Extraction of materials from public riverbeds and EIA in mining emergenciesExtracción de materiales en cauces públicos y EIA en emergencias mineras

**Resultando:** 1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on August 18, two thousand seven, the plaintiff requests that the following provisions be declared unconstitutional: article 39 of the Mining Code, article 2 of Executive Decree Number 33777 MINAE, and numerals 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, considering them contrary to articles 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, 140 subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Rio Declaration, and Principle No. 15 of the Rio Declaration. The regulations are challenged insofar as they create special procedures for mining exploitation by public entities and private parties contracting with public entities, and for private parties in general, in which the requirement for an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is waived, which implies that mining exploitations can be carried out without environmental impact assessments, a condition constitutionally and legally required for the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The omission of these requirements lacks all reasonableness and objective justification, for the following reasons: 1) constitutional principles demand a supervisory and protective action by the State in all activities that may generate negative impacts on the environment, however, through the enactment of the challenged regulations, the State exempts itself from environmental impact assessments, through special procedures, to the detriment of the environment and the population's quality of life. 2) the environmental risk generated by mining activity is very high, there is no limit on the volume of material authorized in exploitation, and by extracting a minimum it is possible for environmental damages to occur, such as the following: exposing and damaging underground aquifers, contaminating rivers and springs (manantiales), including with substances that may be toxic to humans, especially if exploitation is done in a riverbed, provoking the dragging of materials and sediments, generating excessive noise or dust incompatible with a healthy environment, risk to environmental protection zones, risk to the national archaeological heritage, risk of causing the death of animals and plant species. The challenged rules do not contemplate any mechanism to verify the quantities of material to be extracted. Neither does any limit exist regarding the number of requests for this type of exploitation that a public institution may have. Regarding the violated constitutional rules and principles: a) article 7 of the Political Constitution, which establishes that public treaties, international conventions, and concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly shall have authority superior to the laws. Neither the law nor the regulation can establish special procedures that circumvent the International Law regulations ratified by Costa Rica and that guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The effective protection of that right is only possible through the requirement of Environmental Impact Assessments as a prerequisite to the execution of actions that alter the environment. b) Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights regarding Environmental Law; c) the first principle of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, since the challenged regulations prevent compliance with international instruments that guarantee environmental protection, as they waive Environmental Impact Assessments in highly sensitive activities such as mining exploitation; d) Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which imposes the precautionary principle when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage; e) articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, which oblige the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in this case consists of a broad power so that, through its competent bodies, a mining exploration or exploitation permit may be denied or conditioned. The challenged regulations also violate articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution, the first noting that human life is inviolable, and the second guaranteeing a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, since the challenged legislation and regulations create special mining exploitation procedures without fulfilling the necessary Environmental Impact Assessments in those exploitation activities, which are necessary not only in application of legal rules (Mining Code and Organic Environmental Law) but also of international treaties. She also alleges that articles 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777 and articles 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code violate article 140 subsections 3) and 18) and 11 of the Political Constitution, because the Executive Branch exceeded its regulatory power, given that not only the Political Constitution and International Treaties, but also the law require Environmental Impact Assessments, a mechanism to provide protection for the right to a healthy environment in any project or work that causes or threatens to cause negative effects on the environment, and of course, the Executive Branch cannot issue a decree in which it exempts the State, public institutions, and private parties contracting with them from complying with the law. She makes reference to judgment 2003-10421 of September 17, 2003, which granted an unconstitutionality action under identical conditions to the present appeal.

2.- In order to substantiate the standing she holds to bring this unconstitutionality action, the plaintiff invokes the second paragraph of article 50 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes the standing of every person to denounce acts that infringe upon the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and the provisions of the second paragraph of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, since this concerns the defense of a diffuse interest.

3.- By ruling of thirteen hours forty minutes on September 7, two thousand seven, the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), and the National Emergency Commission (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias) (folio 24).

4.- Daniel Gallardo Monge, President of the National Emergency Commission, requested an addition and clarification of the ruling of thirteen hours forty minutes on September 7, two thousand seven, which admitted the action (folio 29).

5.- By ruling of eleven hours fifty minutes on September 26, two thousand seven, the President of the Chamber ordered that the requested addition and clarification are not applicable (folio 46).

6.- Francela Alfaro Ulate, President of the Costa Rican Association of Concessionaires of Materials and Aggregates for Construction (Asociación Costarricense de Concesionarios de Materiales y Agregados para la Construcción) ACCMAC, requested to be considered an active coadjuvant, as she considers that the challenged regulation, insofar as it does not provide for the state obligation to compensate the concessionaires of the quarries (tajos) it temporarily intervenes for reasons of emergency, violates article 45 of the Political Constitution, because it is not technically a limitation on property, which can only be established by a law approved by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly and not by Executive Decree, and secondly, because seizing the materials of a concessioned quarry without payment of their commercial value constitutes a de facto expropriation prohibited by article 45 of the Political Constitution. It also violates freedom of enterprise, because it prevents the concessionaires of quarries intervened by the National Emergency Commission under its protection from obtaining a reasonable profit in the exercise of their business activity. She further maintains that the challenged regulation violates articles 11 and 28 of the Political Constitution because it grants powers to the National Emergency Commission that can only be conferred directly by law, such as the power to establish limitations on the fundamental rights of property and freedom of enterprise (folios 34 to 44).

7.- Roberto Dobles Mora, Minister of Environment and Energy, answered the hearing granted (folio 50) and stated that the plaintiff transcribes article 39 of the Mining Code, but not in its complete form, and regarding articles 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, she transcribes a text already repealed by Executive Decree 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta of September 28, 2004. According to the new text of Executive Decree 31950-MINAE, this does comply with the obligation to obtain environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), not through the presentation of the environmental impact assessment, but rather in accordance with Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC "General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures," it establishes that mining exploitation activities whose exploitation volume is less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters are classified as Category B2 of Low Potential Environmental Impact. Not only is environmental viability required during the material extraction process, the supervision of a Professional responsible for the extraction from a technical and environmental standpoint is required. In summary, the plaintiff's omission to inform about the existence of Executive Decree 31950-MINAE implies that it is not true that there is no extraction volume limit, since its maximum is 20,000 cubic meters as established in subsection b) of article 2 of the aforementioned decree. Regarding articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree 29300-MINAE: Regulations to the Mining Code, reformed by Executive Decree No. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 of August 7, 2001. The plaintiff omits to inform that the mentioned articles were reformed by Executive Decree 31792-MINAE-MP published in Alcance No. 20 of May 14, 2004. As part of the requirements that must be presented with the notification of the need for material extraction during duly declared emergencies, the fact is that a copy of the communication must be presented to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA). We start from the premise that these are declared states of emergency, therefore, a state of exception. Our country is exposed to natural phenomena that have caused, throughout history, various national catastrophes, causing rivers to overflow, landslides that leave entire communities cut off, and which require the urgent replacement of basic services. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree number 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007, "Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries (canteras) and riverbeds (cauces) of public domain by Municipalities," he indicated that it regulates procedures applicable to declared and undeclared emergencies, as well as the execution of prevention works. Regarding the merits of the action, he indicated he would refer to: a) article 39 of the Mining Code, relating to temporary permits, and b) emergency cases, articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code and article 2 of Executive Decree 33777-MINAE. In relation to article 39 of the Mining Code, he reiterates what was indicated in the sense that the procedure does require environmental viability, not through the environmental impact assessment, but indeed under the protection of Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC "General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures." Furthermore, by Executive Decree 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta of September 28, 2004, article 39 of the Cited Code was regulated, demonstrating that there is a specific volume (maximum 20,000 cubic meters), that during the exploitation phase of the materials, the supervision of a geological and environmental regent must be in place, and obligations such as the submission of work reports also exist. In relation to emergency cases, regulated in articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code and article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, it is possible to agree with the plaintiff that a special procedure is being created, but for several reasons: First, it is not possible for the State, the Municipalities, and the National Emergency Commission itself to process Environmental Impact Assessments when a phenomenon has occurred that is causing a national or regional emergency. Second, before the reform operated by Law No. 8246, there was no rule in the Code regulating the mining activity of the State, let alone contemplating emergency cases, which is why it was necessary to issue regulatory norms. The State institutions in the broad sense, central (Executive Branch) and decentralized, require materials, basically construction aggregates, for the execution of their purposes, this being when it involves so-called "ordinary work." In a national or regional emergency, the needs for these materials are even greater. Third: Article 1 of the Mining Code establishes "... The State has absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible dominion over all mineral resources existing in the national territory and in its patrimonial sea, whatever the origin, physical state, or nature of the substances they contain. The State shall endeavor to exploit mineral riches by itself or through organisms that depend on it. However, the State may grant concessions for the reconnaissance, exploration, exploitation, and beneficiation of mineral resources, in accordance with this law. The concessions shall not affect in any way the dominion of the State, and shall be extinguished in the event of non-compliance with the legal requirements to maintain them." In this regard, the Minister reiterates what was established in the votes of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 2003-03480, 2002-05245, 2002-06053, and 1999-04916, concluding that mineral resources are the property of the State, which can give them their natural use when it needs them; if the Constitutional Chamber has considered that it can use them for reasons of safety and hygiene, there is no doubt that in the case of national or regional emergencies, declared or undeclared, the use of State resources is unconditional. For emergency cases, he cites judgment No. 1992-03410 and 2006-06336. In Title VIII of the Regulations to the Mining Code, called "On Special Procedures," the mining activity of Municipalities and Autonomous Institutions is regulated, as well as that of the State and its contractors. This regulation is for the ordinary activity of the mentioned entities and bodies; in fact, articles 135 and 159 are immersed within that regulation as cases of exception, such as "Emergency Cases." 8.- Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, in her capacity as Attorney General of the Republic (Procuradora General de la República), answered the hearing granted (folios 68-94) and stated, regarding the object of the action, that it seeks a declaration of unconstitutionality for articles 39 of the Mining Code (Law No. 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its reforms), 135 (which is currently repealed) and 159 (in its version prior to the currently valid one) of the Regulations to the Mining Code (Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), published in La Gaceta No. 54 of March 16, 2001, and 2 of the Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and riverbeds of public domain by municipalities (Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), published in La Gaceta No. 129 of July 5, 2007, considering them contrary to articles 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, and 140 subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, and principles 15 and 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). The representative of the Chamber's Advisory Body did not object to the plaintiff's standing; however, she believes the action should be declared partially inadmissible in relation to articles 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, since article 135 has been repealed since July 5, 2007, while the version of numeral 159 challenged by the plaintiff corresponds to the one that was in force from 2001 until before it was reformed in 2004, by virtue of article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. In both cases, the plaintiff is bringing her action against two rules that are not in force; article 135 was expressly repealed by article 7° of the mentioned Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, one month before the promoter filed her action. While this is not an obstacle for the Constitutional Chamber to assess its legitimacy, it is difficult to conceive of a legal situation regarding which the article 135 in question continues to have effects. The foregoing, taking into account that the factual premise contemplated by the rule is provided for cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with the National Emergency Law (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), whereby it is foreseeable that its effects have already been consummated, so in her judgment, there is no sufficient reason meriting opening the constitutionality review of a rule that has been eliminated from the legal system (effect of the estimatory judgment of the action, provided for in article 88 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), since one month before this action was filed, and for which there is no record that it continues to produce effects, an aspect the plaintiff also does not trouble to explain. Likewise, the promoter of this action is not even challenging the last version that was in force of article 135 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, as a result of the reform operated by article 1° of the cited Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP, but rather the text that was in force 6 years ago, a rule that presents significant differences regarding the environmental subject matter, relative to its immediately subsequent version, which prevents evaluating these two wordings with the same constitutionality parameter and giving them indistinct treatment. Thus, having directed this action against a repealed rule, which furthermore has not been in force for over 3 years, the action is inadmissible in relation to article 135, and we recommend it be declared so by the Justices. For the same reasons, the inadmissibility of the action in relation to article 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code should be declared. The petitioner challenges the rule that was in force before the reform operated by article 2° of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP in April 2004, and also does not explain the reason why 6 years later and despite being repealed, it would still be producing effects in order to be suitable for constitutional control. Especially when it also contemplates a factual premise that, if it occurs, exhausts the effects of the rule almost immediately, since extraction under the protection of the cited article 159 shall be carried out for the duration of the Initial Phase of the duly declared national emergency. Finally, it cannot be admitted that we are facing a simple material error or that the action can be directed indistinctly against the current version and against the prior version of article 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, not only due to the informality that this implies, which borders on the solemnity proper to a trial of such high instance (article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), but also because there are substantial differences between one rule and another that have a determining impact on the constitutionality review. For example, the version of the rule challenged by the plaintiff omits the communication to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the requirement to record the name of the responsible person for environmental regency, among other important aspects that the valid article 159 does contemplate. Given this imprecision in the object against which the action is directed, it is clear that this must also be declared inadmissible with regard to article 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code. Regarding the merits of the matter, she indicated that it is appropriate to analyze whether the challenged rules constitute an exception to the constitutional requirement developed by article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, through the creation of special procedures for mining exploitation by the State, decentralized entities, and private parties contracting with either. Regarding article 39 of the Mining Code, which regulates the assumption of temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from riverbeds of public domain or quarries, she indicated that according to its text, the extracted materials, a task that may be in charge of a private contractor or subcontractor, must be destined solely and exclusively for public works. Hence the express prohibition on commercializing the materials extracted under the protection of said concession, which is granted by the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a maximum term of 120 days, after which, if exploitation continues, the respective bodies or territorial corporations must follow the ordinary procedure for exploration permits and exploitation concessions, in which, it should be mentioned, the completion of the corresponding environmental impact assessments is expressly contemplated (articles 24 subsection ch), 34 subsection ch), 76, and 77 of the Mining Code). Article 39 of the Mining Code institutes a special, summary procedure, in which formalities are expedited without being eliminated; which is justified by the timely satisfaction of the public interest by the Public Administration. However, the celerity and simplicity that might be appreciated in granting these temporary concessions need not necessarily conflict with the constitutional principle. An interpretation of article 39 of the Mining Code consistent with the block of constitutionality must be made, derived from its systematic insertion with the rest of the environmental regulations. Particularly, from its relationship with the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, of May 24, 2004, which in its annexes 1 and 2, contemplates among the list of works, projects, and activities subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, the mining activity of the State and its companies, of the municipalities, as well as of autonomous institutions, as well as in general, open-pit extraction (quarries or riverbeds of public domain), of construction stones, cut stone, clay, talc, dolomite, sand, and gravel even when the volume to be extracted is less than or equal to 20,000 m3. Articles 109 and 136 of the Regulations to the Mining Code regulate the extraction of non-metallic materials by the State and other public entities to be strictly destined for the construction, maintenance, and repair of works of public interest or utility, and which complement the regulation of the special procedure of article 39 of the cited Code (since numerals 111 and 138 of the referred Regulation contemplate that authorizations shall have a validity of up to 3 years, renewable for 2 more years). Since articles 112, subsection 3, and 141 subsection c) of the same body of law establish that the request from the interested public entity must be accompanied by the "SETENA Resolution approving the Environmental Impact Assessment corresponding to the proposed project." But, above all, from articles 128 and 152 of the cited Regulation, which regulate so-called "minor and specific projects" consisting of all those works or tasks that are necessary to attend to situations caused by geodynamic processes, such as: landslides, mudslides, erosive processes, sewer collapses, bridge collapses, approach fillings, repair and maintenance of existing roads and highways, and others that are considered as such by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas) and so justified by the requesting entity. These projects correspond to the premise of article 39, being specific works, for a maximum term of four months, and with a maximum volume to be extracted or removed of 20,000 cubic meters. The Chamber, as a result of the cited vote No. 2003-10421, considered that the environmental impact assessment and its corresponding approval by SETENA should be required as part of the requirements established by articles 129 and 153 of the Regulation in question. Finally, from the reading of article 1° of the cited Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, which precisely regulates the extraction of materials from quarries and riverbeds of public domain by municipalities, without distinction of term, to be destined for cantonal development works and public interest (article 1.1), whose third paragraph, subsection d), provides that the respective Mayor's request must contain the "Resolution of environmental viability issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat." Therefore, in accordance with the preceding rules, it is feasible to estimate that the "Environmental precautions during temporary extraction" that the temporary permit or concession granted by MINAE to the interested public body or entity must contain, according to article 39, paragraph e), subsection 7, of the Mining Code, may well refer to the environmental viability issued by SETENA. This connects perfectly with the precautionary or preventive nature of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, and that the referenced article 39 concludes with the phrase in its penultimate paragraph, that "All environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionaire institution or, as applicable, of the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work." With this, this Attorney General's Office estimates that article 39 of the Mining Code is consistent with the constitutional regulations on environmental matters cited by the appellant. On the topic of emergency cases and Environmental Impact Assessment, the Attorney General's Office maintained that the premises contemplated in articles 2° of the referred Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE and 157 of the Regulations to the Mining Code – and without prejudice to the considerations noted above for considering the inadmissibility of the action with respect to this latter numeral – fall within the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, such as to consider the non-requirement of approval of an environmental impact assessment as duly motivated and justified. Since both rules regulate exceptional measures, such as the extraction of materials to attend to cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with the law, which, if a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment were required, could thwart the timely attention of the emergency in question. Additionally, both rules are issued within the framework of the provisions contained in the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention (No. 8488, of November 22, 2005) and the National Emergency Law (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), as can be verified from Considering VI of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE and from the express reference the challenged articles make to said laws.

Thus, article 2 of both laws emphasizes the need to confer an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of the causes of risk, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of emergency situations.

