Municipal omission to repair road and prevent environmental risksOmisión municipal en reparación de vía y prevención de riesgos ambientales

Res. No. 2010011928 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eleven hours and eight minutes on the ninth of July two thousand ten.

Amparo action filed by MARVIN MORA MARÍN, of legal age, married, resident of Aserrí, holder of identity card number 1-164-030, against the MUNICIPALITY OF ASERRÍ.

Resultando

1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at nine hours thirty-five minutes on May 17, 2010, the petitioner files an amparo action alleging violation of his fundamental rights. He states that upon recommendation of the Department of Prevention and Mitigation of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, he requested the Municipality of Aserrí to repair and pave the end of Calle Los Solano, without any solution to date. He indicates that on April 23, 2010, he submitted a note to the Mayor, who promised to repair the street, as at the end of the road live 7 families, among them elderly persons, to whom the law grants special rights that are not being fulfilled. He states that through an inspection carried out on July 31, 2009, a threat analysis was also presented before the National Emergency Commission, in which they recommend a series of protective measures, a copy of which is attached. He maintains that the dead-end street has a length of approximately 250 meters, with variable vertical displacements, composed of river stones, dust, and earth; furthermore, that there is no municipal stormwater sewer system for the correct channeling of waters. He accuses that in winter, passage is impassable due to landslides and soil erosion, so severe that they are on the verge of losing the road, and out of necessity, they have had to fill the sinkholes to support the landslide using sacks filled with earth. The concern is that access for private vehicles, ambulances, and taxis is impossible due to the condition of the street, and sometimes it has been necessary to go out to meet the ambulances, risking people's health. He requests that the action be granted.

2.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at eleven hours fifty-three minutes on June 8, 2010 (folio 21), Mario Morales Guzmán and Leticia Castro Moreno, Municipal Mayor and President of the Municipal Council, respectively, both of the Municipality of Aserrí, report under oath, stating that indeed the assistant to the Municipal Mayor received the petitioner's note in his office on April 23, 2010. They admit not having responded to the petitioner in writing; however, the assistant related that he personally coordinated with the Head of the Technical Road Management Unit to resolve the situation complained of regarding the culverts, informing him verbally that after conducting the respective technical studies, work would be carried out only in some sectors of Calle Los Solano, since in other places such work was not viable because the engineer determined that if work with heavy municipal machinery were carried out, there was no certainty that it would be possible to guarantee the stability of the land or the dwellings, making it riskier to carry out excavations, and that the most appropriate approach was to solve the main problem of the culverts at the water crossings of greatest abundance and danger. Furthermore, given that the properties located alongside the road present a pronounced slope, it would be irresponsible for the Municipality to carry out work without having a technical study by a geotechnical professional from the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, in which an analysis is conducted on how to stabilize the slope and the corresponding technical design to guarantee such stability, as well as possible mitigation measures to be implemented that would allow guaranteeing whether or not it is feasible to implement any retaining works. He argues that in this case, it is the owners of the affected properties who must bear the costs of such technical studies, since they affect their private properties, in addition to the fact that the economic costs are high and the Municipality lacks budgetary resources. They state that report number DPM-INF-1234-2009 issued by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response was never provided to the Municipality. They request that the action be dismissed.

3.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at nine hours forty-three minutes on June 28, 2010 (folio 29), the petitioner refers to the report submitted by the authorities of the Municipality of Aserrí. He reiterates that the report from the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response is already available, and that at the Commission he was told that this report had been sent by fax to the Municipality. He adds that the material purchased by the Corporation remains abandoned, with no solution to the problem in sight.

4.- In the proceedings followed, the legal prescriptions have been observed.

Magistrate Guerrero Portilla writes; and,

Considerando

I.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated:

1. That in August 2009, the Department of Prevention and Mitigation of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response issued Technical Report number DPM-INF-1234-2009, on Landslide Risk Assessment in the San Gabriel district of the canton of Aserrí, province of San José, indicating that it is the responsibility of the interested parties to process it before the corresponding institutions (folio 4).

2. That through purchase order number 17935, of March 16, 2010, the Municipality of Aserrí certifies the purchase of materials for works on Calle Los Solano, district of San Gabriel (folio 25).

3. That through a note received by the Assistant to the Municipal Mayor of Aserrí on April 23, 2010, the petitioner requests municipal intervention for a solution regarding Calle Los Solano (folio 12).

4. That it is the opinion of the Municipal Engineer of Aserrí that there is a lack of certainty as to whether carrying out work with heavy machinery compromises the stability of the land and dwellings on Calle Los Solano, and that a technical study is required from the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (folio 22).

II.- The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Article 50 of the Political Constitution establishes as fundamental the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Prior to the amendment of this article fifty to expressly consider matters relating to the environment, this Chamber, through its jurisprudential work, had already derived this right from the constitutional provisions of Articles 21 –right to life and health–, 69 –rational exploitation of the land–, and 89 –protection of natural beauties–. The Chamber has opted for an open or macro consideration of the concept of environment and the protection provided to it, transcending the basic or primary protection of soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, flora and fauna diversity, and landscape, to also consider elements referring to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others. Thus, through judgment number 5893-095, at nine hours forty-eight minutes on October 27, 1993, the Chamber established that:

"[E]nvironmental Law should not be associated only with nature, as nature 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 outside and thus manage to unify the legal set we call Environmental Law." III.- The duty of the State in the guardianship of the environment. Following the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, in which the environmental right was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established –categorically–, whereby the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and guardianship 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 role in this matter was derived, as provided by the constitutional norm under discussion itself, a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. 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, as provided in Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June 4, 1990. This governing function in environmental matters, in the opinion of the Chamber, includes not only the establishment of appropriate regulations for the use of forest resources and natural resources, as also provided by Article 56 of the Organic Environmental Law, but also confers upon it the important function of exercising stewardship in environmental matters, consisting of maintaining a preponderant role in this area. In this sense, the control and oversight of environmental matters and activities constitute an essential function of the State as provided in Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as the third paragraph states, regarding what is relevant: "The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"; which is consistent with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Branches of Government from delegating the exercise of functions that are their own, especially when they are essential. Thus, regarding environmental protection, the functions of stewardship, control, and oversight of environmental matters correspond to the State, under the charge of the various administrative dependencies.

IV.- The prevention of environmental risk. Establishing this obligation of the State at the constitutional level, it is important to appreciate how, at the level of international instruments for the protection of human rights, specific obligations that must be respected are also established. In environmental matters, the duty of prevention that must exist in this area has been defined; the Rio Declaration, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, provides that:

"Principle 15.- In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Prevention aims to anticipate adverse effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and adopt all precautionary measures to avoid or contain the possible impact on the environment or people's health. Thus, where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or doubt regarding it–, a precautionary measure must be adopted, including postponing the activity in question. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, post-hoc coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has occurred, the biological and socially harmful consequences may be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment. As indicated by the cited international instrument and Article 50 of the Constitution itself, it is the State that is called upon to carry out this prevention work, and this Chamber has so recognized by stating, through judgment number 2001-6503, of July 6, 2001, that:

"The third paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution states very clearly that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; which implies affirming that public entities are not only obliged to enforce environmental legislation –on private parties and other public entities–, but also, above all, that they must adjust their actions to the dictates of those tutelary normative bodies. State institutions are the first called upon to comply with tutelary environmental legislation, and there is no justification whatsoever for exempting them from compliance with environmental requirements, such as, for example, the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) required by the Organic Environmental Law for activities undertaken by public entities that, by their nature, may alter or destroy the environment." (emphasis added) V.- The coordination of public institutions in the comprehensive protection of the environment. There is an obligation for the State –as a whole– to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of pollution, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, and excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of citizens. In this task, public institution is understood to mean both the Central Administration –Ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which, by reason of the subject matter, have broad participation and responsibility concerning the conservation and preservation of the environment; which act, most of the time, through their dependencies specialized in the matter, such as, for example, the General Directorate of Wildlife, the Forestry Directorate, and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA)–, as well as decentralized institutions such as the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, SENARA, the Costa Rican Tourism Institute, or the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers. Likewise, in this task, municipalities have great responsibility concerning their territorial jurisdiction. Due to the diversity of actors that may intervene, one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management. Therefore, in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it becomes necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships between the various dependencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This Chamber has already referred to the principle of coordination between public dependencies and municipalities in achieving common goals, by stating through judgment number 5445-99, at fourteen hours and thirty minutes on July 14, 1999, that:

"[C]oordination is the ordering of relations between these various independent activities, which addresses this concurrence on the same object or entity, to make it useful to a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the agent subjects. As there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, it is not possible to impose certain behaviors on them, giving rise to the indispensable inter-institutional 'concert', in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one fulfills a role in view of a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relations of the municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the latter (through the 'administrative tutelage' of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control that corresponds to it, with powers of general oversight over the entire sector)." On the other hand, omissions to the duty to protect the environment and comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional relevance, because as a consequence of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage to the environment and natural resources may be caused, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the Administration's actions; such as the authorization of regulatory plans, or constructions without the approval of the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), or the lack of control and oversight in the execution of management plans for protected areas by the General Directorate of Wildlife of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, allowing the operation of companies without health permits regarding wastewater treatment –Aqueducts and Sewers and Ministry of Health–, or not verifying noise controls in bars, restaurants, or party centers –municipalities and Ministry of Health–.

