originado por la basura y otros desechos que son depositados por los vecinos del cantón de Tibás, debido al deficiente servicio de recolección de basura que brinda la Municipalidad local. Ahora bien, el Alcalde recurrido acepta lo señalado por el recurrente, e indica que para evitar el problema se cercó el lugar con alambre de púa y barriles de púa, para impedir el paso y que de este modo las personas no puedan tirar basura en el sitio. Asimismo, determinó que se realizará una limpieza en el sitio, por lo que la Sala estima que en el presente caso, sí se ha producido una violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En efecto, independientemente de que la Municipalidad de Tibás dé limpieza al terreno referido, resulta inaceptable que debido a la falta de servicios municipales, los vecinos deban utilizar un lote baldío para tirar la basura, ya que evidentemente y de forma reiterada se produce un foco de contaminación que pone en peligro la salud pública. Resulta oportuno tener muy presente que de acuerdo con nuestro sistema democrático y según lo establece la propia Constitución Política, corresponde a cada municipalidad en su jurisdicción velar por los intereses y servicios locales con exclusión de toda otra interferencia que sea incompatible con el concepto de lo local, de manera que todo lo relativo a la recolección, tratamiento y disposición de las basuras y desechos sólidos pertenece a la esfera de los intereses y servicios locales.
Adicionalmente, el artículo 74 del vigente Código Municipal establece:
"Por los servicios que preste, la municipalidad cobrará tasas y precios, que se fijarán tomando en consideración el costo efectivo más un diez por ciento (10%) de utilidad para desarrollarlos. Una vez fijados, entrarán en vigencia treinta días después de su publicación en La Gaceta.
Los usuarios deberán pagar por los servicios de alumbrado público, limpieza de vías públicas, recolección de basuras, mantenimiento de parques y zonas verdes, servicio de policía municipal y cualquier otro servicio municipal urbano o no urbano que se establezcan por ley, en el tanto se presten, aunque ellos no demuestren interés en tales servicios.
De conformidad con lo anterior, las entidades municipales no pueden rehuir los deberes que constitucionalmente les han sido encargados, sin causar una lesión a los derechos fundamentales de los recurrentes. Para este Tribunal resulta inaceptable que el amparado, así como los demás vecinos, vean afectada su salud y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, por tener que soportar este tipo de situaciones, sin que las instituciones responsables para velar por ello, como lo es la Municipalidad recurrida en este caso, haga efectivas sus actuaciones, y más bien sea el causante de la situación que provoca la contaminación, por lo que en razón de todo lo expuesto, el recurso resulta procedente en cuanto a la Municipalidad de Tibás.
V.- Sobre la actuación del Ministerio de Salud. Por otra parte, la Sala aprecia que las autoridades del Ministerio de Salud han tenido una participación activa en cuanto a la problemática ambiental generada en torno a tema de la recolección de basura, y los botaderos que han surgido. Según se observa de los elementos probatorios que obran en autos, desde agosto de 2005 se giró la primera Orden Sanitaria a dicho ente municipal, para que de forma inmediata y permanente cumpliese con el deber de recolectar, acarrear y disponer de los desechos del cantón, para eliminar los focos de contaminación ambiental. En igual sentido, se observan al menos 25 Ordenes Sanitarias más, siendo la más reciente de marzo de este año. El incumplimiento de estas disposiciones derivó en la interposición de denuncias penales contra las autoridades municipales por parte de funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, sin embargo, el problema planteado por el recurrente persiste, según se indicó anteriormente. Al respecto, resulta pertinente señalar que la jurisprudencia constitucional ha sido constante en el sentido de que la falta de presupuestos (recursos económicos, materiales y/o personal calificado) no puede constituirse en un límite entre el respeto y la violación de los derechos fundamentales, es decir, no puede ser motivo para que la Administración no actúe y tome acciones concretas a fin de que a través de su gestión encuentre solución a los problemas que los particulares les requieran en materia ambiental; motivo por el cual, en las diversas acciones de amparo que se promueven ante esta Sala, en que la institución requerida se ha justificado su inacción en esta causal, la Sala le ha compelido al cumplimiento de sus obligaciones constitucionales, para darle efectivo contenido al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, contenido en el artículo 50 constitucional, precisamente en atención al valor de la persona humana y al ambiente como tal (recursos naturales, biodiversidad, entorno):