After partially transcribing articles 3, 4, and 5 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law, it indicates that the exceptional regime derived from the declaration of a state of emergency by the Executive Branch, pursuant to article 29 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law, is evident from the reading of its articles 31, 32, 35, and 36, such as the power to expropriate without prior compensation or, indeed, the powers of occupation, demolition, restriction, and imposition of easements (servidumbres) on private properties. Likewise, article 34 provides that the Executive Branch, under a state of emergency, "may decree temporary restrictions on the use of the land, in order to avoid greater disasters and facilitate the construction of works." Of particular interest, article 30 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law outlines the 3 phases for attending to an emergency; in the context of the foregoing provisions, the challenged article 2 of the referenced Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain waterways by municipalities seeks to articulate the exceptional, urgent, and special circumstances of a state of emergency with environmental supervision. If the information is not presented correctly and completely, the municipality may not commence exploitation activities. Likewise, within a maximum period of 15 business days following the completion of the material extraction, the respective municipality must submit a technical closure report for the exploitation to said office, with the specifications required therein. The exploitation that a Municipality must carry out in a state of urgency and necessity can be harmonized with the guidelines that MINAE has established for that purpose in the respective environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), in accordance with the last paragraph of article 36 of the Mining Code, which establishes:

"In declared emergency situations, when the municipality needs to extract material from a public domain waterway for which a concession has already been granted, the concessionaire must permit the extraction of material in the volumes authorized by the DGM. Said extraction must be carried out following the guidelines established in the exploitation plan and the environmental recommendations issued by MINAE in the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental)." The same considerations are valid regarding article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code – and also for article 135 should this Chamber admit the action with respect to this latter norm, as it is a transcript of the former – since in its current version, not the one challenged by the appellant, it provides:

"Article 159.— Emergency Cases:

In cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with Law Nº 7914 and its Regulation, and the interested party communicates such fact in writing with the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response to the Directorate of Geology and Mines, with a copy to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, said party may, after such communication, commence the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency and shall have a period of 4 months to present a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response.

The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the activities to be carried out, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive activities and the environmental regency (regencia ambiental), the material source to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the period necessary to meet the need. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan.

The rehabilitation and reconstruction works for the infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Emergency Regulatory Plan." (The underlining is not from the original).

(Thus amended by article 17 of Executive Decree N° 29677 and by article 2° of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).

In accordance with the foregoing text, the extraction of materials will only be possible to attend to cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with the National Emergency Law, requiring notification of SETENA of said tasks – which must include the name of the person responsible for the extractive activities and the environmental regency (regencia ambiental) – and for which the interested party must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. Likewise, said activity must be adjusted to the Emergency Regulatory Plan. From this perspective, this Attorney General's Office also finds no indication of unconstitutionality in this additional aspect of the action. For the foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of this advisory body that articles 39 of the Mining Code (Law No. 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its amendments), 135 (currently repealed) and 159 (currently amended) of the Regulation to the Mining Code (Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), as well as 2° of the Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain waterways by municipalities (Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), are in conformity, under the terms set forth above, with the constitutional block on environmental matters.

9.- Daniel Gallardo Monge, in his capacity as President of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, responds on folio 97 to the granted hearing, stating that articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, which is the Regulation of the Mining Code, were amended by Executive Decree No. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 of August 7, 2001. Both norms have the same wording, with the particularity that article 135 is found within the chapter referring to municipalities, and article 159 in the chapter on other State institutions. It derives from the power of exceptionality rooted in article 180 of the Constitution, in cases of national emergencies, and from the obligation of public Institutions to coordinate and give priority within their institutions' activities to emergency response, according to articles 31, 32, 33, and 39, of Law No. 8488, National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law. That for the application of the regulations, the Commission is required to certify that the roads or works on which intervention will take place are reported among the damages of the national emergency, the need for materials, and a copy is sent to SETENA. In addition to the exceptional regime that derives precisely from a constitutional power, the intervention in river waterways to extract material, for example, generates a double benefit: the first, to clean the waterways of sediments dragged by the same floods (reclamation), and the second, that said extracted material is used at the same time for the repair and rehabilitation of roads destroyed by the same event generating the emergency, for which reason the intervention is aimed at restoring things to their prior state, which is the spirit of the challenged regulations. To deny this possibility is to tie the hands of State institutions; logic leads us to think that it is not unconstitutional to allow such works to be carried out without complying with environmental regulations that only operate in normal times, and provided that the causal link between the damage and the emergency is verified, and it is recorded in the General Emergency Plan, where the damages that occurred are recorded. This Plan is the "... instrument that will allow for the rational, efficient, and systematic planning and channeling of the actions that must be carried out, the necessary supervision, and the allocation of the required resources..." (Article 38, Law 8488). The Municipalities and Institutions that are competent according to the subject matter are appointed Executing Units of the CNE; their actions are contemplated in the last paragraph of article 39 of Law 8488. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007, Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain waterways by Municipalities, it indicates that subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to Municipal extraction permits, for which I refer to the arguments previously presented, as they are the equivalent of article 135 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, with only the addition of what pertains to undeclared emergencies, whose legal basis will be expanded upon with article 151 of the National Risk Prevention and Emergency Response Law. Regarding subsections 5, 6, 7, and 8, it is important to be clear that the powers to exempt from procedure are based on procedures applicable to declared emergencies, undeclared emergencies, and the execution of prevention works, and they have their respective legal basis. Under the exceptional regime, the National Emergency Commission acts under the protection of article 180 of the Political Constitution, which is explained in judgment 1992-3410, and Law 8488, which is the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law, in articles 3, 4, 15, 30, 31, and 32. Based on the foregoing regulations, regarding exceptionality and in safeguarding the fundamental right to life, the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response carries out interventions in three areas, which lead to the same end: the first, called "Undeclared Emergencies," which, according to the last paragraph of article 15, correspond to responses to events that, being very specific, are not sufficient to declare a National Emergency, but according to their magnitude and damages, become, at the level of the community that suffers, a true emergency due to the danger to people's lives and property. These cases are highly frequent, especially during the winter season, and where the Commission intervenes in many cases with river dredging and the extraction of materials from waterways or cuts. The second type of intervention corresponds to those covered by emergency declarations in their three phases of action, where protection work, road repair, etc., must also be carried out in a timely manner, where material extraction is indispensable. And the third case is related to prevention works, where work is carried out in places already identified as having a high degree of vulnerability, high risk, and imminent risk, where an emergency has not yet occurred but where, in most cases, the dividing line between risk and emergency is so tenuous that an equally expeditious intervention is necessary, because the same legal interest—people's lives and property—is at stake. It is not just any work, but those intended to prevent an emergency. Cites in support judgment No. 2006-06336, leading to the conclusion that the regulation is not unconstitutional since the right to exceptionality derives from higher-ranking regulations and binding jurisprudence. It is not possible to require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for State institutions to be granted a mining concession when facing exceptional situations and imminent risk. The State, as regulator and owner of the absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible domain of all mineral resources existing in the national territory, can allocate their use, and there is no doubt that if their use has been permitted for reasons of safety and hygiene, in cases of emergencies, declared or undeclared, and in preventive matters, the use of state resources is unconditional, for the benefit of the inhabitants.

10.- The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in Judicial Bulletins numbers 191, 192, and 193 of October 4, 5, and 8, 2007 (folio 95).- 11.- Mr. Alfredo Córdoba Soro, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of San Carlos, petitions the Chamber to be admitted in order to coadjuvate for the dismissal of the unconstitutionality action. Regarding articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, the former has been repealed since July 5, 2007, and the latter was in force until 2001, when it was amended in 2004 by article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. That it is not possible for these norms to radiate legal effects, as they were repealed from national legislation; moreover, it is predictable that all their effects have already been exhausted. The same occurs with respect to the challenged article 159. Regarding the challenged article 39 of the Mining Code, it concerns temporary concessions for ministries and municipalities, so if it is necessary to extend beyond the maximum of 120 days, ordinary procedures must be followed; likewise, the commercialization of materials extracted under a temporary concession is prohibited; finally, any environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionary institution, the contractor, or the subcontractor, as applicable. It is a special, summary procedure, in which the formalities are not eliminated but rather expedited considering the public interest, for the execution of pertinent public works. In this regard, it refers to the advisory opinion of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic. By judgment No. 2005-13045, the written omission of the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) requirement in article 39 that concerns us is not a reason not to integrate it through the proper interpretation of the constitutional block, with the rest of the environmental regulations. In this sense, the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Procedures (DE No. 31849), articles 109, 128, 136, and 152 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, and article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, insofar as they refer to mechanisms, provisions, or procedures aimed at environmental prevention related to the extraction activity. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, what is protected is the speed of the Public Administration's action in relation to the emergency that has arisen, and that requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) would undermine the timely response to the urgency that has occurred. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need to provide an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of the emergency situation and the availability of existing resources that can be applied to remedying the emergency by the different state entities, without losing sight of the subsequent accountability demanded by the laws and regulations governing the Public Administration. The National Emergency Law contemplates an exceptional regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, it concludes that all of this is in accordance with numerals 21 and 180 of the Political Constitution, and that accepting the plaintiff's thesis would make good and effective management by the state entities responsible for attending to these states of urgency and emergency impossible. It requests that the claim be dismissed.

12.- Giselle Mora Peña, in her capacity as Executive Director of the National Union of Local Governments, justifies the inadmissibility of the filed action and acts under the protection of Law No. 5119 of November 20, 1972, being composed of all municipalidades and federations of municipalidades of Costa Rica. She points out regarding articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code that both are repealed, and their analysis becomes irrelevant, based on the premise that the events generated by the application of those regulations have extinguished their effects, and no reference is made to specific situations where those effects are being produced. Regarding article 39 of the Mining Code, she reiterates that the rulings of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2003-10421, 2004-09220, and 2005-05790 coincide in that the mining and material extraction activity by the State and other institutions falls within the assumption of article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law, and therefore requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) by SETENA. Article 39 contains a special, summary procedure, in which the formalities are not eliminated but rather expedited considering the timely satisfaction of the protected public interest. Refers to judgment No. 2005-013045. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, it protects the speed of the Public Administration's action in relation to the emergency that has arisen, and that requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) would undermine the timely response to the urgency that has occurred. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need to provide an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of the emergency situation and the availability of existing resources that can be applied to remedying the emergency by the different state entities, without losing sight of the subsequent accountability demanded by the laws and regulations governing the Public Administration. The National Emergency Law contemplates an exceptional regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, she concludes that all of this is in accordance with numerals 21 and 180 of the Political Constitution, and that accepting the plaintiff's thesis would make good and effective management by the state entities responsible for attending to these states of urgency and emergency impossible. She requests that the claim be dismissed.

13.- Mr. Pedro Luis Castro Fernández, in his capacity as Vice Minister of Public Works and Transport, appears in order to coadjuvate against the claims seeking to declare the unconstitutionality of the norms challenged in the action. The State and the municipalities cannot, in pursuing the attention of needs and the satisfaction of general interests, especially urgent ones such as attending to the road network situation, have to subject themselves from the outset to formalities and requirements such as preparing environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental) and having these analyzed and resolved in turn, when the matter concerns obtaining a temporary permit – subject to a short term – to extract materials given the urgency of carrying out the corresponding public works. Within this context, the suspension of formalities so that the State can extract materials for one hundred twenty days, dispensing with environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental), is reasonable and amply justified, without contravening our legal system given the legal values at stake. The action filed against articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE has no basis, as they were repealed on July 5, 2007, by Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, and on April 28, 2004, through Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP, respectively. Regarding article 39 of the Mining Code, what it contemplates is a temporary concession for ministries and municipalities, in cases of public works execution, to extract materials – directly or through contractors – from public domain waterways or quarries, an authorization that is of a transitory and precarious nature for up to a maximum of one hundred twenty calendar days. It regulates exceptional acts, of very short duration, and because for the authorization to be extended, an ordinary procedure must be processed, which entails the submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). But in addition to this, since paragraph e), subsection 7) of the referenced numeral provides that these temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental precautions" (prevenciones ambientales) that the approval of the environmental authority must contain, those "warnings" would materially equate to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) demanded by article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. Emergency situations exempt compliance with the environmental requirements foreseen for normal situations. On this matter, article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE regulates exceptional measures, such as the extraction of materials to attend to national emergency cases in which the submission of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is inadmissible. Faced with emergency situations, where supreme values and interests are at stake, such as the legal interests of human life and health, the State is empowered to dispense with ordinary red tape to confront the contingencies derived from the generating event. Cites judgment No. 2001-6503, the character of regulatory exceptionality that the questioned regulations infer; it must also be proven that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, which guarantees that the circumstances are consistent with such exceptional situations. There are efforts by the MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, including through a loan from the Government of Germany. Similarly, he highlights that the National Development Plan 2007-2010 plans to increase the proportion of the Paved Road Network in good condition from 20% to 30% and to increase the coverage of attention to the Cantonal Road Network nationwide by 5,000 km by 2010. To meet these objectives, the MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the necessary material sources to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, mainly through obtaining permits and exploitation concessions. It also requests that the resolution that admitted the unconstitutionality action be clarified and supplemented.

14.- The representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units, Cantonal Road Boards, Mayoralties, and Councils of San Carlos, Los Chiles, Upala, and Guatuso, and the District Municipal Council of Peñas Blancas de San Ramón, request to be admitted to coadjuvate against the claims seeking to declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms. They coadjuvate in the same sense as the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transport. They allege that articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE were repealed. They point out that it is inappropriate to require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the concessions regulated by article 39 of the Mining Code, as it is a norm authorizing temporary concessions for the execution of public works, of a transitory and precarious nature for up to a maximum of 120 calendar days. Paragraph e), subsection 7 of the referenced numeral provides that these temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental precautions" (prevenciones ambientales) that the approval of the environmental authority must contain; those "warnings" would materially equate to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) demanded by article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law. On the other hand, emergencies exempt compliance with environmental requirements. Due to the values and interests at stake, exceptional, expeditious, and simplified procedures are authorized to attend to the impact phases in order to provide the conditions to guarantee the population's well-being. Cites judgment No. 2001-06503, the character of regulatory exceptionality that the questioned regulations infer; it must also be proven that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, which guarantees that the circumstances are consistent with such exceptional situations. There are efforts by the MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, including through a loan from the Government of Germany. Similarly, he highlights that the National Development Plan 2007-2010 plans to increase the proportion of the Paved Road Network in good condition from 20% to 30% and to increase the coverage of attention to the Cantonal Road Network nationwide by 5,000 km by 2010. To meet these objectives, the MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the necessary material sources to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, mainly through obtaining permits and exploitation concessions. It also requests that the resolution that admitted the unconstitutionality action be clarified and supplemented.

15.- Jorge Alberto Cole de León, in his capacity as Mayor and legal representative of the Municipality of Osa, pronounces in the same sense as the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transport and the Municipal Road Management Technical Units.

16.- By resolution at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November nineteen, two thousand seven, the Presidency of this Chamber directed Marvín Elizondo Cordero, Jimmy Cubillo Mora, and Rafael Angel Navarrro Umaña, in their capacities as Municipal Mayor of Garabito, Municipal Mayor of Golfito, and Second Vice President of the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region, to accredit their capacity in which they appeared before the Chamber, among other things.

17- By resolution at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on December three, two thousand seven, the Presidency of this Chamber resolved to admit as passive coadjuvants to the action: the Costa Rican Association of Material and Aggregate Concessionaires for Construction, the Municipal Mayor of San Carlos, the Municipal Mayor of Osa, the Union of Local Governments, the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transport, and the representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units, Cantonal Road Boards, Mayoralties, and Municipal Councils of the District of Peñas Blancas de San Ramón. In turn, it rejected the coadjuvancies presented by the Municipal Mayors of Garabito, of Golfito, and the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region, for failing to comply with the requirement made in the resolution at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November nineteen, two thousand seven, and rejected as untimely those presented by the Municipal Mayors of Coto Brus, Moravia, and San José.

18.- By resolution at eleven hours on September eleven, two thousand eight, the Acting President of the Chamber deemed the granted hearings as answered. (folio 356) 19.- The hearing indicated in articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.

20.- The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings.

Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

I.On the admissibility of the action. The action meets the formal requirements demanded by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and is admissible as it concerns the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, for which article 50 of the Constitution grants the broadest standing, which does not require, in these cases, any qualification of the plaintiffs' interest; also, their standing derives from the provisions of article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which allows the filing of the action without requiring the existence of a prior matter pending resolution before the courts of justice or in procedures to exhaust administrative remedies, when it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, as occurs in this case, which deals with environmental defense.- As different regulatory provisions are challenged, to facilitate their study, this Chamber will resolve matters related to them in the following order, and then resolve the challenge to article 39 of the Mining Code.

II.- On the inadmissibility of the action against abrogated and amended regulatory provisions. The Chamber will begin the analysis of the claim filed by the plaintiff Ávila Jones, insofar as it alleges the unconstitutionality of articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE of June 18, 2007. The challenged numerals establish the following:

Article 135.— Emergency Cases:

In cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with Law Nº 7914 and its Regulation, and the interested party communicates such fact in writing with the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response to the Directorate of Geology and Mines, with a copy to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, said party may, after such communication, commence the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency and shall have a period of 4 months to present a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response.

The communication referred to must contain at least: the work to be performed, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extraction work and the environmental oversight (regencia ambiental), the source of material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time necessary to address the need. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan (Plan de Explotación).

The rehabilitation and reconstruction works of the infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Emergency Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador de la emergencia).

(Thus amended by Article 16 of Executive Decree No. 29677 and by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).

Article 159.—Emergency cases. In cases of duly declared national emergency and while the Initial Phase or Phase I of the emergency lasts, in accordance with Law No. 7914 and its regulations, and the interested party communicates such fact in writing to the DGM, the latter may, after said communication, begin the extraction required to attend to the indicated phase of the emergency and will have a period of 6 months to present a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the applicant as the Executing Unit (Unidad Ejecutora) by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias).

The communication referred to must contain at least: the work to be performed, the volume and the source of material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time necessary to address the need." (Thus amended by Article 17 of Executive Decree No. 29677 of July 12, 2001).