VI.- The role of municipalities in environmental matters. In accordance with the foregoing, municipalities, as an integral part of the whole that is the State, have within the scope of their competencies and obligations a high degree of responsibility in environmental matters, whether through the direct approval of permits or licenses for which prior compliance with requirements that accredit proper environmental management before other instances of public power is required, or through regular inspections and channeling of risk situations to instances with greater intervention competence. It is already established that local governments are subject to the obligation of coordination and prevention in environmental matters within the scope of their territorial jurisdiction, from which it follows that municipalities are certainly important actors in the task of environmental protection. The power of local governments to adopt their own territorial planning through regulatory plans is undoubted; but the existence of these –which for the most part lack planning complements from the perspective of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment– does not render the tutelary environmental legislation inapplicable. On the contrary, this Chamber considers that it must be a fundamental requirement, which does not violate the constitutional principle of municipal autonomy, that every regulatory plan must be considered, prior to being approved and developed, with an examination of the environmental impact from the perspective provided by Article 50 of the Constitution, so that land-use planning and its various regimes are compatible with the scope of the superior norm, especially valuing that this provision establishes the right of all inhabitants to obtain an environmental response from all public authorities, and this undoubtedly includes municipalities, which are not exempt from the application of the constitutional norm and its implementing legislation. It is evident that in this case, the national and local interest are fully coincident, and therefore local governments can and must require compliance with environmental requirements in their territory, and in case of conflict with the governing authorities in environmental matters, they may submit disputes to the jurisdictional controller appropriate to the nature of the infraction. It is for the foregoing reasons that tutelary environmental norms are not incompatible, from a constitutional point of view, with the powers and competencies of municipalities, which are obliged, by imperative of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, to exert themselves in the protection of the environment –see, in this sense, judgment number 2006-7994, at eight hours fifty-seven minutes on June 2, 2006–.

VII.- The legal nature and competencies of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. The National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law defines the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response as a body of maximum deconcentration attached to the Presidency of the Republic, establishing itself as the governing entity for risk prevention and preparedness for emergency response, granting it the ordinary and extraordinary competencies established in Articles 14 and 15 of the referenced law. On this matter, the Chamber has defined that the prevention of dangerous situations for people and property, as well as emergency response, are aspects that directly impact the full enjoyment of values of constitutional rank, such as the fundamental rights to life, health, and property. The intention is that matters of this relevance be coordinated through technical criteria by specialized institutions created for this purpose, in such a way that in matters of risk prevention and emergency response, the Commission is the body to which the law grants such functions in a centralized manner. Therefore, the issuance of binding resolutions does not harm the administrative autonomy of decentralized institutions or other entities of the public sector, imposing that such resolutions obey the imperative need to protect people and their property from situations of public calamity, a duty imposed not by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, but by the Political Constitution itself –see, in this sense, and on the constitutionality of the Commission's competencies, judgment of this Chamber number 2005-8675, at nine hours fifty-six minutes on July first, 2005–. Beyond the general ordinary competencies to issue binding resolutions for public sector institutions in matters of risk prevention, and to carry out surveillance and observation actions regarding risk situations, for the specific case, the provision in subsection h) of Article 14 of the law is particularly relevant, by defining that the Commission is responsible for providing advisory services to Municipalities regarding the management of risk information, since it is at the municipal level where the primary responsibility for addressing these situations lies. Thus, if already from Article 50 of the Constitution –as stated in the preceding considerando– the obligation of municipalities in environmental matters is recognized, in direct development and connection with this constitutional norm, the cited legislation recognizes that municipalities have a high degree of responsibility and competence in matters of risk prevention and emergency situations, by defining that upon them "falls, in the first instance, the responsibility to address this problem." In this sense, municipalities must ensure both environmental protection within the space granted to their jurisdiction, and the prevention of risks and emergency situations, being able to receive advisory services –advisory services that the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response is obliged to provide– from the Commission.

VIII.- The specific case. The situation adduced by the protected party. From the study of the case file and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber deems it accredited that the situation raised by the petitioner is known to both the Municipality of Aserrí and the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. To the Commission, since a report prepared by its Department of Prevention and Mitigation exists since August 2009, and to the Municipality because since March of this year, even prior to the action raised by the petitioner on April 23, it acquired material to repair the so-called "Los Solano" street. However, given the filing of this protective action, it is clear that the situation complained of regarding that road remains unresolved even three months after the purchase of the material. On this matter, it should be noted that as indicated in the preceding considerandos, it is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Municipality to address situations such as those raised by the protected party, even having to establish coordination actions with the other corresponding public entities in order to resolve and prevent environmental risks and emergency threats. In this sense, if in response to the protected party's action, the Municipal Engineering Department verifies the existing risk situation on the referenced public road and notes the need to establish coordination mechanisms with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, the Municipality must act appropriately within the shortest possible time so that the necessary and appropriate works are carried out prior to the occurrence of a risk or emergency situation. The Chamber does not overlook that since March of this year, the Municipality had already acquired materials for the execution of some type of works on the road denounced by the petitioner, but it is clear that by June 2010, the works remained uninitiated. Therefore, since in the case under study it is accredited that the Municipality has full knowledge of the situation raised and of the actions it must undertake, without having to date implemented any action to resolve the situation raised, the appropriate course is to grant the action, ordering the Municipality to immediately establish the necessary coordination mechanisms with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, so that the existing risk situation on the street called "Los Solano", in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Consequently, the appropriate course is to grant the action, as is hereby ordered.

Por tanto

The action is granted.

It is ordered that Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, in their capacity as Municipal President and Mayor, respectively, both of the Municipality of Aserrí, or whoever holds their positions, immediately take the actions within their scope of authority to establish the necessary coordination with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias), so that within a period of four months from the notification of this judgment, the existing risk situation on the so-called “Los Solano” street, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or whoever holds their positions, are warned that, in accordance with article 71 of the Law of this 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 does not comply with or enforce it, provided that the offense is not more severely punished. The Municipality of Aserrí is condemned to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts on which this declaration is based, which shall be determined in the enforcement of judgment phase of the administrative contentious jurisdiction. Notify this resolution to Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or whoever holds their positions, in person. Let it be communicated.- Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Rodolfo E. Piza R. Ricardo Guerrero P.

This Chamber has already referred to the principle of coordination of public agencies with municipalities in the pursuit of common goals, stating in Judgment No. 5445-99, at fourteen hours thirty minutes on July 14, 1999, that:

"[C]oordination is the ordering of relations among these various independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence in a single object or entity, in order to make it useful for a global public plan, without eliminating the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. Since there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself with respect to the municipalities, it is not possible to impose determined behaviors on them, hence the indispensable inter-institutional 'concert' arises, in a strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one plays a role in view of a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relationships of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the State (through the 'administrative oversight' of the State, and specifically, in the function of legality control that belongs to the latter, with general supervisory powers over the entire sector).” On the other hand, omissions of the duty to protect the environment and to comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional relevance, because as a consequence of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage to the environment and natural resources can occur, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the Administration's actions; such as the authorization of regulatory plans, or constructions without the approval of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), or the lack of control and oversight in the execution of management plans for protected areas by the General Directorate of Wildlife of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), allowing companies to operate without health permits regarding wastewater treatment -Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA) and Ministry of Health-, or failing to verify noise controls in bars, restaurants, or party venues -municipalities and Ministry of Health-.