"[...] este Tribunal estima como insuficiente la actuación administrativa tendente a remediar el problema de la contaminación, que con vehemencia acusan las interesadas. El Ministerio ha dicho en forma más o menos expresa, que la prolongación del problema que se examina, se debe a razones puramente de escasez de recursos humanos y materiales. Sin embargo, esa no es excusa válida. Ya en otras ocasiones esta Sala ha dicho que dada la jerarquía y trascendencia del valor humano y constitucional en juego; sea, la salud de las personas, así como su derecho a un ambiente sano, y en último caso, a su derecho de respirar y vivir en una atmósfera dentro de las normas de salud; la simple excusa de falta de medios materiales para enfrentar los problemas por parte del Estado, no es admisible, porque [en] estos casos la Administración tiene la obligación de dar prioridad a las soluciones y realizar con sus recursos limitados, lo que conforme al ordenamiento jurídico sea necesario para llevarlas a cabo con prontitud.-" (Sentencia número 0695-96, de las quince horas cuarenta y dos minutos del siete de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y seis).
En idéntico sentido, se pueden consultar las sentencias número 4504-93, de las diecisiete horas treinta y seis minutos del ocho de septiembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres; 3705-93, de las quince horas del treinta de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y tres, número 7154-94, de las dieciséis horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del dos de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, número 0915-95, de las dieciséis horas seis minutos del quince de febrero, número 4149- 95, de las nueve horas treinta minutos del veintiocho de julio; ambas de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, número 0459-96, de las quince horas nueve minutos del veintidós de enero de mil novecientos noventa y seis, y número 0726-98, de las doce horas veintiún horas del seis de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y ocho.
VI.- De conformidad con los antecedentes de cita, la excusa ofrecida por los representantes de la Municipalidad accionada resulta inaceptable, toda vez que de escasez de recursos humanos y materiales nunca podrá ser una justificación para atender problemas de contaminación, que indiscutiblemente inciden en la salud de las personas. Según se indicó anteriormente, en el presente caso no existe duda alguna de la contaminación ambiental que genera el vertedero de basura ubicado en las cercanías del Estado Ricardo Saprissa, y el consecuente peligro para la salud de los habitantes de ese cantón, lesionándose de esta forma los artículos 21 y 50 constitucionales. Resulta evidente que la desatención por más de dos años, que la Municipalidad recurrida ha tenido con respecto al problema de contaminación aquí planteado, así como a las reiteradas órdenes sanitarias emitidas por el Ministerio de Salud, es el principal motivo para estimar el presente recurso. Lo anterior, a criterio de este Tribunal lesiona los derechos de los amparados que como vecinos, ven afectada su salud y su derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, por tener que soportar este tipo de situaciones, sin que las instituciones responsables para velar por ello, como lo es la Municipalidad de Tibás haga efectivas sus actuaciones, por lo que en razón de todo lo expuesto, el recurso debe ser estimado, como en efecto se dispone.
Por tanto:
Se declara CON LUGAR el recurso por violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. En consecuencia, se ordena a Jorge Salas Bonilla, en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Tibás, o a quien en su lugar ejerzan ese cargo, resolver de inmediato el problema ocasionado por la basura que se deposita en un lote baldío de ese cantón. Lo anterior, bajo el apercibimiento de que, con base en lo establecido en el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años, o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada en un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena a la Municipalidad de Tibás al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. En cuanto al Ministerio de Salud se declara SIN LUGAR el recurso. NOTIFIQUESE esta resolución a Jorge Salas Bonilla, en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Tibás, o a quien en su lugar ejerzan ese cargo, en forma PERSONAL. Comuníquese.- Luis Fernando Solano C.
Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.
Fernando Cruz C. Federico Sosto L.
Jorge Araya G. Alexander Godínez V.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.