The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), in its capacity as advisory body to this constitutional jurisdiction, the authorities in the hearing granted by this Chamber for the action of unconstitutionality, and the coadjuvants, agree that the challenge to Article 135 of the Regulation to the Mining Code is not viable, given that at the time the action of unconstitutionality was filed, it was not in force. The Chamber verifies that the original version of numeral 135 of the aforementioned Regulation was amended on two occasions, and finally repealed by Article 7 of Executive Decree No. 33777 of June 18, 2007. The repeal came into effect as of July 5, 2007, the date of publication in La Gaceta. Hence, the repeal had occurred one month before the unconstitutionality claim was filed on August 8, 2007. This situation presents a problem for us, between the need to resolve the plaintiff's complaint, which is based on the interest in preserving constitutional supremacy, the direct and immediate application of the Constitution, and the cleanup of the legal system, via the action of unconstitutionality with the elimination of a norm for being repugnant to the Political Constitution, for harming the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Despite what is alleged, the Chamber must reject this action regarding this point because it is not even a case of a supervening loss of the object of the action, that is, the challenged norm was abrogated while the action was being processed, but rather, on the contrary, at the time the lawsuit was filed there was no longer any affectation, nor is there a specific case in which the application of the norm that was in force—now repealed—was being discussed. Consequently, what is sought is the "purging" of repealed norms, which is improper as it lacks the necessary standing because the surviving effects of the questioned provision must be demonstrated, which cannot be achieved with the diffuse interest in environmental defense. In this case, no specific injuries are alleged in a base trial, where specific damages are demonstrated or indicated in a prior matter in which it is a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered harmed, and therefore, if this Tribunal were to rule, it would be issuing an abstract opinion or one of mere academic and historical interest. The same occurs with Article 159 of the challenged Regulation. Although the Chamber has interpreted standing in environmental matters broadly, where any injury to the environment is susceptible to being reflected in each of the inhabitants of the Republic, in the case before us, the same conclusion cannot be reached, because the legal basis of the situations regulated by the norm are closely associated with declared emergency situations, and the first initial phase. In this way, according to the National Law of Emergencies No. 7914 of September 28, 1999, it established:

“ARTICLE 6.- Phases of the emergency declaration An emergency declaration is composed of three phases:

• a)The initial or critical phase is the one immediately following the occurrence of the event. It includes informing the population, protecting affected persons and property in the disaster zone, rescuing and saving persons and property, providing health assistance to victims, socially assisting the victims, and immediately rehabilitating essential public services.
• b)The intermediate or medium-term phase refers to the rehabilitation of the affected zone and includes, at least, the cleanup of and access to the disaster zone, the temporary relocation of the population, the construction of shelters, and provisioning.
• c)The conclusion phase consists of the reconstruction of destroyed social interest housing, aqueducts, sewage systems, and electrical grids; in general, it is the phase where the normal functioning of the affected public services is restored.

The three phases may be subject to attention, in accordance with the concept of national emergency. To be recognized by the legal system, the nexus of cause and effect between the event and the damages caused must be clearly established and will be recorded in the general plan to attend to the emergency, according to the resolutions or decrees adopted for its attention.

Likewise, the National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention, Law No. 8488, which will be transcribed below, regulates in more detail the initial or critical phase transcribed above. The truth is that the reasons for acting under emergency conditions are found therein; however, the action of unconstitutionality equally seeks an abstract pronouncement of mere academic and historical interest. It must be taken into account that the norm was amended by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004, published in La Gaceta No. 94 of May 14, 2004, so the challenged provision is also not in force; the scope of a declaration of unconstitutionality of a norm previously amended by the Executive Branch itself would render the object of the action—this time—unnecessary. Precisely, the version in force—which was not expressly challenged—includes provisions that raise the level of requirements for the exploitation of riverbeds and quarries for the extraction of materials in duly declared national emergencies, such as: "... the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extraction work and the environmental oversight, [...]. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan," a situation that would allow complementing the issue with what will be said below. For the foregoing, the action must be rejected outright on these two points, as is hereby done.

III.- On the extraction of materials in the Chamber's jurisprudence in emergency cases.- The plaintiff's complaint lies in that Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE of June 18, 2007, which is the Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain riverbeds by municipalities, creates special procedures for mining exploitation by public entities, individuals who contract with them, and for individuals in general, to exempt them from the requirement of the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental), to carry them out in unlimited numbers, thereby harming the fundamental right to the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For a better understanding of what is being discussed in the lawsuit, the challenged numeral is transcribed:

“Article 2º— 1. In cases of duly declared national emergency, it will suffice that the municipality communicates to the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas) the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the work to be performed, the public work in which the materials will be used and the extraction period, as well as a letter from the National Commission of Emergencies (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias), indicating that the work to be performed is among the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication, the municipality may begin the exploitation work under the supervision of the Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental).

Within a maximum period of fifteen business days after the completion of the extraction of materials; the municipality must submit a technical closure report for the exploitation to the Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, specifying the amount of material extracted and the conditions in which the site was left.

2. In cases of undeclared emergencies, in addition to the requirements established in the preceding paragraph, the municipality must provide with the communication a recommendation from the National Commission of Emergencies indicating the need to carry out the proposed works.

3. If the information is not submitted correctly and completely, the municipality may not begin the exploitation work. If it is necessary for the municipality to correct an error or complete the requirements, the National Mining Registry (Registro Nacional Minero) of the Directorate of Geology and Mines, shall by a single instance by resolution warn of the error or missing requirement, granting the requesting municipality a period of twenty business days. If the required documentation is not submitted within the granted period, or if it is submitted again incomplete or incorrect, the Directorate of Geology and Mines will archive the request.

4. If the work is executed by a contractor, it is prohibited that the contractor's work be compensated with mining material found at the site. Non-compliance with the provisions of this article will be considered a crime, making the offender subject to the sanctions provided for in the Title of Mining Crimes (Título de los Delitos Mineros) of the Mining Code.

5. In cases of duly declared national emergency, it will suffice that the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response communicates to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the work to be performed, the public work in which the materials will be used, and a certification stating that the work to be performed is among the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication, THE EXECUTING UNIT (LA UNIDAD EJECUTORA) designated by the Commission may begin the exploitation work under the supervision of the Directorate of Geology and Mines.

6. In prevention works and undeclared emergencies, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR RISK PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS), will communicate to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the need to carry out the proposed works, as well as the work to be performed, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extraction work, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time necessary to address the need.

7. The National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response may enter, with the authorization of the owner, pits, quarries, and concessions in public domain riverbeds, to extract the materials necessary for carrying out emergency and first-impact works, in accordance with Law 8488.

8. The rehabilitation or reconstruction works of the emergency must be included in the General Emergency Plan (Plan General de la Emergencia), and first-impact, prevention, undeclared emergency, and states of necessity or urgency works must be included in the administrative resolutions of the CNE. The National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response may authorize the use of extracted materials in other works declared of national or cantonal interest that are developed on public domain lands. If said lands are under private administration, the interested party must pay the fee set by the respective Municipality.” (the bold text is not from the original) The norm challenged by the plaintiff has very specific purposes that must be pointed out for its analysis. The ratio of the provision lies precisely in regulating the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain riverbeds for public works in the different cantons of the country, in two scenarios: duly declared emergencies by the Executive Branch and undeclared emergencies but confirmed by the National Commission of Emergencies. According to the regulations transcribed above, it regulates the procedure for Municipalities before the Directorate of Geology and Mines, as well as that of the Commission, the necessary requirements to obtain the exploitation permit, the timeframes for warning of omitted requirements and for response, and the need for the inclusion of the works in the General Emergency Plan. It is clear that the conflict the plaintiff points to involves a conflict of two constitutional provisions and their inherent values, the first, the State's duty to provide exceptional responses in also exceptional times, as the authorities point out when answering the respective hearings, and the second, Article 50 of the Constitution, which regulates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which is what the plaintiff claims. This Chamber has opportunely resolved the issue; Article 180 of the Political Constitution regulates an indeterminate concept of "emergency" integrated not only by cases of force majeure or even fortuitous events, to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest, or public calamity, according to the terminology of the Political Constitution. For the State, it implies the internal responsibility to satisfy the needs arising from such events, the obligation to provide the most essential aid to the affected populations, that is, the full compliance with international standards for a government that acts fully responsible (judgment No. 2010-15072). In "emergency" situations, these permits must be managed by the Municipalities with the respective declaration or recommendation of the National Commission of Emergencies, or by the Commission itself (to subsequently appoint an Executing Unit); these are valid in light of the provisions of Laws No. 7914 of October 13, 1999, 8488 of November 22, 2005, and numeral 180 of the Political Constitution. Regarding the above, the Chamber has held in judgment No. 2003-06322 that:

“6.- only the declared state of necessity exempts from compliance with environmental norms: The state of emergency is a source of Law, which entails, in some cases, a displacement, and in others an increase in public competencies, precisely for the purpose of being able to face the exceptional situation that arises ("urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest or public calamity"); in such a way that the Executive Branch is empowered to exempt the normal procedures of its activities or procedures, providing for such cases, exceptional, more expeditious and simplified procedures. These are, by definition, transitory and urgent situations in which it is necessary to maintain the continuity of public services, in such a way that the Administration is allowed to improvise an authority to serve the general interests that cannot be sacrificed to a legalistic scruple. In this way, the law of exception -formed by the set of norms issued at the time of necessity-, becomes unconstitutional in case of normality, insofar as it is an essentially temporary law, that is, solely and exclusively to resolve the specific emergency being faced, since "[...] an exceptional treatment is not admissible to carry out the ordinary activity of the administration, even if it is urgent; [...]" (judgment number 2001-6503, cited above).

In this sense, a distinction must be made between "mere urgency," a term that acts as a qualifier, and which in many cases is not even necessarily fundamental or imminent, while "[...] it is nothing more [than] the prompt execution or remedy of a given situation, which has originated in the effects of how it has been managed, [...]" (Judgment number 3410-92, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on November tenth, nineteen ninety-two); therefore, it can well be understood as the need for the Administration to act in a given situation, and in most cases, it is due to its inertia in finding a solution, in accordance with the instruments that the legal system provides it; from the "state of necessity," understanding by this eventual situations - that is, not occurring within the framework of normality, and of such magnitude that they can imminently affect life and property, public interest and order, or public safety, such that they cannot be controlled, managed, or dominated using the ordinary regulations available to the Government, and which make administrative intervention inevitable and unpostponable, even outside the law. Therefore, it is contrary to Constitutional Law, not only the regulations, but also the actions of public institutions that dispense with the ordinary procedures and formalities for the ordinary activity of the Administration, and which in this case, refer to the dispensation of environmental regulations, such as -for example- carrying out the environmental impact assessment or requesting health permits. In situations of necessity, but which are foreseeable in the long, medium, or short term, the exception from compliance with environmental obligations cannot be sought, since they become the ordinary activity of the Administration (case of the construction of dikes in rivers to protect the population from floods (judgment number 2001-6503). In this regard, it must be clear that for the emergency measure to be understood as constitutional development, it must attend solely and exclusively to solving the emergency situation that motivates it, and also have the common good as its purpose: that is, it must be just and also reasonable (proportionality in the strict sense).” (The bold text is from the original).

The Chamber reaffirms the validity of the transcribed jurisprudence, because in the case of a declared emergency, the principle of legality is replaced by the principle of necessity. Hence, in the case of an emergency duly declared by the Executive Branch, the extraordinary measures regulated in crisis legislation are enabled, which aim to mitigate the impact of the event on human beings and the legally protected interests in the legal system, including the National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention (Law No. 8488) insofar as it allows the application of an exceptional regime, as occurs with budget management, which was considered by this Chamber in accordance with constitutionality parameters, even with the Legislative Assembly in ordinary sessions (judgment No. 2009-09427). But following from the above, there is the question of whether the provisions of Article 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE are unconstitutional, because under that exceptional regime they allow managing material extraction permits without an official declaration of emergency. In this sense, the President of the National Commission of Emergencies and Risk Prevention pointed out, when answering the hearing granted in the action, that there are emergency scenarios that, due to the specific area of affectation and their geographic focalization, often rural, do not merit an emergency declaration, and therefore, would not be covered under the scenarios of the Chamber's interpretation that was transcribed above, but which undoubtedly demand immediate attention. Precisely in judgment No. 2009-09427 it was established that:

“The principle of necessity allows a new creative function [of Law] to face exceptional or anomalous circumstances whose urgency is implicit. Similarly, in Criminal Law, the state of necessity allows exempting an individual from punishment when they are in a situation that forces them to act against the criminal legal order, to cause one harm but avoid another of greater magnitude, which is also imminent and current. Even Article 226 of the General Law of Public Administration allows the Executive Branch to dispense with the formalities of the procedure, and even produce a special substitutive one, in cases of urgency and to avoid serious damage to persons or irreparable damage to property. Consequently, this Chamber is faced with a situation in which the Executive Branch is not prohibited from assuming its other constitutional powers, such as exercising the initiative expressly attributed to it to issue legal norms, with sufficient value and effectiveness to allow it to face an unpostponable, conjunctural, and generalized reality, against which common legal means would produce undesired and untimely results.” The Chamber in the transcription refers to the principle of necessity, in the face of generalized factual events in the life or national community, which entail an abnormal interruption thereof and which must be faced through an emergency declaration by the Executive Branch. However, if the magnitude of the events does not merit such a declaration, it is necessary to analyze whether these are scenarios of urgency (not mere urgency), because there is a true threat or injury to interests circumscribed to individuals considered individually, or at most to small localities, but not to the national community. For the foregoing, this Chamber must consequently determine what legal powers the legislator granted to the National Commission of Emergencies to act in these circumstances, as a body of maximum deconcentration attached to the Presidency of the Republic (Article 13 of Law No. 8488). In the Chamber's judgment, what is needed is to place the classification of these events in its proper dimension, to analyze whether, compared to other circumstances that were regulated by the legislator with less rigor, they merit exceptional treatment by the Executive Branch. The foregoing, because evidently there are events that could place local governments in precarious situations, as the public entities on the front line against these highly focused events, considered individually, so that in order not to harm the powers of the Municipalities, and of the National Commission of Emergencies at key moments of emergency response or risk prevention and imminent danger, the competencies of the Commission must be analyzed. First, the consequences that could materialize as emergencies on interests of primary value, such as the life and property of persons, must be avoided. The dividing line between a declared and an undeclared emergency seen from this angle must be drawn so as not to leave out situations that equally demand action by State entities, especially in response to very focused exceptional circumstances.

“Article 5.- Risk management policy. The risk management policy constitutes a cross-cutting axis of the work of the Costa Rican State; it articulates the instruments, programs, and public resources in ordinary and extraordinary, institutional and sectoral actions, aimed at preventing the occurrence of disasters and attending to emergencies in all their phases.

Every development policy of the country must incorporate both the necessary elements for an adequate diagnosis of risk and susceptibility to the impact of disasters, as well as the management axes that allow for their control.” “Article 19.- Presidency of the Commission. The President of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall be the highest-ranking official of the Institution and shall hold its judicial and extrajudicial representation. Within the fulfillment of their duties, they must provide a surety bond (caución) by means of a fidelity bond (bono de fidelidad), for an amount to be defined in the Regulation to this Law.

Among their powers are:

a. ..

b. …

c. Serve as direct liaison between the Presidency of the Republic, the ministries, and the Government Council, as well as attend meetings with them when summoned.

d. … e) ….” “Article 20.- Executive Directorate. The Executive Directorate shall be composed of a Director, who shall be responsible for the administration of the Institution; they shall serve as an official under the labor regime of trust, freely appointed and removed by the Board of Directors, and shall be subordinate to its directives and those of the Presidency of the Commission. It is obliged to render accounts for its actions, in accordance with legal norms and, by means of a fidelity bond, must provide a surety bond, for an amount to be defined via regulation.

They shall have the following powers:

a) …

• b)Program and coordinate the activities of the Commission with other public and private institutions, to fulfill the policies and achieve the objectives of the institution, within the guidelines issued by the Executive Branch.
• c)… d) … e) … f)… j)….” “Article 15.- Extraordinary competencies of the commission. When the state of emergency established in Article 29 of this Law is declared, it shall be the responsibility of the Commission to plan, coordinate, direct, and control actions aimed at resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. To this end, it must execute, at a minimum, the following actions:

a) …

• f)Except as provided in the preceding paragraphs, the Commission shall attend, without the need for an emergency declaration by the Executive Branch, local and minor emergencies that, due to the high frequency with which they occur and the serious affectation they cause in communities, demand the provision of a first-impact humanitarian service, consisting of the delivery of blankets, food, mats, and, if necessary, the acquisition of materials to rehabilitate basic services and enable shelters, as well as the contracting of a maximum of one hundred machine hours for the cleanup of the most affected area of the zone.” (The bold text is not from the original).

Article 30.- Phases for emergency response.- Emergency response shall be executed in three phases:

• a)Response phase: The operational phase immediately following the occurrence of the event. It includes urgent first-impact measures aimed at safeguarding life, the infrastructure of vital public services, the production of vital goods and services, property, and the environment, through actions of alert, alarm, public information, evacuation, and temporary relocation of persons and animals to safe sites, rescue, salvage, and search for victims; the provisioning of basic supplies for life, such as food, clothing, water, medicines, and medical assistance, as well as the safeguarding of material goods, the preliminary damage assessment, and the adoption of special measures or duly justified mitigation works to protect the population, infrastructure, and the environment.

b)…

c)…

For the Commission to be able to use the exceptional regime established in this Law under the emergency declaration, there must be a causal nexus between the event producing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted, such that the ordinary prevention activities and the administrative activities of the Commission and the other State institutions may not be carried out under this exceptional regime.

In order not to rebuild vulnerability, the works to be executed during the emergency must be carried out with a preventive approach, aimed at ensuring that future events do not generate an equal state of emergency again.” (The bold text is not from the original).

In the Chamber's judgment, the last paragraph of Article 15 of the National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention refers to a state of urgency that is geographically focused, so its response is restricted to very specific cases. In these cases, State entities and institutions must act effectively to mitigate the emergency, based on the immediacy of the events, which demand urgent measures.