VI.- **The role of municipalities in environmental matters.** In accordance with the foregoing, municipalities, as an integral part of the whole that is the State, have within their scope of competencies and obligations a high dose of responsibility in environmental matters, whether through the direct approval of permits or licenses for which prior compliance with requirements is demanded to prove adequate environmental management before other instances of public power, or through regular inspections and channeling of risk situations to the instances with greater competence to intervene. It has already been established that local governments are bound by the obligation of coordination and prevention in environmental matters within their territorial jurisdiction, from which it follows that municipalities are certainly important actors in the task of environmental protection. The power of local governments to provide their own territorial planning through regulatory plans is undeniable; but the existence of these plans -which mostly lack planning complements from the point of view of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment- does not produce the disapplication of environmental protection legislation. On the contrary, this Chamber considers that it must be a fundamental requirement, which does not violate the constitutional principle of municipal autonomy, that every regulatory plan must consider, prior to being approved and developed, an examination of the environmental impact from the perspective provided by Article 50 of the Constitution, so that land-use planning and its various regimes are compatible with the scope of the superior norm, especially, assessing that this provision establishes the right of all inhabitants to obtain an environmental response from all public authorities and this undoubtedly includes municipalities, who are not exempt from the application of the constitutional norm and its implementing legislation. It is evident that in this case, the national interest and the local interest are totally coincident, and therefore local governments can and must demand compliance with environmental requirements in their territory, and in case of conflict with the governing authorities on environmental matters, they may submit the disputes to the jurisdictional controller that corresponds according to the nature of the infraction. It is for the above reasons that the environmental protection norms are not incompatible, from the constitutional point of view, with the powers and competencies of municipalities, which are obliged, by imperative of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, to strive for the protection of the environment –see, in this regard, Judgment No. 2006-7994, at eight hours fifty-seven minutes on June 2, 2006-.

VII.- **The legal nature and the competencies of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response.** The National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law defines the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response as a maximum deconcentration body attached to the Presidency of the Republic, establishing itself as the governing entity for risk prevention and preparations to address emergency situations, granting it the ordinary and extraordinary competencies established in Articles 14 and 15 of the aforementioned law. Regarding this matter, the Chamber has defined that the prevention of dangerous situations for persons and property, as well as emergency response, are aspects that directly affect the full enjoyment of values of constitutional rank, such as the fundamental rights to life, health, and property. The intention is that matters of this relevance be coordinated through technical criteria by specialized institutions created for this purpose, so that in matters of risk prevention and emergency response, the Commission is the body to which the law grants such functions in a centralized manner. Therefore, the issuance of binding resolutions does not harm the administrative autonomy of decentralized institutions or other entities of the public sector, it being necessary that such resolutions obey the imperative need to protect persons and their property from public calamity situations, a duty imposed not by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, but by the Political Constitution itself –see, in this regard, and on the constitutionality of the Commission's competencies, the judgment of this Chamber No. 2005-8675, at nine hours fifty-six minutes on July 1, 2005-. Beyond the general ordinary competencies to issue binding resolutions for public sector institutions in matters of risk prevention, and to carry out vigilance and observation actions of risk situations, for the specific case it is particularly relevant what is provided in subsection h) of Article 14 of the law, defining that the Commission is responsible for providing advice to the Municipalities regarding the management of risk information, since it is the municipal sphere upon which the responsibility to face these situations falls in the first instance. Thus, if already from Article 50 of the Constitution –as stated in the preceding recital- the obligation of municipalities in environmental matters is recognized, in direct development and connection with this constitutional norm, the cited legislation recognizes that municipalities have a high dose of responsibility and competence in matters of risk prevention and emergency situations, by defining that 'the responsibility to face these problems falls on them in the first instance.' In this sense, municipalities must ensure both environmental protection in the space granted to their jurisdiction, and the prevention of risks and emergency situations, being able to receive advice for this purpose –advice that the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response is obliged to provide-.

VIII.- **The specific case. The situation alleged by the petitioner.** From the study of the case file and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber considers it proven that the situation raised by the appellant is known to both the Municipality of Aserrí and the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. To the Commission since August 2009 there exists a report prepared by its Department of Prevention and Mitigation, and to the Municipality because since March of this year, even prior to the request made by the appellant on April 23, it acquired material to repair the so-called “Los Solano” street. However, given the filing of this amparo action, it is clear that the denounced situation on said road continues even three months after the purchase of the material. Regarding this matter, it should be noted that as indicated in the preceding recitals, it falls in the first instance to the Municipality to address situations such as those raised by the petitioner, even having to establish coordination actions with the other corresponding public entities in order to resolve and prevent environmental risks and emergency threats. In this sense, if upon the petitioner's request the Municipal Engineering Department verifies the risk situation existing on the referred public road, and notes the need to establish coordination mechanisms with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, the Municipality must act accordingly within the shortest possible time so that the necessary and appropriate works are carried out prior to the occurrence of a risk or emergency situation. The Chamber does not ignore that since March of this year the Municipality had already acquired materials for the execution of some type of works on the road reported by the appellant, but it is clear that as of June 2010, the works continued without starting. Thus, since in the case under study it is proven that the Municipality has full knowledge of the situation raised and of the actions it must develop, without having implemented any action to date to resolve the situation raised, what is appropriate is to declare the appeal well-founded, ordering the Municipality to immediately establish the necessary coordination mechanisms with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, so that the risk situation existing on the so-called “Los Solano” street, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Consequently, what is appropriate is to declare the appeal well-founded, as is hereby ordered.

Por tanto

The appeal is declared well-founded. It is ordered that Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, in their capacity as Municipal President and Municipal Mayor, respectively, both of the Municipality of Aserrí, or whoever occupies their positions, immediately order the actions within their areas of competence, to establish the corresponding coordination actions with the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, so that within a period of four months counted from the notification of this judgment, the risk situation existing on the so-called “Los Solano” street, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or whoever occupies their positions, are warned that in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine of twenty to sixty days, will be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided the crime is not more severely penalized. The Municipality of Aserrí is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which will be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the administrative contentious jurisdiction. Let this resolution be notified to Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or to whoever occupies their positions, personally. Let it be communicated.- Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Rodolfo E.

II.- **The right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.** Article 50 of the Constitución Política establishes as fundamental the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Prior to the amendment of this article fifty to expressly consider matters relating to the environment, this Chamber, through its jurisprudential work, had already derived this right from the constitutional provisions of articles 21 –right to life and health–, 69 –rational exploitation of the land–, and 89 –protection of natural beauty spots–. This Chamber has opted for an open or macro consideration of the concept of environment and the protection afforded to it, transcending the basic or primary protection of soil, air, water, marine and coastal resources, minerals, forests, diversity of flora and fauna, and landscape, to also consider elements relating to the economy, the generation of foreign currency through tourism, agricultural exploitation, and others. Thus, in ruling number 5893-095, at nine forty-eight hours on October 27, 1993, this Chamber established that:

"[E]nvironmental Law should not be associated only with nature, since nature is merely one part of the environment. The policy of nature protection also encompasses 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 out important concepts and thereby unify the legal body we call Environmental Law".

III.- **The State's duty in environmental guardianship.** From the amendment of constitutional article 50, in which the environmental right was expressly enshrined as a fundamental right, the obligation of the State to guarantee, defend, and protect this right was also established –in a definitive manner–, by which the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and guardianship of the environment and natural resources. It is in accordance with this provision, in relation to articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Constitución Política, that the State's responsibility to exercise a tutelary and governing function in this matter was derived, as provided in the constitutional norm under discussion itself, a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. In this regard, it must be considered that the regulations establish the 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 Ley Orgánica of this ministry, number 7152, of June 4, 1990. This function of governance in environmental matters, in this Chamber's opinion, comprises not only the establishment of adequate regulations for the use of forest resources and natural resources, as also provided in article 56 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, but also confers upon it the important function of exercising governance in environmental matters, consisting of maintaining a preponderant role in this area. In this sense, the control and supervision of environmental matters and activities constitutes an essential function of the State according to the provisions of article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it provides, in the relevant part of paragraph three: *"The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"*; which is concordant with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of article 9 of the Constitución Política, which expressly prohibits the Branches of Government from delegating the exercise of functions that are inherent to them, especially when they are essential. In this way, regarding environmental protection, the functions of governance, control, and supervision of environmental matters correspond to the State, under the charge of the various administrative dependencies.