As established, the State is called upon to mitigate those imminent dangers resulting from recurring events that impact the communities under its influence, whose prevention is sought, and which it is not lawful to postpone. The "as well as" of the last paragraph of Article 15 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law (Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo) refers to possible mitigation measures among those cited and others (numerus apertus), within the established limits, but including those contemplated in subsection a) of Article 30 of the referenced Law that might arise from the need to address the ongoing emergency situation. If the objective is to obtain an agile, efficient, and timely response to the emergency or its imminence, only its current nature would authorize the granting of exploitation of quarries and public domain watercourses, in accordance with Articles 2.2 and 2.6 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, such that the granting of authorization by the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas) can only be resolved when the municipal proceeding is accompanied by the document from the National Emergency Commission (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias) recommending the works, or, as applicable, when the Commission itself conducts its proceedings before the Directorate of Geology and Mines. Precisely, in accordance with Article 15 of Law No. 8488, it is the body responsible for resolving urgent needs, executing programs and activities for protection, rescue, and rehabilitation. But most importantly, within risk management, it is incumbent upon the entire state apparatus to articulate actions and efforts, especially to take mitigation measures in extraordinary events. In the opinion of this Chamber (Sala), under these strictly interpreted premises, it must be understood that Environmental Impact Studies (Estudios de Impacto Ambiental) cannot be required, given the state of urgency, which, as indicated by provision 30 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law, demands immediacy, and the causal link between the event producing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted to efficiently face that emergency must be duly demonstrated in the resolution of the National Emergency Commission. It is important to note that section 2.8 of the challenged Regulation (Reglamento) establishes for these types of emergencies, whether declared or not declared by the Executive Branch, that the latter must be materialized in the General Emergency Plan (Plan general de emergencias) or in an administrative resolution of the National Emergency Commission, respectively. In this sense, it is the substantive and formal element for all other actions by the involved Administrations to be able to extract and use materials in the rehabilitation or reconstruction of affected areas, including other works declared of national or cantonal interest that are developed on public domain lands (terrenos demaniales). In this latter case, it concerns materials processed under the protection of activities previously authorized by the Directorate of Geology and Mines, and of course within the limits and authorizations previously given, as a form of rational use of the natural and material resources that the State must have available to face emergencies. Any use outside this context would be unconstitutional and consequently subject to the respective recourse of the constitutional jurisdiction. In the opinion of this Chamber, it is necessary to reiterate that its purpose is to respond efficiently and in accordance with the current nature of events, in attention to the principle of state of necessity and urgency established in Article 3 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law. All of the foregoing must not imply an infringement of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, given that extractive operations must be covered by the declaration or resolutions of the National Emergency Commission, with which the respective permits are processed. Furthermore, in the report of the Minister of Environment, it is clear that there are limits on the extraction of materials granted through concessions, regarding time and quantity, according to the regime requested, such that when it is necessary to access concessions granted to private parties, since the concession is an administrative contract granting real rights over a property given in administration to the State, and the regulations respect such interests, the subsequent obligation of compensation for the unilateral alteration of the contract by the State does not disappear for that reason. In this regard, the provisions grant treatment of firmly acquired administrative real rights. In support of the foregoing, based on Article 2.7 of the Regulation, a similar argument was established in judgment No. 2010-015738, in which it was established, referring to the Law Regulating the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Public Domain Watercourses by Municipalities (Ley de Regulación de la Extracción de Materiales de Canteras y Cauces de Dominio Público por Parte de las Municipalidades), that:

"… there is no violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, since before the granting of authorization, it is required to present to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the permit from the owner of the real property from which the authorized material will be exploited and extracted. The property owner will consequently defend their rights, authorizing the entry permit for extraction and transport, or not granting it, so it cannot be understood that there is an infringement of the right to property. Hence, if the requirements demanded by law are not met, it is consequently not possible to understand that there is an action contrary to the right to property, given that, as previously stated, …." Regarding Article 2.7 of the challenged Regulation, it is evident that the use of resources by the National Emergency Commission is based on a purely voluntary act of the owner, and the absence of such a requirement would not permit, under the assumption of the challenged provision, the granting of the concession to the municipality or the National Emergency Commission. The foregoing, of course, is without prejudice to the power of expropriation, as established in Article 35 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law. For the reasons stated, on these points, the action must be dismissed.

IV.- On environmental impact studies in short-duration extraction permits. Having overcome the question of constitutional relevance regarding permits for extracting materials from quarries and public domain watercourses (cauces del demanio público) in declared and undeclared emergency situations, regulated in the Law and the Executive Decree, it is appropriate to analyze what has been challenged regarding the possible constitutional defect in the granting of temporary concessions, insofar as the unconstitutional omission to dispense with Environmental Impact Studies (Estudios de Impacto Ambiental) is alleged. This scenario, in the criteria of this Chamber, corresponds to the ordinary activity of State institutions, so in congruence with precedents, the integration of environmental regulations is certainly required, Article 17 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), in order to quantify and qualify the risk of damage to the environment. Article 39 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) establishes that:

"Article 39.—The State, through MINAE, shall grant temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from public domain watercourses or quarries, in the relevant jurisdiction. Such concessions shall be extended for a maximum term of one hundred and twenty days and must comply with the following procedure:

• a)Written application from the institution, which must indicate the location of the site where the extraction will take place.
• b)Exploitation plan and justification for the destination of the materials, which must be solely for public works.
• c)Appointment of a professional in the geological field or in mining engineering, who shall be responsible for and director of the exploitation. In the case of proven unavailability, a qualified professional with experience in related areas may be appointed.
• d)If the concessionaire does not carry out the works directly, they must indicate to the DGM the name of the contractor or subcontractor responsible for executing them.
• e)Upon receiving the application, the DGM shall conduct an inspection and issue the pertinent recommendations; if they are affirmative, it shall issue the recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Energy for the granting of the respective permit, which must contain the following:
• 1)Location of the extraction site.
• 2)Authorized volume.
• 3)Term of validity.
• 4)Extraction method.
• 5)Machinery to be used.
• 6)Professional responsible for the extraction.
• 7)Environmental precautions during the temporary extraction.

In the case of municipalities and ministries, if exploitation lasts more than one hundred and twenty days and they wish to continue it, they must comply with the provisions of Articles 72 and 73 of this Code, which, once renumbered, shall become Articles 76 and 77, respectively, and its Regulation. Any environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionaire institution or, as applicable, the contractor or subcontractor responsible for executing the work.

It is strictly forbidden to commercialize the materials extracted under the protection of an authorization granted by this article to the State, its bodies, and municipalities. Violating this provision shall cause the immediate cancellation of the authorization and the application of the corresponding sanctions to the responsible officials and, as applicable, to the contractor or subcontractor responsible for executing the work." (bolding is not from the original) The first thing that must be observed is whether it concerns a concession or precarious permit granted by the Directorate of Geology and Mines that the State itself grants to its institutions. The Law is clear in indicating that it is a temporary concession for a maximum of 120 days for ministries and municipalities, but it does not grant a subjective right to a private individual as stated in the complaint filing the action, not even for the private subject contracted by the Administration to perform extraction work, since the consequences of not respecting the terms of the concession, such as commercializing the materials, imply its cancellation, with the corresponding administrative and sanctioning responsibilities. It has in common with the rest of the regulations that its processing is expedited and summary, and the use of the material must be destined solely for public works. In the opinion of this Chamber, the provision refers to the ordinary short-term activity of public administrations, for the development and conservation of national or cantonal infrastructure, in a temporary concession modality. Due to its procedural simplicity, it can be used to carry out risk management policy tasks through ordinary actions, or others, through efforts that might be contemplated as indicated in the following articles:

"Article 6.- National Risk Management System.- The National Risk Management System is hereby established (Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo), understood as the comprehensive, organized, coordinated, and harmonious articulation of the organs, structures, functional relationships, methods, procedures, and resources of all State institutions, seeking the participation of the entire private sector and organized civil society.

Its purpose is the promotion and execution of public policy guidelines that allow both the Costa Rican State and the different sectors of national activity to incorporate the concept of risk management as a cross-cutting axis of planning and development practices.

The National Risk Management System is composed of and developed through subsystems, which shall be defined in the Regulation to this Law and shall have a multi-institutional coordination instance." (Bolding is not from the original).

"Article 7.- National Risk Management Plan. For the application of the Risk Management policy, the Commission is obliged to design and execute the National Risk Management Plan (Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo), as a strategic planning instrument that allows the systemic and integral articulation of the programs belonging to the Subsystems and, in addition, the delimitation of institutional competencies, the allocation of resources, organization, and verification and control mechanisms." "Article 8.- Inclusion of the criteria of the national risk management plan. The organs and entities of the State responsible for planning tasks, when preparing their respective plans, shall take into account the guidelines indicated in the National Risk Management Plan. When formulating and preparing urban development plans, programs, and projects, these organs and entities must consider the risk prevention and mitigation component." "Article 9.- Coordination for risk management and emergency response. The National Risk Management System is structured through coordination instances. The Central Government, the Decentralized Public Administration of the State, local governments, the private sector, and organized civil society, in compliance with the principle of coordination, shall integrate into the technical or operational structures formed by the Commission, according to the scope of the following article; however, the Commission shall be empowered to form other coordination instances in accordance with the scope of the National Risk Management Plan and its programs." As this Chamber has indicated on other occasions, the constitutionality of the questioned provision must be analyzed against Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which expressly recognizes the right of all present and future inhabitants of this country to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the following terms:

"Article 50.- The State shall strive for the greatest well-being of all the country's inhabitants, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth.

Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to denounce acts that infringe upon this right and to claim reparation for the damage caused.

The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve this right. The law shall determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions." Several guiding principles are deduced from the referenced norm, among which is the tutelage of the environmental right by the State, on which this Court has indicated that:

"the State constitutes itself as 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 arises to exercise a tutelary and guiding function in this matter, as provided by the constitutional norm in commentary itself, a function developed by environmental regulations. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right." Judgment 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003.

Moreover, the State is under the obligation to act preventively, avoiding—through supervision and direct intervention—the commission of acts that harm the environment, and correlatively and equally inescapably prohibits fostering its degradation. The foregoing obligates not only recognition of the right to the environment but also the use of all materially and legally valid means for its protection against attacks of which it may be the object. By virtue of the fact that environmental damages tend to be irreparable, the preventive supervision of the administration and the speed of the measures it adopts directly affect the magnitude of the injury to the environment. For the above reasons, the precautionary principle has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber, granting it constitutional rank, among others, in judgment No. 2219-99 of 15:18 hours on March 24, 1999. It is important to highlight the principle of rational use of resources, derived from Article 69 of the Constitution, which refers to the "rational use of natural resources." This Chamber—in various resolutions—has established that environmental protection must be directed towards the adequate and intelligent use of its elements and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships (sustainable development), in order to thereby safeguard the patrimony to which present and future generations are entitled. Therefore, the primary objective of the sustainable use and protection of the environment is that through the production and use of technology, not only economic gains are obtained, but above all a favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with human beings, that is, without causing damage or harm. Regarding the constitutional question, it is the opinion of this Chamber that subsection e) point 7) of Article 39 of the Mining Code contemplated environmental impact studies within temporary concessions whose maximum term is 120 days, and that regulatorily a specific extraction quantity was set (20,000 cubic meters of material), so that prior to the granting of the concession, the recommendation that the Directorate of Geology and Mines must issue to the Minister of Environment must consider the inclusion of environmental precautions during the temporary extraction. In the second meaning of the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, prevention (prevención) is defined as: "Preparation and arrangement made in advance to avoid a risk or execute something," which entails a true conditioning and reconciliation of the administrative claim of the ministries and municipalities with environmental feasibility studies. Without them, the Directorate of Geology and Mines could not issue its recommendation, much less the granting of the concession by the Minister. According to the above, the norm refers to the subjection of Public Administrations to environmental regulations, by the principle of legality (Article 13 of the General Law of Public Administration, specifically regarding the principle of singular non-derogability of regulatory norms) and constitutional Article 50, in accordance with the respective regulations, as well as with the measures that must be taken in the specific case for the execution of this type of extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses. In the matter at hand, the opinions of the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications coincide that there is a duty to integrate the entire bloc of constitutionality and legality in order to offer protection to the environment alongside the rational and sustained exploitation of natural resources. In this way, the Minister points to Executive Decree No. 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta on September 28, 2004, which is the Regulation to Article 39 of the Mining Code, and Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, which is the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental), insofar as they establish limits for these mining exploitation activities, less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters, an assumption under which the challenged Article 39 falls, so in environmental matters, according to what is established in subsection b) of Article 1 of Regulation No. 31950-MINAE, it classifies it in category B2, of Low Potential Environmental Impact. In this sense, Executive Decree No. 31849 itself contains the definition of a more precise and detailed Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) for projects with low environmental impact, in the bis Article 3.34, which states:

"Environmental Impact Study (EsIA) for activities, works, or projects of low and moderately low potential environmental impact: For those cases in which the activity, work, or project, due to its attributes (dimension, duration over time, location, materials and equipment used, and production), is defined as of low or moderately low potential environmental impact, it must comply, when the current regulations expressly request it, with the presentation of an EsIA, and following the principle of proportionality and reasonableness, with the procedure that SETENA defines, provided that the elements encompassed by the definition of EsIA included in this Regulation are fully met." Consequently, a specific EsIA for the activity is required, thereby establishing protection from an environmental and technical point of view. The regulatory development of Article 39 of the Mining Code demands the application of environmental regulations, and in this sense, it implicitly incorporates the regulatory development of the Executive Branch, which is why it cannot be judged unconstitutional. Furthermore, for permits for the extraction of non-metallic materials by municipalities and autonomous institutions, Articles 112, subsection 3 and 141, subsection c) of the Regulation to the Mining Code require the application for the SETENA Resolution approving the corresponding Environmental Impact Study. The same applies to Article 1 of the Regulation for the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Public Domain Watercourses by Municipalities, Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, which orders the Mayor to present the resolution of environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) issued by the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental). Additionally, the powers of the Directorate of Geology and Mines contained in the following articles of the Regulation to the Mining Code must be added:

Article 124.—On precautions and technical guidelines. The Directorate of Geology and Mines has the competence to conduct inspections and request any additional reports it deems necessary to fully comply with its obligation, especially regarding the control of the activity being developed and the protection of natural resources. Failure by the entity to comply with what is required by the DGM, or refusal to abide by the technical guidelines issued by the Directorate, shall be grounds for cancellation of the authorization.

In any case, in the interest of the principle of in dubio pro natura, the DGM may order, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of exploitation work when it is demonstrated that the technical and environmental conditions for exploitation have been breached. (bolding is not from the original) Article 88.—Environmental Guarantee. The amount of the environmental compliance guarantee, contained in Article 103 of the Mining Code, shall be set by SETENA, and it is the obligation of the holder to provide the administrative file with a certified copy of the deposit receipt issued by the bank before commencing work.

Non-compliance with the foregoing shall be grounds for cancellation in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Mining Code, as applicable.

In the event of non-compliance verified by SETENA with the obligations contracted in the environmental impact study, or in the event of environmental damage caused in the exercise of the activity due to non-compliance with environmental recovery standards, the DGM shall proceed to cancel the permit or concession, in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Mining Code, as applicable.

For the reasons stated, on this point, this Chamber does not consider that there is a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, insofar as subsection e) point 7 of Article 39 of the Mining Code is integrated with the rest of the environmental legislation, in accordance with constitutional Article 50.

For all of the foregoing, regarding this point, the action must be declared without merit.

Therefore (Por tanto):

The action is declared without merit regarding Article 39 of the Mining Code and Article 2 of the Regulation for the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Public Domain Watercourses by Municipalities. In all other respects, the action is flatly rejected.

Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presiding Judge Luis Paulino Mora M. Gilber Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Jorge Araya G.

San José, at fifteen hours and six minutes on March second, two thousand eleven.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Ana Gabriela Avila Jones, of legal age, twice married, mining procedures consultant, resident of San José, identity card number 1-553-865, against Article 39 of the Mining Code, Article 2 of Executive Decree Number 33777 MINAE, and Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code.

**Whereas:** **1.-** By writ received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at fourteen hours forty-eight minutes on August eighteenth, two thousand seven, the petitioner requests that the following provisions be declared unconstitutional: Article 39 of the Mining Code, Article 2 of Executive Decree Number 33777 MINAE, and numerals 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, considering them contrary to Articles 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, 140 subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, Principle 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Rio Declaration, and Principle No. 15 of the Rio Declaration. The regulations are challenged insofar as they create special procedures for mining exploitation by public entities and private parties contracting with public entities, and for private parties in general, in which the requirement of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is waived, which implies that mining exploitations can be carried out without the environmental impact studies, a condition constitutionally and legally required for the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The omission of said requirements lacks all reasonableness and objective justification, for the following reasons: 1) constitutional principles require oversight and protective action by the State in all activities that may generate negative environmental impacts; however, through the enactment of the challenged regulations, the State exempts itself from environmental impact assessments, through special procedures to the detriment of the environment and the population's quality of life. 2) the environmental risk generated by mining activity is very high, there is no limit on the volume of material authorized for exploitation, and exploiting even a minimum amount may cause environmental damages such as the following: exposing and damaging underground aquifers, contaminating rivers and springs (manantiales), even with substances that may be toxic to humans, especially if the exploitation is carried out in a riverbed, causing drag of materials and sediments, generating excessive noise or dust incompatible with a healthy environment, risk to environmental protection zones, risk to the national archaeological heritage, risk of causing the death of animals and plant species. The challenged provisions do not contemplate any mechanism to verify the quantities of material to be extracted. Neither is there any limit on the number of applications for this type of exploitation that a public institution may have. Regarding the violated constitutional norms and principles: a) Article 7 of the Political Constitution, which establishes that public treaties, international conventions, and concordats duly approved by the Legislative Assembly shall have authority superior to the laws. Neither the law nor the regulation can establish special procedures that circumvent the International Law norms ratified by Costa Rica that guarantee the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The effective protection of that right is only possible by requiring Environmental Impact Assessments as a prerequisite to the execution of actions that alter the environment. b) Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights regarding Environmental Law; c) the first principle of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, since the challenged regulations prevent compliance with international instruments that guarantee environmental protection, as they exempt Environmental Impact Assessments in very sensitive activities such as mining exploitation; d) Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, which imposes the precautionary principle when there is danger of serious or irreversible damage; e) Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, which oblige the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which in this case consists of broad authority so that, through its competent bodies, it may deny or condition an exploration or mining exploitation permit. The challenged regulations also violate Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution, the former indicating that human life is inviolable, and the latter guaranteeing a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, because the challenged legislation and regulations create special mining exploitation procedures without complying with the necessary Environmental Impact Assessments in those exploitation activities, which are necessary not only in application of legal norms (Mining Code and Organic Law of the Environment) but also of international treaties. She also alleges that Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777 and Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code violate Article 140 subsections 3) and 18) and 11 of the Political Constitution, because the Executive Branch exceeded its regulatory authority, given that not only the Political Constitution and International Treaties, but also the law, require Environmental Impact Assessments, a mechanism to provide protection of the right to a healthy environment in any project or work that causes or threatens to cause negative effects to the environment, and certainly the Executive Branch cannot issue a decree in which it exempts the State, public institutions, and private parties contracting with them from complying with the law. She references judgment 2003-10421 of September 17, 2003, which granted an action of unconstitutionality under identical conditions to the present appeal.

**2.-** In order to substantiate the standing she holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, the petitioner invokes the second paragraph of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes the standing of every person to denounce acts that infringe the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, and the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, since it concerns the defense of a diffuse interest.

**3.-** By resolution of thirteen hours forty minutes on September seventh, two thousand seven, the action was admitted, granting a hearing to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the National Emergency Commission (folio 24).

**4.-** Daniel Gallardo Monge, President of the National Emergency Commission, requested an addition and clarification of the resolution of thirteen hours forty minutes on September seventh, two thousand seven, which admitted the action (folio 29).

**5.-** By resolution of eleven hours fifty minutes on September twenty-seventh, two thousand seven, the President of the Chamber ruled that the requested addition and clarification were not appropriate (folio 46).

**6.-** Francela Alfaro Ulate, President of the Costa Rican Association of Concessionaires of Materials and Aggregates for Construction ACCMAC, requested to be considered as an active coadjuvant, as she considers that the challenged regulation, insofar as it does not provide for the state obligation to compensate the concessionaires of the quarries it temporarily intervenes in for emergency reasons, violates Article 45 of the Political Constitution, because it is technically not a limitation on property, which can only be established by a law approved by two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly and not by Executive Decree, and second, because taking possession, free of charge, of the materials from a concessioned quarry, without payment of their commercial value, constitutes a de facto expropriation prohibited by Article 45 of the Political Constitution. It also violates freedom of enterprise, because it prevents the concessionaires of the quarries intervened by the National Emergency Commission under its protection from obtaining a reasonable profit in the exercise of their business activity. She further argues that the challenged regulation violates Articles 11 and 28 of the Political Constitution because it grants powers to the National Emergency Commission that can only be conferred directly by law, such as the authority to establish limitations on the fundamental rights of property and freedom of enterprise (folios 34 to 44).

**7.-** Roberto Dobles Mora, Minister of Environment and Energy, responded to the hearing granted (folio 50) and stated that the petitioner transcribes Article 39 of the Mining Code, but not in its complete form, and regarding Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, she transcribes a text already repealed by Executive Decree 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta on September 28, 2004. According to the new text of Executive Decree 31950-MINAE, it does comply with the obligation to obtain environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), not by presenting the environmental impact assessment, but rather in accordance with Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC "General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures," it establishes that mining exploitation activities whose exploitation volume is less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters are classified as category B2 of Low Potential Environmental Impact. Not only is environmental viability required during the material extraction process, but also the supervision of a Professional responsible for the extraction from a technical and environmental standpoint. In summary, the petitioner's omission to report the existence of Executive Decree 31950-MINAE implies that it is not true that there is no extraction volume limit, since its maximum is 20,000 cubic meters as established in subsection b) of Article 2 of the mentioned decree. Regarding Articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree 29300-MINAE: Regulation to the Mining Code, amended by Executive Decree No. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 of August 7, 2001. The petitioner omits to report that the mentioned articles were amended by Executive Decree 31792-MINAE-MP published in Supplement No. 20 of May 14, 2004. As part of the requirements that must be submitted with the communication of need for material extraction, in duly declared emergencies, the fact is that a copy of the communication must be submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA). We start from the basis that these are declared states of emergency, therefore, a state of exception. Our country is exposed to natural phenomena that have caused throughout history various national catastrophes, which cause rivers to overflow, landslides that leave entire communities isolated and require the urgent restoration of basic services. Regarding Article 2 of Executive Decree number 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007 "Regulation for the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Watercourses of Public Domain by Municipalities," he indicated that it regulates procedures applicable to declared and undeclared emergencies, as well as the execution of prevention works. As to the merits of the action, he indicated that he will refer to: a) Article 39 of the Mining Code, relating to temporary permits and b) emergency cases, Articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code, and Article 2 of Executive Decree 33777-MINAE. In relation to Article 39 of the Mining Code, he reiterates what was indicated in the sense that the procedure does require environmental viability, not through the environmental impact assessment, but rather under the protection of Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC "General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures." Furthermore, by Executive Decree 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta on September 28, 2004, Article 39 of the Cited Code was regulated, demonstrating that there is a determined volume (maximum 20,000 cubic meters), that during the material exploitation phase there must be supervision by a geological and environmental supervisor, and there are also obligations such as the submission of work reports. In relation to emergency cases, regulated in Articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code and Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, it is possible to agree with the petitioner that a special procedure is being created, but for several reasons: First, it is not possible for the State, the Municipalities, and the National Emergency Commission itself to process Environmental Impact Assessments when a phenomenon has occurred that is causing a national or regional emergency. Second, before the amendment made by Law No. 8246, there was no norm in the Code regulating the mining activity of the State, much less contemplating emergency cases, which is why it was necessary to issue regulatory provisions. State institutions in the broad sense (lato sensu), central (Executive Branch) and decentralized, require materials, basically aggregates for construction, for the execution of their purposes, this when it concerns the so-called "ordinary work." In a national or regional emergency, the needs for these materials are even greater. Third: Article 1 of the Mining Code establishes "... The State has the absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible dominion over all mineral resources existing in the national territory and its patrimonial sea, whatever the origin, physical state, or nature of the substances they contain. The State shall endeavor to exploit the mineral riches by itself or through organisms dependent on it. However, the State may grant concessions for the reconnaissance, exploration, exploitation, and beneficiation of mineral resources, in accordance with this law. The concessions shall not affect in any way the dominion of the State, and shall be extinguished in case of non-compliance with the legal requirements to maintain them." In this sense, the Minister reiterates what was established in the votes of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 2003-03480, 2002-05245, 2002-06053, and 1999-04916, concluding that the mineral resources are the domain of the State, that the State may give them their natural use when it needs them; if the Constitutional Chamber has considered that it may use them for reasons of safety and hygiene, there is no doubt that in the case of national or regional emergencies, declared or undeclared, the use of State resources is unconditional. For emergency cases, he cites judgment No. 1992-03410 and 2006-06336. In Title VIII of the Regulation to the Mining Code, called "On Special Procedures," the mining activity of Municipalities and Autonomous Institutions, as well as the State and its contractors, is regulated. That regulation is for the ordinary activity of the mentioned entities and bodies; in fact, Articles 135 and 159 are immersed within that regulation, as exceptional cases, as "Emergency Cases." **8.-** Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, in her capacity as Attorney General of the Republic, responded to the hearing granted (folios 68-94) and stated, regarding the object of the action, that it seeks to have declared unconstitutional Articles 39 of the Mining Code (Law No. 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its amendments), 135 (which is currently repealed) and 159 (in its version prior to the one currently in force) of the Regulation to the Mining Code (Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), published in La Gaceta No. 54 of March 16, 2001, and 2 of the Regulation for the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Watercourses of Public Domain by Municipalities (Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), published in La Gaceta No. 129 of July 5, 2007, considering them contrary to Articles 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, and 140 subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, and Principles 15 and 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). The representative of the Advisory Body of the Chamber did not object to the petitioner's standing; however, she considers that the action must be declared partially inadmissible, in relation to Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, since Article 135 has been repealed since July 5, 2007, while the version of numeral 159 that the petitioner challenges corresponds to the one that was in force starting in 2001 until before it was amended in 2004, by virtue of Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. In both cases, the petitioner is bringing her action against two norms that are not in force; Article 135 was expressly repealed by Article 7° of the mentioned Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, one month before the petitioner filed her action. Although this is not an obstacle for the Constitutional Chamber to assess their legitimacy, it is difficult to conceive of a legal situation in respect of which the Article 135 in question continues to have effects. This is taking into account that the factual assumption contemplated by the norm is provided for duly declared national emergency cases in accordance with the National Emergency Law (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), whereby it is foreseeable that its effects have already been exhausted, and therefore, in her opinion, there is no sufficient reason that warrants opening the constitutionality review of a norm that has been removed from the legal system (effect of the favorable judgment on the action, provided for in Article 88 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), one month before this action was filed, and for which there is no evidence that it continues to have effects, an aspect that the petitioner does not bother to explain either. Likewise, the promoter of this action is not even challenging the latest version that was in force of Article 135 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, following the amendment made by Article 1° of the cited Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP, but rather the text that was in force 6 years ago, a norm that presents significant differences in terms of the environmental subject when compared to its immediately subsequent version, which makes it impossible to assess these two wordings with the same constitutionality parameter and treat them indistinctly. Therefore, this action having been directed against a repealed norm, which moreover has not been in force for more than 3 years, the action is inadmissible in relation to Article 135, and we recommend it be so declared by the Magistrates. For the same reasons, the inadmissibility of the action in relation to Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code must be declared. The petitioner challenges the norm that was in force before the amendment made by Article 2° of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP in April 2004 and also does not explain the reason why, 6 years later and despite being repealed, it would still be having effects so as to be suitable for constitutionality control. Especially when it also contemplates a factual assumption which, if it occurs, exhausts the effects of the norm almost immediately, since extraction under Article 159 cited shall be carried out while the Initial Phase of the duly declared national emergency lasts. Finally, it is not acceptable to admit that we are facing a simple material error or that the action can be directed indistinctly against the current version and against the previous version of Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, not only because of the informality this implies, which borders on the solemnity proper to a trial of such a high instance (Article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), but also because there are substantial differences between one norm and another that have a decisive impact on the constitutionality review. For example, the version of the norm challenged by the petitioner omits the communication to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the requirement to record the name of the person responsible for environmental supervision (regencia ambiental), among other important aspects that are contemplated in the current Article 159. Given this imprecision in the object against which the action is directed, it is clear that it must also be declared inadmissible with respect to Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code. **As to the merits of the matter**, she indicated that it is appropriate to analyze whether the challenged norms constitute an exception to the constitutional requirement developed by Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, relating to the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, through the creation of special procedures for mining exploitation by the State, decentralized entities, and private parties contracting with both. Regarding Article 39 of the Mining Code, which regulates the assumption of temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from watercourses of public domain or quarries, she indicated that according to its text, the extracted materials—a task that may be carried out by a private contractor or subcontractor—must be destined solely and exclusively for public works. Hence the express prohibition against commercializing the materials extracted under said concession, which is granted through the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a maximum term of 120 days, after which, if the exploitation continues, the respective bodies or territorial corporations must follow the ordinary procedure for exploration permits and exploitation concessions, in which, it should be noted, the carrying out of the corresponding environmental impact assessments is expressly contemplated (Articles 24 subsection ch), 34 subsection ch), 76 and 77 of the Mining Code). Article 39 of the Mining Code institutes a special, summary procedure, in which procedures are expedited but not eliminated; which is justified by the timely satisfaction of the public interest by the Public Administration. However, the speed and simplicity that might be observed in the granting of these temporary concessions does not necessarily have to conflict with the constitutional principle. An interpretation of Article 39 of the Mining Code must be made in accordance with the block of constitutionality, derived from its systematic insertion with the rest of the environmental regulations. Particularly, its relationship with the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, of May 24, 2004, which in its Annexes 1 and 2, includes within the list of works, projects, and activities subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, the mining activity of the State and its companies, of municipalities, as well as of autonomous institutions, and in general, open-pit extraction (quarries or watercourses of public domain) of building stones, dimension stone, clay, talc, dolomite, sand, and gravel, even when the volume to be extracted is less than or equal to 20,000 m³. Articles 109 and 136 of the Regulation to the Mining Code regulate the extraction of non-metallic materials by the State and other public entities to be used strictly for the construction, maintenance, and repair of works of public interest or utility, and which complement the regulation of the special procedure of Article 39 of the cited Code (since numerals 111 and 138 of the referred Regulation contemplate that the authorizations shall have a validity of up to 3 years, extendable for an additional 2 years).

Since Articles 112, subsection 3, and 141, subsection c) ius ibídem establish that the request of the interested public entity must be accompanied by the "SETENA Resolution approving the Environmental Impact Study corresponding to the proposed project." But, above all, from Articles 128 and 152 of the cited Regulation governing so-called "minor and specific projects" consisting of all works or tasks necessary to address situations caused by geodynamic processes, such as: landslides, mudslides, erosion processes, sewer collapses, bridge collapses, approach fills, repair and maintenance of existing roads and highways, and others considered as such by the Dirección de Geología y Minas and so justified by the requesting entity. Projects which correspond to the case provided in Article 39, as they involve specific works, for a maximum term of four months, and with a maximum volume to extract or remove of 20,000 cubic meters. The Court, following the cited vote No. 2003-10421, considered that the environmental impact study and its corresponding approval by SETENA should be required, as part of the requirements established by Articles 129 and 153 of the Regulation in question. Finally, from the reading of Article 1 of the cited Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, which precisely regulates the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by municipalities, without distinction of term, to be destined for cantonal development and public interest works (Article 1.1), whose third paragraph, subsection d) provides that the respective Mayor's request must contain the "Resolution of environmental viability issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental." Therefore, in accordance with the preceding norms, it is feasible to estimate that the "Environmental precautions during temporary extraction" that the temporary permit or concession granted by MINAE to the interested public body or entity must contain, pursuant to Article 39, paragraph e), subsection 7, of the Código de Minería, may well refer to the environmental viability issued by SETENA. This links perfectly with the precautionary or preventive nature of Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, and that the referenced Article 39 concludes with the phrase in its penultimate paragraph, stating that "All environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionary institution or, as applicable, the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work." With this, this Procuracy considers that Article 39 of the Código de Minería is in accordance with the constitutional norms on environmental matters cited by the appellant. On the subject of emergency cases and Environmental Impact Assessment, the Procuracy maintained that the cases contemplated in Articles 2 of the referred Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE and 157 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería – and without prejudice to the considerations previously stated for considering the inadmissibility of the action regarding this latter numeral – fall within the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, so as to consider duly motivated and justified that the approval of an environmental impact study is not required. Since both norms regulate exceptional measures, such as the extraction of materials to attend to cases of national emergency duly declared according to law, for which requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact study could frustrate the timely attention of the emergency in question. Additionally, both norms are issued within the framework of the provisions contained in Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo (No. 8488, of November 22, 2005) and Ley Nacional de Emergencia (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), as can be verified from Considerando VI of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE and from the express reference that the challenged articles make to said laws.

Thus, Article 2 of both laws emphasizes the need to confer an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of emergency situations. After partially transcribing Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencia y Prevención del Riesgo, it indicates that the exceptional regime derived from the declaration of a state of emergency by the Executive Branch, pursuant to Article 29 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, is evident from the reading of its Articles 31, 32, 35, and 36, such as the power to expropriate without prior compensation or, the powers of occupation, demolition, restriction, and imposition of easements (servidumbres) on private properties. Likewise, Article 34 provides that the Executive Branch under a state of emergency "may decree temporary restrictions on land use, in order to avoid greater disasters and facilitate the construction of works." Of particular interest, Article 30 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo encompasses the 3 phases for attending to an emergency; in the context of the preceding provisions, the challenged Article 2 of the referenced Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades seeks to articulate the exceptional, urgent, and special circumstances of a state of emergency with environmental supervision. If the information is not presented correctly and completely, the municipality cannot begin the exploitation (explotación) work. Similarly, within a maximum period of 15 business days following the completion of material extraction, the respective municipality must submit a technical closure report of the exploitation to said office, with the specifications required therein. The exploitation that a Municipality must carry out in a state of urgency and necessity can be harmonized with the guidelines established for that purpose by MINAE in the respective environmental impact study, in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 36 of the Código de Minería which establishes:

"In declared emergency situations, when the municipality requires extracting material from a public domain watercourse for which a concession has already been granted, the concessionaire must allow the extraction of material in the volumes authorized by the DGM. Said extraction must be carried out following the guidelines established in the exploitation plan and the environmental recommendations issued by MINAE in the environmental impact study." The same considerations are valid regarding Article 159 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería – and also for Article 135 in the event that this Court admits the action regarding this latter norm, as it is a transcript of the former – since in its current version, not the one challenged by the appellant, it provides:

"Article 159.— Emergency Cases:

In cases of national emergency duly declared pursuant to Law No. 7914 and its Regulation, and the interested party communicates this fact in writing with the approval of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias to the Dirección de Geología y Minas, with a copy to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, the latter may, after this communication, begin the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency and shall have a period of 4 months to present a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the tasks to be carried out, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive tasks and for environmental management (regencia ambiental), the source of material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time required to meet the need. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan.

The rehabilitation and reconstruction works for infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Emergency Regulatory Plan." (Underlining is not from the original).

(Thus amended by Article 17 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29677 and by Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).