IV.- **Environmental risk prevention.** With this obligation of the State being established at the constitutional level, it is important to appreciate how, at the level of international instruments for the protection of human rights, specific obligations that must be respected are also established. In environmental matters, the duty of prevention that must exist in this area has been defined; the Rio Declaration, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, provides that:

"**Principle 15.-** In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Prevention aims to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid or contain the possible impact on the environment or the health of people. In this way, if there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage –or a doubt thereof–, a precautionary measure must be adopted and even the activity in question postponed. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since if the damage has occurred, the biological and socially harmful consequences may be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment. As indicated by the international instrument cited as well as constitutional article 50 itself, it is the State that is called upon to carry out this prevention work, and this Chamber has recognized this by affirming, in ruling number 2001-6503, of July 6, 2001, that:

"The third paragraph of constitutional article 50 clearly states that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; which implies affirming that public entities are not only obliged to enforce –on private parties and other public entities– environmental legislation, but also, and above all, that they must adjust their actions to the dictates of those protective regulatory bodies. *State institutions are the first ones called upon to comply with protective environmental legislation, without any justification existing to exempt them from compliance with environmental requirements* such as, for example, the environmental impact assessment required by the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente for activities undertaken by public entities that, by their nature, may alter or destroy the environment." (emphasis added) V.- **The coordination of public institutions in the comprehensive protection of the environment.** There is an obligation for the State –as a whole– to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inadequate use of natural resources, which endanger the health of the governed. In this task, "public institution" is understood as both the Central Administration –Ministries, such as the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía and the Ministerio de Salud, which, by reason of the subject matter, have extensive participation and responsibility concerning the conservation and preservation of the environment; which act, most of the time, through their specialized dependencies in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, and the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA)–, as well as decentralized institutions such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, SENARA, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, or the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Likewise, municipalities have great responsibility in this task concerning their territorial jurisdiction. Due to the diversity of actors that may intervene, one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management. Therefore, in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, as well as the confusion of rights and obligations among the various involved parties, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various dependencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions that have been entrusted to them. This Chamber has already referred to the principle of coordination of public dependencies with municipalities in the realization of common goals, by indicating in ruling number 5445-99, at fourteen hours thirty minutes on July 14, 1999, that:

"[C]oordination is the ordering of the relationships between these various independent activities, which addresses this concurrence in a single object or entity, to make it useful for a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. As there is no hierarchical relationship of the decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to the municipalities, the imposition of certain conducts on the latter is not possible, thus giving rise to the essential inter-institutional 'concert', in a strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one plays a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relations of the municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a level of equality, resulting in agreed-upon forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form to the detriment of their autonomy, which would allow subjecting the corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the State's interest (through the 'administrative oversight' of the State, and specifically, in the function of control of legality that falls to it, with powers of general supervision over the entire sector)." On the other hand, omissions from the duty to protect the environment and to comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional relevance, since as a consequence of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage to the environment and natural resources can occur, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the Administration's actions; such as the authorization of regulatory plans, or constructions without the approval of the environmental impact assessment by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or the lack of control and supervision in the execution of management plans for protected areas by the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of the Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, allowing the operation of companies without health permits regarding the treatment of wastewater –Acueductos y Alcantarillados and Ministerio de Salud–, or failing to verify sonic controls in bars, restaurants, or party centers –municipalities and Ministerio de Salud–.

VI.- **The role of municipalities in environmental matters.** In accordance with what has been said, municipalities, as an integral part of the whole that is the State, have within the scope of their powers and obligations a high dose of responsibility in environmental matters, whether through the direct approval of permits or licenses for which prior compliance with requirements accrediting adequate environmental management before other public authorities is required, or through regular inspections and channeling of risk situations to the authorities with greater intervention competence.

It has already been established that local governments are bound by the obligation of coordination and prevention in environmental matters within the scope of their territorial jurisdiction, from which it follows that municipalities are indeed important actors in the task of protecting the environment. The power of local governments to provide their own territorial planning through regulatory plans (planes reguladores) is unquestionable; but the existence of these—which for the most part lack planning complements from the perspective of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—does not result in the disapplication of environmental protection legislation. On the contrary, this Chamber considers that it must be a fundamental requirement, which does not violate the constitutional principle of municipal autonomy, that every regulatory plan (plan regulador) must consider, prior to being approved and developed, an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) from the perspective provided by constitutional article fifty, so that land-use planning (ordenamiento del suelo) and its various regimes are compatible with the scope of the superior norm, above all, appreciating that this provision establishes the right of all inhabitants to obtain an environmental response from all public authorities, and this includes, without doubt, the municipalities, who are not exempt from the application of the constitutional norm and its implementing legislation. It is evident that in this case, the national interest and the local interest are entirely coincident, and therefore local governments can and must demand compliance with environmental requirements in their territory, and in case of conflict with the governing authorities of environmental matters, they may submit the disputes to the jurisdictional body of control that corresponds according to the nature of the infraction. It is for the foregoing reasons that environmental protection norms are not incompatible, from the constitutional point of view, with the powers and competences of the municipalities, which are obliged, by imperative of article fifty of the Political Constitution, to exert themselves in the protection of the environment –see, in this regard, judgment number 2006-7994, of eight hours fifty-seven minutes of June 2, 2006-.<o:p></o:p></p> <p style='line-height:150%'> <span class=SpellE>VII</span>.- <b>The legal nature and competences of the Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. </b>The Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo defines the Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias as a body of maximum deconcentration (desconcentración máxima) attached to the Presidency of the Republic, establishing itself as the governing entity for risk prevention and preparations to attend emergency situations, granting it the ordinary and extraordinary competences established in articles 14 and 15 of the referenced law. On this point, the Chamber has defined that the prevention of dangerous situations for persons and property, as well as the attention of emergencies, are aspects that directly affect the full enjoyment of values of constitutional rank, such as the fundamental rights to life, to health, and to property. What is intended is that issues of this relevance be coordinated through technical criteria by specialized institutions created for that purpose, in such a way that in matters of risk prevention and emergency attention, the Commission is the body to which the law grants such functions in a centralized manner. Therefore, the issuance of binding resolutions does not harm the administrative autonomy of decentralized institutions or other public sector entities, it being imperative that such resolutions respond to the compelling need to protect persons and their heritage from situations of public calamity, a duty not imposed by the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, but by the Political Constitution itself –see, in this sense, and on the constitutionality of the Commission's competences, the judgment of this Chamber number 2005-8675, of nine hours fifty-six minutes of July first, 2005-. Beyond the general ordinary competences of issuing binding resolutions for public sector institutions in matters of risk prevention, and of carrying out surveillance actions and observation of risk situations, what is particularly relevant for the specific case is the provision in subsection h) of article 14 of the law, which defines that the Commission is competent to provide advisory services to Municipalities regarding the management of risk information, given that it is upon the municipal sphere that the responsibility to face these situations falls in the first instance. Thus, if since constitutional article 50 –as stated in the preceding whereas clause (considerando)- the obligation of municipalities in environmental matters is already recognized, in direct development and <span class=SpellE>conexity</span> with this constitutional norm, the cited legislation recognizes that municipalities have a high dose of responsibility and competence in matters of risk prevention and emergency situations, by defining that upon them «falls the responsibility to face this problem in the first instance». In this sense, the municipalities must ensure both environmental protection in the space granted to their jurisdiction, and the prevention of risks and emergency situations, being able to receive for that purpose advisory services –advisory services that the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias is obliged to provide-.<o:p></o:p></p> <p style='line-height:150%'> <span class=SpellE>VIII</span>.- <b>The specific case. The situation alleged by the amparo petitioner.</b> From the study of the case file and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber considers it as accredited that the situation raised by the petitioner is known to both the Municipality of <span class=SpellE>Aserrí</span> and the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Known to the Commission since August 2009 there exists a report prepared by its Department of Prevention and Mitigation, and to the Municipality because since March of this year, even prior to the request made by the petitioner on April 23, it acquired material to repair the so-called “Los Solano” street. However, given the filing of this amparo action, it is clear that the situation complained of regarding said thoroughfare remains even three months after the purchase of the material. On this point, it must be noted that as indicated in the preceding whereas clauses (considerandos), it corresponds in the first instance to the Municipality to attend situations like those raised by the amparo petitioner, having even to establish coordination actions with the other corresponding public entities in order to resolve and prevent environmental risks and emergency threats. In this sense, if before the petitioner's request, the Municipal Engineering Department verifies the risk situation existing on the referenced public thoroughfare, and warns of the need to establish coordination mechanisms with the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, the Municipality must act accordingly within the shortest possible period so that the necessary and proper works are carried out prior to the occurrence of a risk or emergency situation. The Chamber does not overlook that since March of this year the Municipality had already acquired materials for the execution of some type of works on the thoroughfare denounced by the petitioner, but it is clear that by June 2010, the works continued without having begun. Therefore, given that in the case under study it is accredited that the Municipality has full knowledge of the situation raised and of the actions it must carry out, without its having to date implemented any action to resolve the situation raised, what is appropriate is to grant the appeal (recurso), ordering the Municipality to immediately establish the necessary coordination mechanisms with the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, so that the existing risk situation on the so-called “Los Solano” street, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Consequently, what is proper is to grant the appeal, as indeed is ordered.<span lang=ES-CR style='mso-ansi-language:ES-CR'>”</span></p> </div> </body> </html> " Since the reform of Article 50 of the Constitution, which expressly enshrined the environmental right as a fundamental right, it also categorically established the State's obligation to guarantee, defend, and protect this right, thereby making the State the guarantor of the protection and safeguarding of the environment and natural resources. It is pursuant to 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 discussion, a function developed by environmental legislation. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. 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, as provided in Article 2 of the Organic Law of this ministry, number 7152, of June 4, 1990. This governing function in environmental matters, in the opinion of the Chamber, includes not only the establishment of adequate regulations for the use of forest and natural resources, as also provided by Article 56 of the Organic Law of the Environment, but also confers upon it the important function of exercising governance in environmental matters, consisting of maintaining a preponderant role in this area. In this sense, the control and oversight of environmental subject matter and activity constitute an essential function of the State as provided in Article 50 of the Constitution, insofar as it provides, in the pertinent part of the third paragraph: <i>"The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right"</i>; which is concordant with the constitutional principle established in the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, which expressly prohibits the Branches of Government from delegating the exercise of their own functions, especially when these are essential. In this way, regarding environmental protection, the functions of governance, control, and oversight of environmental matters correspond to the State, through the various administrative dependencies.