In accordance with the foregoing text, the extraction of materials will only be possible to attend to cases of national emergency duly declared according to the Ley Nacional de Emergencia, and SETENA must be notified of said tasks – which must include the name of the person responsible for the extractive tasks and for environmental management (regencia ambiental) – and for which the interested party must have the approval of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Likewise, said activity must conform to the Emergency Regulatory Plan. From this perspective, this Procuracy also does not perceive any indication of unconstitutionality in this additional aspect of the action. For the foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of this advisory body that Articles 39 of the Código de Minería (Law No. 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its amendments), 135 (currently repealed) and 159 (currently amended) of the Reglamento al Código de Minería (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), as well as 2 of the Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), are, in the terms set forth above, in conformity with the constitutional framework in environmental matters.

9.- Daniel Gallardo Monge, in his capacity as President of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, responds at folio 97 to the granted hearing, stating that Articles 135 and 159 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE, which is the Reglamento del Código de Minería, were amended by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 of August 7, 2001. Both norms have the same wording, with the particularity that Article 135 is within the chapter referring to municipalities, and 159 is in the chapter on other State institutions. It derives from the exceptionality power grounded in Article 180 of the Constitution, cases of national emergencies, and the obligation of public Institutions to coordinate and give priority within their institutions' activities to emergency attention, according to Articles 31, 32, 33, and 39 of Law No. 8488, Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgos. That for the application of the regulations, the Comisión must certify that the roads or works to be intervened are reported within the damages of the national emergency, the need for materials, and a copy is sent to SETENA. In addition to the exceptionality regime that derives precisely from a constitutional power, the intervention of river watercourses to extract material, for example, generates a double benefit: first, cleaning the watercourses of sediments dragged by the same floods (removes), and second, that said extracted material is used simultaneously in the repair and rehabilitation of roads destroyed by the same event generating the emergency, for which the intervention aims to restore things to their previous state, which is the spirit of the challenged regulations. Denying this possibility ties the hands of State institutions; logic leads us to think that it is not unconstitutional to allow such works to be carried out, without complying with the environmental regulations that only operate in times of normality, provided that the causal nexus between the damage and the emergency is verified, and recorded in the Plan General de la Emergencia, where the damages that occurred are documented. This Plan is the "... instrument that will allow rational, efficient, and systematic planning and channeling of the actions to be carried out, the necessary supervision, and the allocation of required resources..." (Article 38, Law 8488). The Municipalities and Institutions deemed competent according to the subject matter are named Executing Units of the CNE; their actions are contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 39 of Law 8488. Regarding Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007, Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades, indicates that sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to Municipal extraction permits, for which I refer to the arguments presented above, as they are the equivalent of Article 135 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería, only adding what pertains to undeclared emergencies, whose legal basis will be expanded upon with Article 151 of the Ley Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Regarding sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, it is important to be clear that the powers to exempt procedures are based on procedures applicable to declared emergencies, undeclared emergencies, and the execution of prevention works, each having its respective foundation. With the exceptionality regime, the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias acts under the protection of Article 180 of the Constitución Política, explained in judgment 1992-3410, Law 8488 which is the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgos, in Articles 3, 4, 15, 30, 31, and 32. Based on the previous regulations, in relation to exceptionality and in protection of the fundamental right to life, the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias carries out interventions on three fronts, leading to the same end: the first, called "Undeclared Emergencies," which according to the last paragraph of Article 15, respond to handling events that, being very specific, do not warrant declaring a National Emergency, but due to their magnitude and damage, become a real emergency at the level of the suffering community due to the danger to life and property of individuals. These cases are highly frequent, especially during the rainy season, and where the Comisión intervenes, in many cases with the river dredge and the extraction of materials from watercourses or open pits. The second type of interventions corresponds to those covered by emergency declarations in their three phases of action, where protection work, road repair, etc., must also be carried out in a timely manner, making material extraction essential. And the third case relates to prevention works, where work is conducted in places already identified with a high degree of vulnerability, high risk, and imminent risk, where an emergency has not yet occurred but where, for the most part, the dividing line between risk and emergency is so thin that an equally expeditious intervention is necessary, as the same legal right, life and property of individuals, is being defended. It is not just any work, but rather that destined to prevent an emergency. Cites judgment No. 2006-06336 in its support, leading it to conclude that the regulations are not unconstitutional since the right to exceptionality derives from higher-ranking norms and binding jurisprudence. It is not possible to require an environmental impact study for State institutions to be granted a mining concession when facing exceptional situations and imminent risk. The State, as regulator and owner of the absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible dominion of all mineral resources existing in the national territory, can determine their use, and there is no doubt that if their use has been permitted for reasons of security and hygiene, in cases of emergencies, declared or undeclared, and in preventive matters, the use of State resources is unconditional, for the benefit of the inhabitants.

10.- The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in Boletines Judiciales numbers 191, 192, and 193 of October 4, 5, and 8, 2007 (folio 95).- 11.- Mr. Alfredo Córdoba Soro, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipalidad de San Carlos, petitions the Court to be admitted to assist in opposing the admissibility of the unconstitutionality action. Regarding Articles 135 and 159 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería, the former was repealed on July 5, 2007, and the latter was in force until 2001, when it was amended in 2004 by Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. That it is impossible for these norms to produce legal effects, as they were repealed from national legislation; moreover, it is predictable that all their effects have already been exhausted. The same occurs regarding the challenged Article 159. As for the challenged Article 39 of the Código de Minería, it pertains to temporary concessions for ministries and municipalities, so if it were necessary to extend beyond the maximum of 120 days, ordinary procedures must be fulfilled; likewise, the commercialization of materials extracted under a temporary concession is prohibited; finally, all environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionary institution, the contractor, or the subcontractor, as applicable. It is a special, summary procedure, in which procedures are not eliminated but rather expedited taking into consideration the public interest, for the execution of pertinent public works. In this sense, it refers to the advisory opinion of the Procuraduría General de la República. By judgment No. 2005-13045, the written omission of the environmental viability requirement in Article 39 at issue is not a reason for not integrating it through the proper interpretation of the constitutional framework with the rest of the environmental regulations. In this sense, the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Impacto Ambiental (DE No. 31849), Articles 109, 128, 136, and 152 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería, and Article 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, insofar as they refer to mechanisms, precautions, or procedures aimed at environmental prevention concerning the extraction activity. Regarding Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, what is protected is the swiftness of the Public Administration's action in relation to the arisen emergency, and that requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact study would violate the timely attention of the occurred urgency. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need to confer an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of the emergency situation and the availability of existing resources that can be applied to remedying the emergency by the different State entities, without losing sight of the subsequent accountability demanded by the laws and regulations governing the Public Administration. The Ley Nacional de Emergencias contemplates an exceptional regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, it concludes that all of this is consistent with numerals 21 and 180 of the Constitución Política, and that accepting the plaintiff's thesis would make sound and well-resourced management by the State entities tasked with attending to these states of urgency and emergency impossible. It requests the action be dismissed.

12.- Giselle Mora Peña, in her capacity as Executive Director of the Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, justifies the inadmissibility of the action filed and acts under the protection of Law No. 5119 of November 20, 1972, being composed of all municipalities and federations of municipalities of Costa Rica. She points out that with respect to Articles 135 and 159 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería, both are repealed, and their analysis becomes irrelevant, given that the events generated by the application of those regulations have extinguished their effects, and no reference is made to specific situations where those effects persist. Regarding Article 39 of the Código de Minería, she reiterates that votes of the Constitutional Court No. 2003-10421, 2004-09220, and 2005-05790 coincide that mining activity and material extraction by the State and other institutions are included under Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and therefore require an environmental impact assessment by SETENA. Article 39 contains a special, summary procedure, in which procedures are not eliminated but streamlined considering the timely satisfaction of the protected public interest. Refers to judgment No. 2005-013045. Regarding Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, it protects the swiftness of Public Administration action concerning the arisen emergency, and requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact study would undermine the prompt handling of the situation. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need for an agile and effective legal framework to ensure risk reduction and the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of emergencies, and the availability of existing resources applicable to remedying the emergency by different state entities, without neglecting subsequent accountability required by Public Administration laws and regulations. The Ley Nacional de Emergencias provides for an exceptional regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, she concludes all this aligns with Articles 21 and 180 of the Constitución Política, and that accepting the plaintiff's thesis would render it impossible for state entities responsible for handling such states of urgency and emergency to manage effectively and adequately. She requests the action be dismissed.

13.- Mr. Pedro Luis Castro Fernández, in his capacity as Viceministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes, appears to support opposing the claims to declare the unconstitutionality of the norms challenged in the action. The State and the municipalities, as they pursue addressing needs and satisfying general interests, especially urgent ones such as addressing the state of the road network, cannot have to submit from the beginning to procedures and requirements such as preparing environmental impact studies and having these analyzed and resolved, when the matter is obtaining a temporary permit – subject to a short term – to extract materials given the urgency of carrying out the corresponding public works. Within this context, the suspension of procedures so that the State can, for one hundred twenty days, extract materials without the environmental impact studies is reasonable and amply justified, without contravening our legal system given the legal values at stake. The action filed against Articles 135 and 159 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE has no basis, as they were repealed on July 5, 2007, by Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, and on April 28, 2004, through Decreto No. 31792-MINAE-MP, respectively. Regarding Article 39 of the Código de Minería, it contemplates a temporary concession so that ministries and municipalities, in cases of executing public works, can extract materials – directly or through contractors – from public domain watercourses or quarries, an authorization of a transitory and precarious nature for a maximum of one hundred twenty calendar days. It regulates exceptional acts, of very short duration, and because extending the authorization requires processing an ordinary procedure that entails the submission of the Environmental Impact Study.

But beyond this, by providing in paragraph e), subparagraph 7) of the referenced article that such temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental precautions" (prevenciones ambientales) that must be contained in the approval of the environmental authority, those "warnings" would be materially equivalent to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) demanded by Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente). Emergency situations exempt compliance with the environmental requirements established for normal situations. In this regard, Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE regulates exemption measures, such as the extraction of materials to address national emergency cases in which the submission of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is inadmissible. In emergency situations, where supreme values and interests such as the legal rights of human life and health are at stake, the State is empowered to dispense with ordinary bureaucratic procedures to address the contingencies arising from the triggering event. Ruling No. 2001-6503 cites that the nature of regulatory exceptionality inferred from the challenged legislation must also be accredited by the fact that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias), which guarantees that the circumstances conform to such exceptional situations. Efforts exist by MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, among them through a loan from the Government of Germany. It also highlights that the National Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo) 2007-2010 provides for increasing the proportion of the Paved Road Network (Red Vial Asfaltada) in good condition from 20% to 30% and increasing the service coverage of the Cantonal Road Network (Red Vial Cantonal) nationwide by 5,000 km by 2010. To meet these objectives, MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the material sources necessary to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, primarily through obtaining exploitation permits and concessions. It similarly requests that the resolution that granted the action of unconstitutionality be clarified and supplemented.

**14.-** The representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units (Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal), Cantonal Road Boards, Mayor's Office and Councils of San Carlos, Los Chiles, Upala, and Guatuso, and the Municipal District Council of Peñas Blancas de San Ramón, request to be admitted to coadjuvate against the claims to declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms. They coadjuvate in the same sense as the Vice-Minister of Public Works and Transport. They allege that Articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE were repealed. They point out that it is improper to require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the concessions regulated by Article 39 of the Mining Code, as it is a rule authorizing temporary concessions for the execution of public works, of a transitory and precarious nature for a maximum of 120 calendar days. It is provided in paragraph e) subparagraph 7 of the referenced article that such temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental precautions" (prevenciones ambientales) that must be contained in the approval of the environmental authority; those "warnings" would be materially equivalent to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) demanded by Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente). On the other hand, emergencies exempt compliance with environmental requirements. For the values and interests at stake, exceptional, expeditious, and simplified procedures are authorized to address the impact phases in order to provide the conditions to guarantee the well-being of the population. They cite Ruling No. 2001-06503, that the nature of regulatory exceptionality inferred from the challenged legislation must also be accredited by the fact that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias), which guarantees that the circumstances conform to such exceptional situations. Efforts exist by MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, among them through a loan from the Government of Germany. They similarly highlight that the National Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo) 2007-2010 provides for increasing the proportion of the Paved Road Network (Red Vial Asfaltada) in good condition from 20% to 30% and increasing the service coverage of the Cantonal Road Network (Red Vial Cantonal) nationwide by 5,000 km by 2010. To meet these objectives, MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the material sources necessary to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, primarily through obtaining exploitation permits and concessions. They similarly request that the resolution that granted the action of unconstitutionality be clarified and supplemented.

**15.-** Jorge Alberto Cole de León, in his capacity as Mayor and legal representative of the Municipality of Osa, pronounces in the same sense as the Vice-Minister of Public Works and Transport and the Municipal Road Management Technical Units (Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal).

**16.-** By resolution at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November nineteenth, two thousand seven, the Presidency of this Chamber required Marvín Elizondo Cordero, Jimmy Cubillo Mora, and Rafael Ángel Navarro Umaña, in their capacities as Municipal Mayor of Garabito, Municipal Mayor of Golfito, and Second Vice-President of the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region (Federación de Municipalidades de la Región Sur), respectively, to accredit the capacity in which they were appearing before the Chamber, among other things.

**17.-** By resolution at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on December third, two thousand seven, the Presidency of this Chamber resolved to admit as passive coadjutants to the action: the Costa Rican Association of Material and Aggregate Concessionaires for Construction (Asociación Costarricense de Concesionarios de Materiales y Agregados para la Construcción), the Municipal Mayor of San Carlos, the Municipal Mayor of Osa, the Union of Local Governments (Unión de Gobiernos Locales), the Vice-Minister of Public Works and Transport, and the representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units (Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal), Cantonal Road Boards, Mayor's Offices, and Municipal Councils of the District of Peñas Blancas de San Ramón. In turn, it rejected the coadjuvancies filed by the Municipal Mayors of Garabito and Golfito, and the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region (Federación de Municipalidades de la Región Sur), for failing to comply with the requirement issued in the resolution at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November nineteenth, two thousand seven, and rejected as untimely those filed by the Municipal Mayors of Coto Brus, Moravia, and San José.

**18.-** By resolution at eleven hours on September eleventh, two thousand eight, the Acting President of the Chamber deemed the granted hearings to have been answered. (folio 356) **19.-** The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) is waived, based on the power granted to the Chamber by article 9 ibidem, upon considering this resolution sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.

**20.-** The provisions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.

Drafted by Judge **Castillo Víquez**; and, **Considering (Considerando):** **I. On the admissibility of the action.** The action meets the formal requirements demanded by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) and is admissible because it involves the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, for which Article 50 of the Constitution grants the broadest standing, which does not require, in these cases, any qualification of the interest of the plaintiffs; also, their standing derives from the provisions of Article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which allows the filing of the action without requiring the existence of a prior matter pending resolution before the courts of justice or in procedures to exhaust administrative remedies, when it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, as occurs in this case, dealing with the defense of the environment. As different regulatory provisions are challenged, to facilitate their study, this Chamber will resolve matters related to them in the following order, and then resolve the challenge to Article 39 of the Mining Code accordingly.

**II.- On the inadmissibility of the action against the abrogated and reformed regulatory provisions.** The Chamber will begin the analysis of the complaint filed by the plaintiff Ávila Jones, insofar as it alleges the unconstitutionality of Articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE of June 18, 2007. The challenged articles establish the following:

*Article 135.—**Emergency Cases:** * *In cases of national emergency duly declared pursuant to Law No. 7914 and its Regulations, and the interested party communicates such fact in writing with the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias) to the Directorate of Geology and Mines with a copy to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), the latter may, subsequent to that communication, begin the extraction required to address the indicated emergency and will have a period of 4 months to submit a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias).* *The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the tasks to be performed, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive work and for environmental oversight (regencia ambiental), the material source to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time period necessary to address the need. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan.* *The rehabilitation and reconstruction works of the infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Emergency Regulatory Plan.* *(Thus reformed by Article 16 of Executive Decree No. 29677 and by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).* *Article 159.—**Emergency Cases**. In cases of national emergency duly declared and while the Initial Phase or Phase I of the emergency lasts, pursuant to Law No. 7914 and its regulations, and the interested party communicates such fact in writing to the DGM, the latter may, subsequent to that communication, begin the extraction required to address the indicated emergency phase and will have a period of 6 months to submit a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the applicant as the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias).* *The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the tasks to be performed, the volume and the material source to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time period necessary to address the need".* *(Thus reformed by Article 17 of Executive Decree No. 29677 of July 12, 2001).* The Attorney General's Office of the Republic, in its capacity as advisory body to this constitutional jurisdiction, the authorities in the hearing granted by this Chamber to the action of unconstitutionality, and the coadjutants, coincide that the challenge to Article 135 of the Regulations to the Mining Code is not viable, given that at the time the action of unconstitutionality was filed, it was not in force. The Chamber verifies that the original version of article 135 of the mentioned Regulations was reformed on two occasions, and finally repealed by Article 7 of Executive Decree No. 33777 of June 18, 2007. The repeal took effect as of July 5, 2007, the date of publication in La Gaceta. Hence, the repeal had occurred one month before the unconstitutionality claim was filed on August 8, 2007. This situation presents a problem between the need to resolve the complaint of the plaintiff, which is based on the interest in preserving constitutional supremacy, the direct and immediate application of the Constitution, and the cleansing of the legal system through the action of unconstitutionality by eliminating a norm repugnant to the Political Constitution for violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. However, the Chamber must reject this action regarding this point because it is not even a case of a supervening loss of the object of the action, meaning the challenged norm was abrogated while the action was being processed. On the contrary, at the time the complaint was filed, there was no longer any actual harm, nor is there a specific case in which the application of the norm that was in force—now repealed—was being discussed. Consequently, what is sought is the "purification" of repealed norms, which is inadmissible due to lacking the necessary standing because the surviving effects of the challenged provision must be demonstrated, which cannot be achieved through the diffuse interest in the defense of the environment. In the case at hand, no specific injuries are alleged in a base trial, where specific harms are demonstrated or indicated in a prior matter in which it is a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest considered harmed. Therefore, were this Court to rule, it would be issuing an opinion in the abstract or of mere academic and historical interest. The same occurs with the challenged Article 159 of the Regulations. Although the Chamber has interpreted standing broadly in environmental matters, where any harm to the environment is capable of reflecting on each of the inhabitants of the Republic, in the case before us, the same conclusion cannot be reached, because the legal basis of the situations regulated by the norm is closely associated with declared emergency situations, and the initial first phase. In this way, according to the National Law of Emergencies (Ley Nacional de Emergencias) No. 7914 of September 28, 1999, it established:

"ARTICLE 6.- Phases of the emergency declaration An emergency declaration is composed of three phases:

• a)The initial or critical phase is the one immediately following the occurrence of the event. It includes informing the population, protecting persons and property affected in the disaster zone, rescuing and saving persons and property, providing health assistance to victims, socially attending to those affected, and immediately rehabilitating essential public services.
• b)The intermediate or medium-term phase refers to the rehabilitation of the affected area and includes, at least, cleaning and access to the disaster zone, the temporary relocation of the population, the construction of shelters, and provisioning.
• c)The conclusion phase consists of the reconstruction of destroyed low-income housing, aqueducts, sewers, and electrical networks; in general, it is the phase where the normal functioning of affected public services is restored.

The three phases can be subject to attention, according to the concept of national emergency. To be recognized by the legal system, the cause-and-effect link between the event and the damages caused must be clearly established, which shall be recorded in the general plan to address the emergency, according to the resolutions or decrees adopted for its attention." Similarly, the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention, Law No. 8488, which will be transcribed further below, regulates in more detail the initial or critical phase transcribed above. The truth is that within them lie the reasons for acting under emergency conditions; however, the action of unconstitutionality equally pursues a pronouncement in the abstract and of mere academic and historical interest. It must be taken into account that the norm was amended by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004, published in La Gaceta No. 94 of May 14, 2004, meaning the challenged provision is also not in force; the scope of a declaration of unconstitutionality of a norm previously reformed by the Executive Branch itself would render the object of the action unnecessary this time. Precisely, the version in force—which was not expressly challenged—includes provisions that raise the level of requirements for the exploitation of riverbeds and quarries for the extraction of materials in duly declared national emergency cases, such as: "... *the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive work and for environmental oversight (regencia ambiental), [...]. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan*", a situation that would allow supplementing the issue with what will be stated further below. For the reasons stated, the action must be rejected outright regarding these two points, as is hereby done.

**III.- On the extraction of materials in the jurisprudence of the Chamber in emergency cases.-** The plaintiff's complaint lies in that Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE of June 18, 2007, which is the Regulations for the extraction of materials from quarries and riverbeds of public domain by municipalities, creates special procedures for mining exploitation by public entities, private parties contracting with them, and for private parties in general, to exempt them from the requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) in order to carry them out in unlimited numbers, thereby violating the fundamental right to the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For a better understanding of what is being discussed in the complaint, the challenged article is transcribed:

"*Article 2—* *1. In cases of **duly declared national emergency**, it will suffice for the municipality to communicate to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the tasks to be performed, the public work in which the materials will be used, and the extraction timeframe, along with a letter from the **National Emergency Commission** (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias), indicating that the work to be performed is within the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication, the municipality may begin exploitation work **under the supervision** of the Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental).* *Within a maximum period of fifteen business days after the completion of the material extraction, the municipality must submit a **technical closure report** on the exploitation to the **Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat** (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), specifying the quantity of material extracted and the conditions in which the site was left.* *2. In cases of **non-declared emergencies**, in addition to the requirements established in the preceding subparagraph, the municipality must provide with the communication a **recommendation from the National Emergency Commission** (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias) indicating the need to perform the proposed works.* *3. If the information is not presented correctly and completely, the municipality may not begin the exploitation work. If it is necessary for the municipality to correct an error or complete the requirements, the National Mining Registry of the Directorate of Geology and Mines will, by means of a resolution, require **the error or missing requirement** a single time, granting the requesting municipality a period of twenty business days. If the required documentation is not submitted within the granted period, or if it is submitted again incomplete or incorrect, the Directorate of Geology and Mines will archive the request.* *4. In the event that the work is carried out by **a contractor**, it is prohibited for the contractor's work to be compensated with mining material found at the site. Failure to comply with the provisions of this article will be considered a crime, making the offender liable for the sanctions provided in the Title of Mining Crimes of the Mining Code.* *5. In cases of **duly declared national emergency**, it will suffice for the **National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response** (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias) to communicate to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the tasks to be performed, the public work in which the materials will be used, and a certification stating that the work to be performed is within the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication, **THE EXECUTING UNIT designated by the Commission** may begin exploitation work under the supervision of the Directorate of Geology and Mines.* *6. In **prevention works and non-declared emergencies, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR RISK PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE** (COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS) will communicate to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the need to perform the proposed works, as well as the tasks to be performed, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive work, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time period necessary to address the need.* *7. The **National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response** (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias) **may enter, with the owner's authorization**, open pits, quarries, and concessions in riverbeds of public domain, to extract the materials necessary for carrying out emergency and first-impact works, pursuant to Law 8488.* *8. The rehabilitation or reconstruction works for **the emergency** must be included in the **General Emergency Plan** and those for first impact, prevention, **non-declared emergencies and states of necessity or urgency**, in the administrative resolutions of the **CNE. The National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response** (Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias) may authorize the use of extracted materials **in other works declared of national or cantonal interest** carried out on public domain lands.* If said lands are under private administration, the interested party must pay the fee established by the respective Municipality." (the text in bold is not from the original) The rule challenged by the plaintiff has very specific purposes that must be noted for its analysis. The *ratio* of the provision lies precisely in regulating the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses for public works in the different cantons of the country, under two scenarios: emergencies duly declared by the Executive Branch and emergencies not declared but confirmed by the National Emergency Commission (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias). According to the regulations transcribed above, it regulates the procedure for the Municipalities before the Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas), as well as that of the Commission, the necessary requirements to obtain the exploitation permit, the timeframes for preventing omitted requirements and for response, and the need for the works to be included in the General Emergency Plan. It is clear that the conflict pointed out by the plaintiff involves a conflict between two constitutional provisions and their inherent values: the first, the State's duty to provide exceptional responses in equally exceptional times, as the authorities point out when answering the respective hearings, and the second, Article 50 of the Constitution, which regulates the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which is what the plaintiff claims. This Chamber has opportunely resolved the issue; Article 180 of the Political Constitution regulates an indeterminate concept of "emergency" comprised not only of cases of force majeure or even fortuitous events, to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest, or public calamity, according to the terminology of the Political Constitution. For the State, it implies the internal responsibility to satisfy the needs arising from such events, the obligation to provide the most essential aid to the affected populations, that is, the full compliance with international standards for a government that acts with full responsibility (judgment No. 2010-15072). In "emergency" situations, these permits must be processed by the Municipalities with the respective declaration or recommendation of the National Emergency Commission, or by the Commission itself (to subsequently appoint an Executing Unit); these are valid in light of the provisions of Laws No. 7914 of October 13, 1999, 8488 of November 22, 2005, and numeral 180 of the Political Constitution. Regarding the above, the Chamber has held in judgment No. **2003-06322** that:

"6.- **only the declared state of necessity exempts compliance with environmental regulations**: The state of emergency is a source of Law, which entails, in some cases, a displacement, and in others an increase of public competencies, precisely so that the exceptional situation that arises can be addressed ("urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest or public calamity"); thus, the Executive Branch is empowered to exempt the normal procedures of its activities or processes, with exceptional, more expeditious and simplified procedures being provided for such cases. These are, by definition, transitory and urgent situations in which it is necessary to maintain the continuity of public services, so that the Administration is allowed to improvise an authority for the service of general interests that cannot be sacrificed to a legalistic scruple. In this manner, the law of exception—formed by the set of norms issued at the time of need—becomes unconstitutional in the event of normality, since it is an essentially temporary law, that is, solely and exclusively to solve the specific emergency being faced, given that "[...] exceptional treatment to carry out ordinary administrative activity is not admissible, even if it is urgent in nature; [...]" (judgment number 2001-6503, cited above).

In this regard, a distinction must be made between "mere urgency," a term that acts as a qualifier, and which in many cases is not even necessarily fundamental or imminent, while "[...] is nothing more [than] the prompt execution or remedy of a given situation, which has originated from the effects of how it has been managed itself, [...]" (Judgment number 3410-92, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on November ten, nineteen ninety-two); so it can well be understood as the Administration's need to act in a certain situation, and in most cases, it is due to its own inertia in finding a solution, according to the instruments provided by the legal system; from the "state of necessity," understanding as such eventual situations—that is—not occurring within the framework of normality, and of such magnitude that they can imminently affect life and property, public interest and order, or public safety, so that they cannot be controlled, managed, or mastered based on the ordinary regulations available to the Government, and which make administrative intervention unavoidable and urgent, even outside the law. Therefore, it is contrary to Constitutional Law not only the regulation but also the action of public institutions that dispense with ordinary procedures and processes for the ordinary action of the Administration, and which in this case, refer to the dispensation of environmental regulations, such as—for example—carrying out the **environmental impact assessment** or requesting health permits. **In situations of necessity that are foreseeable in the long, medium, or short term, the exemption from compliance with environmental obligations cannot be claimed, since they become ordinary activity of the Administration (case of the construction of dikes in rivers to protect the population from floods (judgment number 2001-6503). In this respect, it must be clear that for the emergency measure to be understood as constitutionally sound, it must attend solely and exclusively to solving the emergency situation that motivates it, and also have—as its purpose—the common good: that is, it must be just and also reasonable (proportionality in the strict sense)". (The highlighting in bold is from the original).

The Chamber reaffirms the validity of the transcribed jurisprudence, since in the event of a declared emergency, the principle of legality is replaced by the principle of necessity. Hence, in the case of an emergency duly declared by the Executive Branch, the extraordinary measures regulated in crisis legislation are enabled, aimed at mitigating the impact of the event on human beings and the legally protected interests in the legal system, among them, the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law (Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, Law No. 8488) in that it allows applying a regime of exception, as occurs with budget management, which was considered by this Chamber in accordance with constitutionality parameters, even while the Legislative Assembly is in ordinary sessions (judgment No. 2009-09427). But following this is the question of whether the provisions of Article 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE are unconstitutional because under that exceptional regime they allow processing material extraction permits without an official emergency declaration. In this sense, the President of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Commission noted when responding to the hearing granted in the action that there are emergency situations which, due to the specific area of impact and their geographical focus, often rural, do not warrant an emergency declaration, and therefore would not be covered under the interpretations of the Chamber transcribed earlier, but which undoubtedly demand immediate attention. Precisely in judgment No. 2009-09427 it was established that:

"*The principle of necessity permits a new creative function [*of Law*] to face exceptional or anomalous circumstances whose urgency is implicit. Similarly, in Criminal Law, the state of necessity allows an individual to be exempted from punishment when they find themselves in a situation that forces them to act against the criminal legal order, to cause one harm but avoid another of greater magnitude, which is also imminent and current. Even Article 226 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) allows the Executive Branch to dispense with the formalities of the procedure, and even produce a special substitute one, in cases of urgency and to avoid serious harm to persons or irreparable damage to things. Consequently, this Chamber finds itself facing a situation in which the Executive Branch is not prohibited from assuming its other constitutional powers, such as exercising the initiative expressly attributed to it to issue legal norms, with sufficient value and efficacy to face an urgent, conjunctural, and generalized reality, against which ordinary legal means would produce undesirable and untimely results.*" The Chamber in the transcription refers to the principle of **necessity**, in the face of generalized factual events in national life or community, which entail an abnormal interruption thereof and which must be faced through an emergency declaration by the Executive Branch. However, if the magnitude of the events does not warrant such a declaration, it is necessary to analyze whether they constitute cases of **urgency** (not *mere* urgency), because there is a real threat or harm to interests circumscribed to individuals considered individually, or at most to small localities, but not to the national community. For the above, this Chamber must consequently determine what legal powers the legislator granted to the National Emergency Commission to act in these circumstances, as a maximum deconcentrated body attached to the Presidency of the Republic (Article 13 of Law No. 8488). In the Chamber's judgment, what is necessary is to place the classification of these events in their proper dimension, to analyze whether, compared to other circumstances that were regulated by the legislator with less rigor, they warrant exceptional treatment by the Executive Branch. The foregoing, because evidently there are events that could place local governments in precarious situations, as the public entities on the front line in these highly focused, individually considered events, so that in order not to impair the faculties of the Municipalities and the National Emergency Commission in key moments of emergency response or risk and imminent danger prevention, the Commission's competencies must be analyzed. First, the consequences that could materialize into emergencies affecting fundamental legal interests, such as life and property of persons, must be avoided. The dividing line between a declared and undeclared emergency viewed from this angle must be drawn so as not to leave out situations that equally demand action from State entities, especially in response to highly focused exceptional circumstances.

"**Article 5.- Risk management policy.** The risk management policy constitutes a cross-cutting axis of the work of the Costa Rican State; it articulates instruments, programs, and public resources in ordinary and extraordinary, institutional and sectoral actions, oriented towards avoiding the occurrence of disasters and attending to emergencies in all their phases.

Every development policy of the country must incorporate both the elements necessary for an adequate diagnosis of risk and susceptibility to the impact of disasters, as well as the management axes that allow their control".

"**Article 19.- Presidency of the Commission.** The President of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall be the highest-ranking official of the Institution and shall hold its judicial and extrajudicial representation. In the fulfillment of their duties, they must provide security, through a fidelity bond, for an amount to be defined in the Regulations to this Law.

Among their powers are:

a. ...

b. ...

c. Serve as a direct liaison between the Presidency of the Republic, the ministries, and the Government Council, as well as attend meetings with them when summoned.

d. ...e) ...".

"**Article 20.- Executive Directorate.** The Executive Directorate shall be composed of a Director, who shall be responsible for the administration of the Institution; shall serve as a trusted official, freely appointed and removable by the Board of Directors, and shall be subordinate to its directives and those of the Presidency of the Commission. They are obligated to render accounts for their actions, in accordance with legal norms, and, through a fidelity bond, must provide security, for an amount to be defined via regulation.

They shall have the following powers:

• a)...
• b)Program and coordinate the Commission's activities with other public and private institutions, to fulfill the policies and achieve the institution's objectives, within the guidelines issued by the Executive Branch.
• c)... d) ... e) ... f)... j)...".

"**Article 15.- Extraordinary competencies of the commission.** Once the state of emergency established in Article 29 of this Law is declared, the Commission shall be responsible for planning, coordinating, directing, and controlling the actions aimed at resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. To this end, it shall execute, at a minimum, the following actions:

• a)...
• f)**Except as provided in the foregoing subsections, the Commission shall attend, without an emergency declaration by the Executive Branch, local and minor emergencies which, due to the high frequency with which they occur and the serious impact they cause in communities, demand the provision of a first-impact humanitarian service, consisting of the delivery of blankets, food, mattresses and, if necessary, the acquisition of materials to rehabilitate basic services and enable shelters, as well as the contracting of a maximum of one hundred machine hours for cleaning the most affected area of the zone**".

**Article 30.- Phases for attending an emergency.-** Emergency response shall be executed in three phases:

• a)**Response phase:** Immediate operational phase upon the occurrence of the event. Includes urgent first-impact measures aimed at safeguarding life, vital public service infrastructure, the production of vital goods and services, property, and the environment, through actions of alert, alarm, public information, evacuation, and temporary relocation of people and animals to safe sites; rescue, recovery, and search for victims; the provision of basic supplies for life, such as food, clothing, water, medicines, and medical assistance; as well as the safeguarding of material goods, preliminary damage assessment, and adoption of duly justified special measures or mitigation works to protect the population, infrastructure, and the environment.

b)...

c)...

For the Commission to use the exceptional regime established in this Law under the emergency declaration, **there must be a causal link between the event producing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted, such that the ordinary prevention activities and administrative activities of the Commission and other State institutions may not be carried out under this exceptional regime.** In order not to rebuild vulnerability, the works to be executed during the emergency must be carried out with a preventive approach, oriented so that future events do not generate an equal state of emergency again". (The text in bold is not from the original).

In the Chamber's judgment, the last paragraph of Article 15 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law refers to a state of urgency that is geographically focused, so that its response is restricted to very specific cases. In these cases, State entities and institutions must act with **effectiveness** for the mitigation of the emergency, and based on the **current nature** of the events, which demand urgent measures. As established, the State is called upon to mitigate these imminent dangers resulting from recurring events impacting the communities under its influence, whose prevention is sought and which it is not permissible to postpone. The "*as well as*" in the last paragraph of Article 15 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law refers to possible mitigation measures among those cited and others (*numerus apertus*), within the established limits, but including those contemplated in subsection a) of Article 30 of the referenced Law that could arise from the need to address the emergency situation being presented. If the objective is to obtain an agile, efficient, and timely response to the emergency or its imminence, only the current nature of the same would authorize the granting of the exploitation of quarries and public domain watercourses, in accordance with Article 2.2 and 2.6 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, so that the granting of authorization by the Directorate of Geology and Mines can only be resolved when the municipal procedure is accompanied by the document from the National Emergency Commission recommending the works, or in its case, when the Commission itself conducts its procedures before the Directorate of Geology and Mines. Precisely, in accordance with Article 15 of Law No. 8488, it is the body responsible for resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. But most importantly, it is that within risk management, the entire State conglomerate is responsible for articulating actions and efforts, especially in extraordinary events, to take mitigation measures.