IV.- **Prevention of environmental risk**. With this obligation of the State being established at the constitutional level, it is important to appreciate how, at the level of international instruments for the protection of human rights, concrete obligations that must be respected are also established. In environmental matters, the duty of prevention that must exist in this area has been defined; the Rio Declaration, adopted at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, provides that:

"**Principle 15.-** In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." Prevention seeks to anticipate negative effects and ensure the protection, conservation, and adequate management of resources. Consequently, the guiding principle of prevention is based on the need to take and assume all precautionary measures to avoid or contain the possible impact on the environment or people's health. Thus, if there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage—or doubt regarding it—a precautionary measure must be adopted and the activity in question must even be postponed. The foregoing is because, in environmental matters, a posteriori coercion is ineffective, since once the damage has occurred, the biologically and socially harmful consequences may be irreparable; repression may have moral significance, but it will hardly compensate for the damage caused to the environment. As indicated by the international instrument cited and Article 50 of the Constitution itself, it is the State that is called upon to carry out this work of prevention, and this Chamber has recognized it by affirming, through judgment number 2001-6503, of July 6, 2001, that:

“The third paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution clearly states that the State must guarantee, defend, and preserve the right of every person to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment; which implies affirming that public entities are not only obligated to enforce—against individuals and other public entities—environmental legislation, but also, first and foremost, must adjust their actions to the dictates of those protective normative bodies. *State institutions are the first called upon to comply with protective environmental legislation, with no justification existing to exempt them from compliance with environmental requirements* such as, for example, the environmental impact assessment required by the Organic Law of the Environment for activities undertaken by public entities that, by their nature, may alter or destroy the environment.” (emphasis added) V.- **Coordination of public institutions in comprehensive environmental protection**. There exists an obligation for the State—as a whole—to take the necessary measures to protect the environment, in order to avoid degrees of contamination, deforestation, extinction of flora and fauna, excessive or inappropriate use of natural resources, that endanger the health of the administered parties. In this task, “public institution” means both the Central Administration—Ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment and Energy and the Ministry of Health, which, by reason of subject matter, have broad participation and responsibility regarding the conservation and preservation of the environment; which act, most of the time, through their specialized dependencies in the matter, such as, for example, the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, the Dirección Forestal, and the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA)—as well as decentralized institutions like the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, SENARA, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, or the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Likewise, in this task, municipalities have great responsibility regarding their territorial jurisdiction. Due to the diversity of actors that may intervene, one might think that this multiple responsibility would cause chaos in administrative management. Therefore, in order to avoid the simultaneous coexistence of spheres of power of different origin and essence, the duplication of national and local efforts, and the confusion of rights and obligations among the various parties involved, it is necessary to establish a series of coordination relationships among the various dependencies of the Executive Branch and the decentralized institutions, and between these and the municipalities, in order to carry out the functions entrusted to them. This Chamber has already referred to the principle of coordination of public dependencies with municipalities in the achievement of common goals, by stating, through judgment number 5445-99, of fourteen hours and thirty minutes of July 14, 1999, that:

"[C]oordination is the ordering of relations between these diverse independent activities, which takes charge of that concurrence in the same object or entity, to make it useful to a global public plan, without suppressing the reciprocal independence of the acting subjects. As there is no hierarchical relationship of decentralized institutions, nor of the State itself in relation to municipalities, the imposition on these of determined conduct is not possible, with which the indispensable inter-institutional 'concert' arises, in the strict sense, insofar as the autonomous and independent centers of action agree on that preventive and global scheme, in which each one fulfills a role with a view to a mission entrusted to the others. Thus, the relations of municipalities with other public entities can only be carried out on a plane of equality, resulting in agreed forms of coordination, excluding any imperative form detrimental to their autonomy, which would permit subjecting corporate entities to a coordination scheme without their will or against it; but which does admit the necessary subordination of these entities to the State and in the interest of the latter (through the 'administrative tutelage' of the State, specifically, in the function of legality control that corresponds to it, with powers of general vigilance over the entire sector).” On the other hand, omissions in the duty to protect the environment and comply with environmental regulations are of constitutional relevance, because as a consequence of the Administration's inertia in this matter, damage to the environment and natural resources can occur, sometimes with similar or greater consequences than those derived from the Administration's actions; such as the authorization of regulatory plans, or constructions without the approval of the environmental impact assessment by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or the lack of control and oversight in the execution of management plans for protected areas by the Dirección General de Vida Silvestre of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, allowing the operation of companies without health permits regarding wastewater treatment—Acueductos y Alcantarillados and Ministry of Health—or not verifying sonic controls in bars, restaurants, or party centers—municipalities and Ministry of Health—.

VI.- **The role of municipalities in environmental matters**. In accordance with what has been stated, municipalities, as an integral part of the whole that is the State, have, within the scope of their competencies and obligations, a high degree of responsibility in environmental matters, whether through the direct approval of permits or licenses for which prior compliance with requirements is demanded that accredit adequate environmental management before other instances of public power, or through regular inspections and channeling of risk situations to the instances with greater competence for intervention. It has already been established that local governments are reached by the obligation of coordination and prevention in environmental matters within the scope of their territorial jurisdiction, from which it results that municipalities are certainly important actors in the task of protecting the environment. The power of local governments to give themselves their own territorial planning through regulatory plans is undoubtable; but the existence of these—which mostly lack planning complements from the viewpoint of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment—does not produce the disapplication of protective environmental legislation. On the contrary, the Chamber considers that it must be a fundamental requirement, which does not violate the constitutional principle of municipal autonomy, that every regulatory plan must consider, prior to being approved and developed, an examination of the environmental impact from the perspective given by Article 50 of the Constitution, so that land-use planning and its various regimes are compatible with the scope of the superior norm, above all, valuing that this provision establishes the right of all inhabitants to obtain an environmental response from all public authorities and this undoubtedly includes the municipalities, who are not exempt from the application of the constitutional norm and its implementing legislation. It is evident that in this case, the national and local interest are completely coincident, and therefore local governments can and must demand compliance with environmental requirements in their territory, and in case of conflict with the governing authorities on environmental matters, they may submit the disputes to the jurisdictional comptroller that corresponds according to the nature of the infraction. It is for the foregoing that the protective norms of the environment are not incompatible, from a constitutional point of view, with the powers and competencies of the municipalities, which are obligated, by imperative of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, to be lavish in the protection of the environment—see, in this sense, judgment number 2006-7994, of eight hours and fifty-seven minutes of June 2, 2006—.

VII.- **The legal nature and competencies of the Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.** The Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo defines the Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias as an organ of maximum deconcentration attached to the Presidency of the Republic, establishing itself as the governing entity for risk prevention and preparations to attend emergency situations, granting it the ordinary and extraordinary competencies established in Articles 14 and 15 of the referenced law. On this point, the Chamber has defined that the prevention of dangerous situations for persons and property, as well as emergency response, are aspects that directly affect the full enjoyment of values of constitutional rank, such as the fundamental rights to life, health, and property. The intention is that matters of this relevance be coordinated through technical criteria by specialized institutions created for this purpose, such that in matters of risk prevention and emergency response, the Commission is the organ to which the law grants such functions in a centralized manner. Therefore, the issuance of binding resolutions does not harm the administrative autonomy of decentralized institutions or other public sector entities, it being necessary that such resolutions obey the imperative need to protect persons and their property from situations of public calamity, a duty imposed not by the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, but by the Political Constitution itself—see, in this sense, and on the constitutionality of the Commission's competencies, the judgment of this Chamber number 2005-8675, of nine hours and fifty-six minutes of July first, 2005—. Beyond the general ordinary competencies to issue binding resolutions for public sector institutions in matters of risk prevention, and to carry out vigilance and observation actions of risk situations, for the specific case, what is provided in subsection h) of Article 14 of the law is particularly relevant, by defining that the Commission is responsible for providing advisory services to the Municipalities regarding the management of risk information, since it is the municipal sphere upon which the responsibility to face these situations falls in the first instance. Thus, if already from Article 50 of the Constitution—as stated in the preceding recital—the obligation of municipalities in environmental matters is recognized, in direct development and connection with this constitutional norm, the cited legislation recognizes that municipalities have a high degree of responsibility and competence in matters of risk prevention and emergency situations, by defining that upon them "falls, in the first instance, the responsibility to face this problematic." In this sense, municipalities must ensure both environmental protection in the space granted to their jurisdiction, and the prevention of risks and emergency situations, being able for this purpose to receive advisory services—advisory services that it is obligated to provide—from the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

VIII.- **The specific case. The situation adduced by the petitioner.** From the study of the record and the report rendered under oath, the Chamber considers it proven that the situation raised by the petitioner is known both to the Municipality of Aserrí and to the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Known to the Commission because since August 2009, there exists a report prepared by its Department of Prevention and Mitigation, and known to the Municipality because since March of this year, even prior to the petition raised by the petitioner on April 23, it acquired material to repair the so-called “Los Solano” road. However, upon the filing of this protective action, it is clear that the denounced situation regarding said road persists even three months after the purchase of the material. On this point, it must be noted that as indicated in the preceding recitals, it falls in the first instance to the Municipality to attend to situations like those raised by the petitioner, having even to establish coordination actions with the other public entities that correspond for the purpose of resolving and preventing environmental risks and emergency threats. In this sense, if upon the petitioner's petition the Municipal Engineering Department verifies the risk situation existing on the referenced public road, and warns of the need to establish coordination mechanisms with the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, the Municipality must act accordingly within the shortest possible period so that the necessary and appropriate works are carried out prior to the occurrence of a risk or emergency situation. The Chamber does not overlook that since March of this year the Municipality had already acquired materials for the execution of some type of works on the road denounced by the petitioner, but it is clear that as of June 2010, the works remained uninitiated. Thus, since in the case under study it is proven that the Municipality is fully aware of the raised situation and of the actions it must carry out, without having to date implemented any action to resolve the raised situation, what is appropriate is to find the appeal well-founded, ordering the Municipality to immediately establish the necessary coordination mechanisms with the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, so that the risk situation existing on the so-called “Los Solano” road, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Consequently, what is appropriate is to find the appeal well-founded, as is hereby ordered.

Por tanto

The appeal is found well-founded. Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, in their capacity as Municipal President and Municipal Mayor, respectively, both of the Municipality of Aserrí, or whoever occupies their positions, are ordered to immediately arrange the actions within their scope of competence, to establish the corresponding coordination actions with the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, so that within a period of four months counted from the notification of this judgment, the risk situation existing on the so-called “Los Solano” road, in the district of San Gabriel, is definitively resolved. Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or whoever occupies their positions, are warned that in accordance with Article 71 of the Law of this jurisdiction, imprisonment from three months to two years, or a fine from twenty to sixty days, shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued in an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not have it complied with, provided the offense is not more severely penalized. The Municipality of Aserrí is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of judgment of contentious-administrative proceedings. Let this resolution be notified to Leticia Castro Moreno and Mario Morales Guzmán, or to whoever occupies their positions, in person. Let it be communicated.- Ana Virginia Calzada M. Presidenta Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Rodolfo E. Piza R. Ricardo Guerrero P.

Res. Nº 2010011928 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las once horas y ocho minutos del nueve de julio del dos mil diez.

Recurso de amparo presentado por MARVIN MORA MARÍN, mayor, casado, vecino de Aserrí, portador de la cédula de identidad número 1-164-030, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ASERRÍ.

Resultando

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las nueve horas treinta y cinco minutos del 17 de mayo de 2010, el recurrente interpone recurso de amparo aduciendo violación a sus derechos fundamentales. Señala que por recomendación del Departamento de Prevención y Mitigación de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, le solicitó a la Municipalidad de Aserrí la reparación y asfaltado del final de la calle Los Solano, sin que a la fecha haya solución alguna. Indica que el 23 de abril de 2010 presentó nota al Alcalde, quien prometió reparar la calle, pues al final de la vía viven 7 familias y entre ellas personas mayores, a la cual la ley les otorga derechos especiales que no se cumplen. Señala que por inspección realizada el 31 de julio de 2009 se presentó además el análisis de amenazas ante la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, en la cual recomiendan una serie de medidas de protección, de la cual se adjunta copia. Sostiene que la calle sin salida tiene una longitud cerca de 250 metros, con desplazamientos verticales variables, compuesta de piedras de río, polvo y tierra; además, que no existe alcantarillado pluvial municipal para la correcta canalización de las aguas. Acusa que en el invierno el paso es intransitable debido a los derrumbes y a la erosión del suelo, tan grave que están a punto de quedar sin camino, y por la necesidad hubo que realizar rellenos en los hundimientos para sostener el desprendimiento de tierra utilizando sacos con tierra. La preocupación es que el acceso a vehículos particulares, ambulancias y taxis es imposible por el estado de la calle y algunas veces ha sido necesario salir a topar las ambulancias arriesgando la salud de las personas. Solicita declarar con lugar el recurso.

2.- Mediante escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las once horas cincuenta y tres minutos del 8 de junio de 2010 (folio 21), informan bajo fe de juramento Mario Morales Guzmán y Leticia Castro Moreno, Alcalde Municipal y Presidenta del Concejo Municipal, ambos de la Municipalidad de Aserrí, quienes señalan que efectivamente el asistente del Alcalde Municipal recibió en su oficina la nota del recurrente el día 23 de abril de 2010. Admiten que no haber dado respuesta al recurrente por escrito; sin embargo, el asistente refirió que él personalmente coordinó con el Jefe de la Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial para resolver la situación acusada en relación con las alcantarillas, informándole en forma verbal que luego de realizados los estudios técnicos respectivos se iban a realizar trabajos únicamente en algunos de los sectores de la calle Los Solano, pues en otros lugares los mismos no resultaban viables porque el ingeniero determinó que si se llevaban a cabo trabajos con maquinaria pesada municipal, no existía certeza de que fuera posible garantizar la estabilidad del terreno ni de las viviendas, por lo que resultaba más riesgoso realizar excavaciones y que lo más adecuado era solucionar el problema principal de las alcantarillas en los pasos de agua de mayor abundancia y peligro. Además, siendo que los inmuebles situados a los lados de la vía presentan un pronunciado declive, resultaba irresponsable que la Municipalidad realizara trabajos mientras no se contara con un estudio técnico de un profesional en geotecnia de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, en el que se realice un análisis sobre cómo estabilizar la ladera y el diseño técnico correspondiente para garantizar dicha estabilidad, así como posibles medidas de mitigación que se deben ejecutar y que permitan garantizar si resulta factible o no implementar alguna obra de contención. Aduce que en este caso son los propietarios de los inmuebles afectados los que deben sufragar los gastos de tales estudios técnicos, ya que afectan sus propiedades privadas, además de que los costos económicos son altos y la Municipalidad carece de recursos presupuestarios. Refieren que el informe número DPM-INF-1234-2009 emitido por la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, nunca fue aportado al Municipio. Solicita declarar sin lugar el recurso.

3.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las nueve horas cuarenta y tres minutos del 28 de junio de 2010 (folio 29), el recurrente se refiere al informe presentado por las autoridades de la Municipalidad de Aserrí. Reitera que ya se cuenta con el informe de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, y que en la Comisión se le indicó que ese informe había sido enviado por fax a la Municipalidad. Agrega que el material comprado por la Corporación se encuentra abandonado, sin que se vislumbre solución al problema.

4.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.

Redacta el Magistrado Guerrero Portilla; y,

Considerando

I.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:

1. Que en agosto de 2009 el Departamento de Prevención y Mitigación de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, emite el Informe Técnico número DPM-INF-1234-2009, sobre Evaluación de Riesgo por Deslizamiento de Ladera en el distrito San Gabriel del cantón de Aserrí, provincia de San José, indicando que corresponde a los interesados dar trámite ante las instituciones correspondientes (folio 4).

2. Que mediante orden de compra número 17935, de 16 de marzo de 2010, la Municipalidad de Aserrí acredita la compra de materiales para obras en la calle Los Solano, distrito de San Gabriel (folio 25).

3. Que mediante nota recibida por el Asistente del Alcalde Municipal de Aserrí el 23 de abril de 2010, el recurrente solicita la intervención municipal para una solución respecto de la calle Los Solano (folio 12).

4. Que es criterio del Ingeniero Municipal de Aserrí que se carece de certeza sobre si realizar trabajos con maquinaria pesada compromete la estabilidad del terreno y de las viviendas en la calle Los Solano, y que se requiere un estudio técnico por parte de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias (folio 22).

II.- El derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. El artículo 50 de la Constitución Política establece como fundamental el derecho de toda persona a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. De previo a la modificación de este artículo cincuenta para considerar de manera expresa lo relativo al ambiente, ya la Sala, a través de su labor jurisprudencial, había derivado este derecho a partir de las disposiciones constitucionales de los artículos 21 –derecho a la vida y a la salud-, 69 –explotación racional de la tierra- y 89 –protección de las bellezas naturales-. La Sala ha optado por una consideración abierta o macro del concepto ambiente y de la protección que se brinda al mismo, trascendiendo de la protección básica o primaria del suelo, el aire, el agua, los recursos marinos y costeros, minerales, bosques, diversidad de flora y fauna, y paisaje, para considerar también elementos referentes a la economía, a la generación de divisas a través del turismo, la explotación agrícola y otros. Así, mediante sentencia número 5893-095, de las nueve horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del 27 de octubre de 1993, la Sala estableció que:

“[E]l 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".

III.- El deber del Estado en la tutela del ambiente. 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. 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 4 de junio de 1990. Esta función de rectoría en la materia ambiental, a criterio de la Sala, comprende no sólo el establecimiento de regulaciones adecuadas para el aprovechamiento del recurso forestal y los recursos naturales, según lo dispone también el artículo 56 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, sino que le confiere la importante función de ejercer la rectoría en la materia ambiental, consistente en mantener un papel preponderante en esta materia. En este sentido, el control y fiscalización de la materia y actividad ambiental se constituye en una función esencial del Estado según lo dispuesto en el artículo 50 de la Constitución, en tanto dispone en lo que interesa en el párrafo tercero: "El Estado garantizará, defenderá y preservará ese derecho"; lo cual resulta concordante con el principio constitucional establecido en el párrafo segundo del artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, que expresamente prohíbe a los Poderes del Estado la delegación del ejercicio de funciones que le son propias, máxime cuando se constituyen en esenciales. De esta manera, tratándose de la protección ambiental, las funciones de rectoría, control y fiscalización de la materia ambiental, corresponden al Estado, a cargo de las diversas dependencias administrativas.

IV.- La prevención del riesgo ambiental. Estableciéndose a nivel constitucional esta obligación del Estado, resulta importante apreciar cómo a nivel de los instrumentos internacionales de protección de los derechos humanos también se establecen obligaciones concretas que deben ser respetadas. En materia ambiental se ha definido el deber de prevención que debe existir en este ámbito; la Declaración de Río, adoptada en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, dispone que:

"Principio 15.- Con el fin de proteger el medio ambiente, los Estados deberán aplicar ampliamente el criterio de precaución conforme a sus capacidades. Cuando haya peligro de daño grave e irreversible, la falta de certeza científica absoluta no deberá utilizarse como razón para postergar la adopción de medidas eficaces en función de los costos para impedir la degradación del medio ambiente".

La prevención pretende anticiparse a los efectos negativos, y asegurar la protección, conservación y adecuada gestión de los recursos. Consecuentemente, el principio rector de prevención se fundamenta en la necesidad de tomar y asumir todas las medidas precautorias para evitar o contener la posible afectación del ambiente o la salud de las personas. De esta forma, en caso de que exista un riesgo de daño grave o irreversible -o una duda al respecto-, se debe adoptar una medida de precaución e inclusive posponer la actividad de que se trate. Lo anterior debido a que en materia ambiental la coacción a posteriori resulta ineficaz, por cuanto de haberse producido el daño, las consecuencias biológicas y socialmente nocivas pueden ser irreparables; la represión podrá tener una trascendencia moral, pero difícilmente compensará los daños ocasionados al ambiente. Tal como lo señala el instrumento internacional de cita como el mismo artículo 50 constitucional, es el Estado el llamado a efectuar esta labor de prevención, y así lo ha reconocido esta Sala al afirmar, mediante sentencia número 2001-6503, de 6 de julio de 2001, que:

“El párrafo tercero del numeral 50 Constitucional señala con toda claridad que el Estado debe garantizar, defender y preservar el derecho de todas persona a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado; lo que implica afirmar que los entes públicos no sólo están en la obligación de hacer cumplir –a los particulares y otros entes públicos- la legislación ambiental, sino también, ante todo, que deben ajustar su accionar a los dictados de esos cuerpos normativos tutelares. Las instituciones del Estado son las primeras llamadas a cumplir con la legislación tutelar ambiental, sin que exista justificación alguna para eximirlas del cumplimiento de requisitos ambientales como, a manera de ejemplo, el estudio de impacto ambiental que exige la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente para las actividades que emprendan los entes públicos que, por su naturaleza, puedan alterar o destruir el ambiente." (énfasis añadido) V.- La coordinación de las instituciones públicas en la protección integral al ambiente. Existe una obligación para el Estado –como un todo- de tomar las medidas necesarias para proteger el ambiente, a fin de evitar grados de contaminación, deforestación, extinción de flora y fauna, uso desmedido o inadecuado de los recursos naturales, que pongan en peligro la salud de los administrados. En esta tarea, por institución pública se entiende tanto a la Administración Central –Ministerios, como el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía y el Ministerio de Salud, que en razón de la materia, tienen una amplia participación y responsabilidad en lo que respecta a la conservación y preservación del ambiente; los cuales actúan, la mayoría de las veces, a través de sus dependencias especializadas en la materia, como por ejemplo, la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre, la Dirección Forestal, y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA)-, así como también las instituciones descentralizadas como el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, el SENARA, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo o el Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Del mismo modo, en esta tarea tienen gran responsabilidad las municipalidades en lo que respecta a su jurisdicción territorial. Debido a la diversidad de actores que pueden intervenir, podría pensarse que esta múltiple responsabilidad provocaría un caos en la gestión administrativa. Por ello, a fin de evitar la coexistencia simultánea de esferas de poder de diferente origen y esencia, la duplicación de los esfuerzos nacionales y locales, así como la confusión de derechos y obligaciones entre las diversas partes involucradas, se hace necesario establecer una serie de relaciones de coordinación entre las diversas dependencias del Poder Ejecutivo y las instituciones descentralizadas, y entre éstas con las municipalidades, a fin de poder llevar a cabo las funciones que les han sido encomendadas. Esta Sala se ha referido ya al principio de coordinación de las dependencias públicas con las municipalidades en la realización de fines comunes, al señalar mediante sentencia número 5445-99, de las catorce horas treinta minutos del 14 de julio de 1999, que:

"[L]a coordinación es la ordenación de las relaciones entre estas diversas actividades independientes, que se hace cargo de esa concurrencia en un mismo objeto o entidad, para hacerla útil a un plan público global, sin suprimir la independencia recíproca de los sujetos agentes. Como no hay una relación de jerarquía de las instituciones descentralizadas, ni del Estado mismo en relación con las municipalidades, no es posible la imposición a éstas de determinadas conductas, con lo cual surge el imprescindible «concierto» interinstitucional, en sentido estricto, en cuanto los centros autónomos e independientes de acción se ponen de acuerdo sobre ese esquema preventivo y global, en el que cada uno cumple un papel con vista en una misión confiada a los otros. Así, las relaciones de las municipalidades con los otros entes públicos, sólo pueden llevarse a cabo en un plano de igualdad, que den como resultado formas pactadas de coordinación, con exclusión de cualquier forma imperativa en detrimento de su autonomía, que permita sujetar a los entes corporativos a un esquema de coordinación sin su voluntad o contra ella; pero que sí admite la necesaria subordinación de estos entes al Estado y en interés de éste (a través de la «tutela administrativa» del Estado, y específicamente, en la función de control la legalidad que a éste compete, con potestades de vigilancia general sobre todo el sector).” Por otro lado, las omisiones al deber de protección del ambiente y de cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental son de relevancia constitucional, por cuanto como consecuencia de la inercia de la Administración en esta materia, se puede producir un daño al ambiente y a los recursos naturales, a veces, de similares o mayores consecuencias que de las derivadas de las actuaciones de la Administración; como lo es la autorización de planes reguladores, o construcciones sin la aprobación del estudio de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, o la falta de control y fiscalización en la ejecución de los planes de manejo de las áreas protegidas por parte de la Dirección General de Vida Silvestre del Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, el permitir el funcionamiento de empresas sin los permisos de salud en lo que respecta al tratamiento de aguas residuales -Acueductos y Alcantarillados y Ministerio de Salud-, o no verificar los controles sónicos en bares, restaurantes o centros de fiestas -municipalidades y Ministerio de Salud-.

VI.- El papel de las municipalidades en materia ambiental. De conformidad con lo dicho, las municipalidades, como parte integrante del todo que es el Estado, tienen dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y obligaciones una alta dosis de responsabilidad en materia ambiental, sea mediante la aprobación directa de permisos o licencias para las cuales se exija el previo cumplimiento de requisitos que acrediten ante otras instancias del poder público el adecuado manejo ambiental, como mediante inspecciones regulares y canalización de situaciones de riesgo ante las instancias con mayor competencia de intervención. Ha quedado establecido ya que a los gobiernos locales les alcanza la obligación de coordinación y prevención en materia ambiental dentro del ámbito de su jurisdicción territorial, de donde resulta que ciertamente las municipalidades son actores importantes en la tarea de protección al ambiente. Es indubitable la facultad de los gobiernos locales para darse su propia ordenación territorial a través de los planes reguladores; pero la existencia de éstos -que en su mayoría carecen de complementos de ordenación desde el punto de vista del ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado- no produce la desaplicación de la legislación tutelar ambiental. Por el contrario, estima la Sala que debe ser requisito fundamental, que no atenta contra el principio constitucional de la autonomía municipal, el que todo plan regulador deba considerar, de previo a ser aprobado y desarrollado, con un examen del impacto ambiental desde la perspectiva que da el artículo cincuenta constitucional, para que el ordenamiento del suelo y sus diversos regímenes sean compatibles con los alcances de la norma superior, sobre todo, valorando que esta disposición establece el derecho de todos los habitantes a obtener una respuesta ambiental de todas las autoridades públicas y ello incluye, sin duda, a las municipalidades, quienes no están exentas de la aplicación de la norma constitucional y de su legislación de desarrollo. Es evidente que en este caso, es totalmente coincidente el interés nacional y el local, y por ello los gobiernos locales pueden y deben exigir el cumplimiento de requisitos ambientales en su territorio, y en caso de conflicto con las autoridades rectoras de la materia ambiental, pueden someter las controversias al contralor jurisdiccional que corresponda según la naturaleza de la infracción. Es por lo anterior que las normas tutelares del ambiente no son incompatibles, desde el punto de vista constitucional, con las facultades y competencias de las municipalidades, las que están obligadas, por imperativo del artículo cincuenta de la Constitución Política, a prodigarse en la protección del ambiente –ver, en este sentido, sentencia número 2006-7994, de las ocho horas cincuenta y siete minutos del 2 de junio de 2006-.

VII.- La naturaleza jurídica y las competencias de la Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. La Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo define a la Comisión Nacional para la Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias como un órgano de desconcentración máxima adscrito a la Presidencia de la República, erigiéndose como la entidad rectora para la prevención de riesgos y los preparativos para atender situaciones de emergencia, otorgándole las competencias ordinarias y extraordinarias establecidas en los artículos 14 y 15 de la referida ley. Sobre el particular, la Sala ha definido que la prevención de situaciones peligrosas para las personas y bienes, así como la atención de emergencias, son aspectos que inciden directamente en el pleno disfrute de valores de rango constitucional, como son los derechos fundamentales a la vida, a la salud y a la propiedad. Lo pretendido es que temas de esta relevancia sean coordinados mediante criterios técnicos por parte de instituciones especializadas creadas al efecto, de forma tal que en materia de prevención de riesgos y atención de emergencias, la Comisión es el órgano al que la ley otorga tales funciones en forma centralizada. Por ello, el dictado de resoluciones vinculantes no lesiona la autonomía en materia administrativa de las instituciones descentralizadas o de otros entes del sector público, imponiéndose que tales resoluciones obedezcan a la necesidad imperiosa de proteger a las personas y su patrimonio de situaciones de calamidad pública, deber éste que no impone la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, sino la propia Constitución Política –ver, en este sentido, y sobre la constitucionalidad de las competencias de la Comisión, la sentencia de esta Sala número 2005-8675, de las nueve horas cincuenta y seis minutos del primero de julio de 2005-. Más allá de las generales competencias ordinarias de dictar resoluciones vinculantes para las instituciones del sector público en materia de prevención de riesgos, y de realizar acciones de vigilancia y observación de situaciones de riesgo, para el caso concreto resulta particularmente relevante lo dispuesto en el inciso h) del artículo 14 de la ley, al definir que a la Comisión le compete brindar asesoría a las Municipalidades en cuanto al manejo de la información de riesgo, toda vez que es al ámbito municipal sobre quien recae en primera instancia la responsabilidad de enfrentar estas situaciones. Así, si ya desde el artículo 50 constitucional –según lo dicho en el considerando precedente- se reconoce la obligación de las municipalidades en materia ambiental, en directo desarrollo y conexidad con esta norma constitucional, la legislación de cita reconoce que las municipalidades tienen una alta dosis de responsabilidad y competencia en materia de prevención de riesgos y situaciones de emergencia, al definir que en ellas «recae en primera instancia la responsabilidad de enfrentar esta problemática». En este sentido, las municipalidades deben velar tanto por la protección ambiental en el espacio otorgado a su jurisdicción, como por la prevención de riesgos y situaciones de emergencia, pudiendo para ello recibir asesoría –asesoría que está obligada a brindar- por parte de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

VIII.- El caso concreto. La situación aducida por el amparado. Del estudio de los autos y del informe rendido bajo fe de juramento, la Sala tiene por acreditado que la situación planteada por el recurrente es del conocimiento tanto de la Municipalidad de Aserrí como de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. De la Comisión pues desde agosto de 2009 existe un informe elaborado por su Departamento de Prevención y Mitigación, y de la Municipalidad porque desde marzo de este año, incluso de previo a la gestión planteada por el recurrente el 23 de abril, adquirió material para reparar la denominada calle “Los Solano”. Sin embargo, ante la interposición de esta acción de garantía, es claro que la situación acusada sobre dicha vía permanece aún tres meses después de la compra del material. Sobre el particular, debe hacerse notar que tal como se indica en los considerandos precedentes, corresponde en primera instancia a la Municipalidad atender situaciones como las que plantea el amparado, debiendo incluso establecer las acciones de coordinación con las demás entidades públicas que corresponda a efecto de solventar y prevenir riesgos ambientales y amenazas de emergencia. En este sentido, si ante la gestión del amparado el Departamento de Ingeniería Municipal comprueba la situación de riesgo existente en la referida vía pública, y advierte la necesidad de establecer mecanismos de coordinación con la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, debe la Municipalidad actuar lo concerniente dentro del menor plazo posible para que las obras necesarias y procedentes sean realizadas de previo al acontecimiento de una situación de riesgo o de emergencia. La Sala no soslaya que desde marzo de este año ya la Municipalidad había adquirido materiales para la ejecución de algún tipo de obras en la vía denunciada por el recurrente, mas es claro que a junio de 2010, las obras continuaban sin iniciar. De tal forma, siendo que en el caso bajo estudio se acredita que la Municipalidad tiene pleno conocimiento de la situación planteada y de las actuaciones que debe desarrollar, sin que a la fecha haya implementado acción alguna para solventar la situación planteada, lo que corresponde es declarar con lugar el recurso, ordenando a la Municipalidad establecer de inmediato los mecanismos de coordinación necesarios con la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, de modo que se solvente de manera definitiva la situación de riesgo existente en la denominada calle “Los Solano”, en el distrito de San Gabriel. En consecuencia, lo que procede es declarar con lugar el recurso, como en efecto se dispone.

Por tanto

Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a Leticia Castro Moreno y Mario Morales Guzmán, en su condición de Presidenta Municipal y Alcalde Municipal, respectivamente, ambos de la Municipalidad de Aserrí, o a quienes ocupen sus cargos, disponer de inmediato las actuaciones que se encuentren dentro de sus ámbitos de competencias, para establecer las acciones de coordinación que correspondan con la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, para que en un plazo de cuatro meses contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, se solucione de manera definitiva la situación de riesgo existente en la denominada calle “Los Solano”, en el distrito de San Gabriel. Se advierte a Leticia Castro Moreno y Mario Morales Guzmán, o a quienes ocupen sus cargos, que de conformidad con el artículo 71 de la Ley de esta jurisdicción, 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 Aserrí al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. Notifíquese la presente resolución a Leticia Castro Moreno y Mario Morales Guzmán, o a quienes ocupen sus cargos, en forma personal. Comuníquese.- Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Gilbert Armijo S. Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Rodolfo E. Piza R. Ricardo Guerrero P.