In the opinion of the Chamber, under these strictly interpreted assumptions, it must be understood that environmental impact assessments (Estudios de Impacto Ambiental) cannot be required, given the state of urgency, which, as indicated by section 30 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law, demands immediacy. The causal link between the event producing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted to face that emergency efficiently must be duly demonstrated in the resolution of the National Emergency Commission. It is important to note that section 2.8 of the challenged Regulation establishes for this type of emergencies, whether declared or not declared by the Executive Branch, that the latter are materialized in the General Emergency Plan or in an administrative resolution of the National Emergency Commission, respectively. In this sense, this is the substantive and formal element for the other actions of the involved Administrations, in order to extract and use materials in the rehabilitation or reconstruction of affected zones, including other works declared of national or cantonal interest that are developed on public domain lands. In this latter case, these are materials processed under the protection of activities previously authorized by the Directorate of Geology and Mines, and of course within the limits and authorizations previously given, as a form of rational use of the natural and material resources that the State must have available to face emergencies. Any use outside that context would be unconstitutional and consequently subject to the respective channel of constitutional jurisdiction. In the opinion of the Chamber, it is necessary to reiterate that its purpose is to respond efficiently and in accordance with the immediacy of events, in attention to the principle of state of necessity and urgency established in Article 3 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law. All of the foregoing must not imply an infringement of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, given that extractive operations must be covered by the declaration or resolutions of the National Emergency Commission, with which the respective permits are processed. On the other hand, in the report of the Minister of Environment, it is clear that there are limits on the extraction of materials granted through concessions, regarding time and quantity, according to the requested regime, so that when it is necessary to access concessions granted to private parties, since the concession is an administrative contract, it grants real rights over a good given in administration of the State, and the regulations respect such interests; the obligation of subsequent compensation for the unilateral alteration of the contract by the State does not disappear for that reason. In that sense, the provisions grant treatment to firmly acquired administrative real rights. In support of the foregoing, based on Article 2.7 of the Regulation, a similar argument was established in judgment No. **2010-015738**, and in which it was established, referring to the Law Regulating the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Public Domain Watercourses by Municipalities, that**: ** > ***“...** there is no violation of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, because before granting the authorization, it is required to present to the Directorate of Geology and Mines the permit from the owner of the real property, from where the authorized material will be exploited and extracted. The property owner will consequently defend their rights, authorizing with the entry permit for extraction and transport, or not granting it, so it cannot be understood that there is an infringement of the right to property. Hence, if the requirements demanded by law are not met, consequently it is not possible to understand that there is an action contrary to the right to property, given that, as stated previously, ...* **”**.

Regarding Article 2.7 of the challenged Regulation, it is evident that the use of resources by the National Emergency Commission is based on a purely voluntary act of the owner, and the absence of such a requirement would not allow, under the assumption of the challenged rule, the granting of the concession to the municipality or the National Emergency Commission. The foregoing, of course, is without prejudice to the power of expropriation, as established in Article 35 of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Law. For the reasons stated, on these points the action must be dismissed.

**IV.- Regarding environmental impact studies in short-duration extraction permits.** Having overcome the question of constitutional relevance of permits for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses, in a situation of declared and undeclared emergencies, regulated in the Law and the Executive Decree, it is appropriate to analyze the challenge regarding the possible defect of constitutionality in the granting of temporary concessions, insofar as the unconstitutional omission of bypassing environmental impact assessments (Estudios de Impacto Ambiental) is alleged. This assumption, in the opinion of the Chamber, corresponds to the ordinary activity of State institutions, so that in congruence with precedents, the integration of environmental regulations, Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, is certainly required to quantify and qualify the risk of damage to the environment. Article 39 of the Mining Code establishes that:

*“Article 39.—The State, through MINAE, shall grant temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from public domain watercourses or quarries, in the relevant jurisdiction. Such concessions shall be issued for a maximum term of one hundred twenty days and the following procedure must be completed:* *a) Written request from the institution, which must indicate the location of the place where the extraction will be carried out.* *b) Exploitation plan and justification of the destination of the materials, which must be solely for public works.* *c) Appointment of a professional in the geological field or in mining engineering, who will be the responsible party and director of the exploitation. In case of proven lack of such professionals, a qualified professional with experience in related areas may be appointed.* *d) If the concessionaire does not carry out the works directly, it must indicate to the DGM the name of the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing them.* *e) Upon receiving the request, the DGM shall conduct an inspection and issue the relevant recommendations; if they are affirmative, it shall issue the recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Energy, so that the respective permit may be granted, which must contain the following:* *1)* *Location of the extraction site.* *2)* *Authorized volume.* *3)* *Term of validity.* *4)* *Extraction method.* *5)* *Machinery to be used.* *6)* *Professional responsible for the extraction.* ***7) Environmental precautions (prevenciones ambientales) during the temporary extraction.** * *In the case of municipalities and ministries, if the exploitation lasts more than one hundred twenty days and they wish to continue with it, they must comply with the provisions of Articles 72 and 73 of this Code, which, once the numbering is changed, will become Articles 76 and 77, respectively, and its Regulation. Any environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionaire institution or, as applicable, of the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work.* *The commercialization of materials extracted under an authorization granted by this article to the State, its bodies, and municipalities is strictly prohibited. Violating this provision shall cause the immediate cancellation of the authorization and the application of the corresponding sanctions to the responsible officials and, as applicable, to the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work.”* (bold is not from the original) The first thing that must be observed is whether it is a concession or precarious permit granted by the Directorate of Geology and Mines that the State itself grants to its institutions. The Law is clear in indicating that it is a temporary concession for a maximum of 120 days for ministries and municipalities, but it does not grant a subjective right to a private individual as stated in the filing brief for the action, even for the private subject contracted by the Administration to carry out the extraction work, since the consequences of not respecting the terms of the concession, such as commercializing the materials, imply its cancellation, with the corresponding administrative and sanctioning responsibilities. It has in common with the rest of the regulations that its processing is expeditious and summary, and the use of the material must be destined *solely* for public works. In the opinion of the Chamber, the rule refers to the ordinary, short-term activity of public administrations, for the development and conservation of national or cantonal infrastructure, in a modality of temporary concession. Due to its simplicity in procedures, *it can be used to carry out tasks* of the risk management policy through ordinary actions, or others, through efforts that may be contemplated as indicated in the following articles:

*“Article 6.- **National Risk Management System.-** The National Risk Management System is hereby constituted, **understood as the comprehensive,** organized, coordinated, and harmonious **articulation of the organs, structures, functional relationships, methods, procedures, and resources of all State institutions**, seeking the participation of the entire private sector and organized civil society.* ***Its purpose is the promotion and execution of public policy guidelines that allow both the Costa Rican State and the different sectors of national activity to incorporate the concept of risk management as a transversal axis of planning and development practices.** * *The National Risk Management System is composed and developed through subsystems, which shall be defined in the Regulation of this Law and shall have a multi-institutional coordination body”.* (Bold is not from the original).

*“**Article 7.- National Risk Management Plan.** For the application of the Risk Management policy, the Commission is obliged to design and execute the National Risk Management Plan, as a strategic planning instrument that allows the systemic and integral articulation of the programs part of the Subsystems and, additionally, the delimitation of institutional competencies, the allocation of resources, organization, and verification and control mechanisms**”** .* *“Article 8.- **Inclusion of the criteria of the national risk management plan.** The organs and entities of the State, responsible for planning tasks, at the time of preparing the respective plans shall take into account the guidelines indicated in the National Risk Management Plan. When formulating and preparing urban development plans, programs, and projects, these organs and entities must consider the component of risk prevention and mitigation”.* *“Article 9.- **Coordination for risk management and emergency response.** The National Risk Management System is structured through coordination bodies. The Central Administration, the Decentralized Public Administration of the State, local governments, the private sector, and organized civil society, in compliance with the principle of coordination, shall integrate into the technical or operational structures formed by the Commission, according to the scope of the following article; however, the Commission shall be empowered to form other coordination bodies in accordance with the scope of the National Risk Management Plan and its programs”*.

As the Chamber has indicated on other occasions, the constitutionality of the questioned provision must be analyzed against Article 50 of the Political Constitution, which expressly recognizes the right of all present and future inhabitants of this country to enjoy a healthy and perfectly balanced environment, in the following terms:

*"Article 50.-* *The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth.* *Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are entitled to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused.* *The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. The law shall determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions."* From the referenced norm, several guiding principles are deduced, among which is the protection of environmental rights by the State, about which this Tribunal has indicated that:

*“**the State constitutes the guarantor in the protection and tutelage 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 responsibility of the State to exercise a tutelary and governing function in this matter is born**, as provided by the constitutional norm under discussion itself, a function that environmental regulations develop. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right.”* Judgment 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003.

Furthermore, the State is under the obligation to act preventively by avoiding—through oversight and direct intervention—the execution of acts that harm the environment, and under the correlative and equally unavoidable prohibition of promoting its degradation. The foregoing obliges not only recognizing the right to the environment but also using all materially and legally valid means for its protection against attacks it may suffer. Because damage to the environment is usually irreparable, preventive oversight by the administration and the promptness of the measures it adopts directly affect the magnitude of the injury to the environment. By reason of the foregoing, the precautionary principle has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber, granting it constitutional rank, among others, in judgment No. 2219-99 of 15:18 hours on March 24, 1999. It is important to highlight the principle of rational use of resources, derived from Article 69 of the Constitution, which refers to the "*rational use of natural resources".* This Chamber—in various resolutions—has established that environmental protection must be directed towards the adequate and intelligent use of its elements, and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships (sustainable development), in order to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations are entitled. Therefore, the primary objective of the sustainable use and protection of the environment is that, through the production and use of technology, not only economic gains are obtained but above all a favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing damage or harm. Regarding the constitutional question, it is the opinion of the Chamber that subparagraph e) point 7) of Article 39 of the Mining Code contemplated environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) within temporary concessions whose maximum is 120 days, and that regulationally a specific quantity of the extraction was set (20,000 cubic meters of material), so that before the granting of the concession, the recommendation that the Directorate of Geology and Mines must issue to the Minister of Environment must consider the inclusion of the *environmental precautions (prevenciones ambientales) during the temporary extraction*. In the second meaning of the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, *prevención* is defined as: *“Preparation and disposition made in advance to avoid a risk or execute something”*, which entails a true conditioning and conciliation of the administrative claim of the ministries and municipalities with the environmental viability studies. Without them, the Directorate of Geology and Mines could not issue its recommendation, much less the granting of the concession by the Minister. According to the foregoing, the rule refers to the subjection of Public Administrations to environmental regulations, by the principle of legality (Article 13 of the General Law of Public Administration, specifically regarding the principle of singular non-derogability of regulatory norms) and Article 50 of the Constitution, according to the respective regulation, as well as the measures that must be taken in the specific case, for the execution of this type of extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses. In the matter before us, the opinions of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications coincide that there is a duty to integrate the entire block of constitutionality and legality, in order to offer protection to the environment along with the rational and sustained exploitation of natural resources. In this manner, the Minister points to Executive Decree No. 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta on September 28, 2004, which is the Regulation to Article 39 of the Mining Code, and Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, which is the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, insofar as they establish the limits to these mining exploitation activities, less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters, an assumption under which the challenged Article 39 falls, so that in environmental matters, as established in subparagraph b) of Article 1 of Regulation No. 31950-MINAE, it qualifies it in category B2, of Low Potential Environmental Impact. In this sense, Executive Decree No. 31849 itself contains the definition of a more precise and detailed Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) for low environmental impact projects, in Article 3.34 bis which states:

“**Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EsIA) for activities, works, or projects of low and moderately low potential environmental impact:** For those cases in which the activity, work, or project, by its attributes (dimension, duration over time, location, materials and equipment it uses, and production), is defined as low or moderately low potential environmental impact, it must comply, when current regulations expressly require it, with the submission of an EsIA, and following the principle of proportionality and reasonableness, with the procedure that SETENA defines, provided that the elements encompassed by the definition of EsIA included in this Regulation are fully met.” Consequently, a specific EsIA is required for the activity, so that protection is established from an environmental and technical point of view. The regulatory development of Article 39 of the Mining Code requires the application of environmental law, and in this sense, it implicitly incorporates the regulatory development of the Executive Branch, for which reason it cannot be judged unconstitutional. Moreover, for permits for the extraction of non-metallic materials by municipalities and autonomous institutions, Articles 112, subparagraph 3, and 141, subparagraph c) of the Regulation to the Mining Code, require the request for the SETENA Resolution approving the corresponding Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). The same as Article 1 of the Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by Municipalities, Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, which orders the Mayor to present the environmental viability resolution issued by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat. In addition, the powers of the Directorate of Geology and Mines in the Regulation to the Mining Code contained in the following articles must be added:

Article 124.—**Of technical precautions and directives**.

The Directorate of Geology and Mines (Dirección de Geología y Minas, DGM) has the authority to conduct inspections and request additional reports it deems necessary to fully comply with its obligation, especially regarding the control of the activity carried out and the protection of natural resources. <strong>Failure by the entity to comply with what is required by the DGM, or the refusal to follow the technical guidelines issued by the Directorate, shall be grounds for cancellation of the authorization</strong>.

In any case, in the interest of the in dubio pro natura principle, the DGM may order, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of exploitation works when it is demonstrated that the technical and environmental conditions for exploitation have not been met. (bold not in original) Article 88.—<strong>Environmental Guarantee (Garantía Ambiental)</strong>. The amount of the environmental compliance guarantee, contained in Article 103 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), shall be set by SETENA, and the permit holder is obligated to provide the administrative file with a certified copy of the deposit receipt issued by the bank before commencing work.

Failure to comply with the foregoing shall be grounds for cancellation in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), as applicable.

In the event of proven non-compliance, verified by SETENA, with the obligations undertaken in the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), or in the event of environmental damage caused during the activity due to non-compliance with environmental recovery standards, the DGM shall proceed to cancel the permit or concession, in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), as applicable.

For the reasons stated, on this point, the Court does not consider that there is a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, insofar as subsection e) point 7 of Article 39 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) is integrated with the rest of the environmental legislation, in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution.

For all the foregoing reasons, regarding this point, the action must be declared without merit.

**Therefore (Por tanto):** The action is declared without merit regarding Article 39 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería) and Article 2 of the Regulation for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by municipalities (Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades). In all other respects, the action is summarily dismissed.

Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Gilber Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Jorge Araya G.

It further maintains that the challenged regulation violates Articles 11 and 28 of the Political Constitution because it grants powers to the National Emergency Commission that can only be conferred directly by law, such as the power to establish limitations on the fundamental rights of property and freedom of enterprise (folios 34 to 44).

**7.-** Roberto Dobles Mora, Minister of Environment and Energy, responded to the hearing granted (folio 50) and stated that the petitioner transcribes Article 39 of the Mining Code, but not in its complete form, and regarding Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, transcribes a text already repealed by Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta of September 28, 2004. According to the new text of Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE, it does comply with the obligation to obtain environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), not through the submission of the environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), but rather in accordance with Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC “Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental”, it establishes that mining exploitation activities whose exploitation volume is less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters are classified as category B2 of Low Potential Environmental Impact. Not only is environmental viability required during the material extraction process, but also the supervision of a Professional responsible for the extraction from a technical and environmental standpoint. In summary, the petitioner's omission to report the existence of Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE implies that it is not true that there is no extraction volume limit, since its maximum is 20,000 cubic meters as established in paragraph b) of Article 2 of the aforementioned decree. Regarding Articles 135 and 159 of Decreto Ejecutivo 29300-MINAE: Reglamento al Código de Minería, reformed by Decreto Ejecutivo N. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 of August 7, 2001. The petitioner omits to report that the mentioned articles were reformed by Decreto Ejecutivo 31792-MINAE-MP published in Alcance N. 20 of May 14, 2004. As part of the requirements that must be submitted with the communication of the need for material extraction, in the event of duly declared emergencies, the fact is that a copy of the communication must be submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA). We start from the premise that these are declared states of emergency, therefore, a state of exception. Our country is exposed to natural phenomena that have caused various national catastrophes throughout history, causing rivers to overflow and landslides that leave entire communities cut off and requiring the urgent restoration of basic services. Regarding Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007, “Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades”, he indicated that it regulates procedures applicable to declared and undeclared emergencies, as well as the execution of prevention works. Regarding the merits of the action, he indicated he would refer to: a) Article 39 of the Mining Code, concerning temporary permits, and b) emergency cases, Articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code and Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo 33777-MINAE. In relation to Article 39 of the Mining Code, he reiterates what was indicated in the sense that the procedure does require environmental viability, not through an environmental impact assessment, but rather under Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC “Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental”. Furthermore, by Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta of September 28, 2004, Article 39 of the cited Code was regulated, demonstrating that there is indeed a determined volume (maximum 20,000 cubic meters), that during the material exploitation phase there must be supervision by a geological and environmental regent, and there are obligations such as the submission of work reports. In relation to emergency cases, regulated in Articles 135 and 159 of the Mining Code and Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, it is possible to agree with the petitioner that a special procedure is being created, but for several reasons: First, it is not possible for the State, the Municipalities, and the National Emergency Commission itself to process Environmental Impact Assessments when a phenomenon has occurred that is causing a national or regional emergency. Second, before the reform enacted by Ley No. 8246, there was no rule in the Code regulating the mining activity of the State, let alone contemplating emergency cases, which is why it was necessary to issue regulatory provisions. State institutions in *lato sensu*, central (Executive Branch) and decentralized, require materials, basically aggregates for construction, for the execution of their purposes, when it concerns so-called “ordinary work”. In a national or regional emergency, the needs for these materials are even greater. Third: Article 1 of the Mining Code establishes “... *The State has absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible dominion over all mineral resources existing in the national territory and its territorial sea, whatever the origin, physical state, or nature of the substances they contain. The State shall endeavor to exploit mineral wealth by itself or through bodies dependent on it. However, the State may grant concessions for the recognition, exploration, exploitation, and processing of mineral resources, in accordance with this law. The concessions shall in no way affect the State's dominion, and shall be extinguished in case of non-compliance with the legal requirements to maintain them.*” In this regard, the Minister reiterates what was established in votes of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 2003-03480, 2002-05245, 2002-06053, and 1999-04916, concluding that mineral resources belong to the State's dominion, and that the State may give them their natural use when needed; if the Constitutional Chamber has considered that they can be used for reasons of safety and hygiene, there is no doubt that in the case of national or regional emergencies, declared or undeclared, the use of State resources is unconditional. For emergency cases, he cites judgment No. 1992-03410 and 2006-06336. In Title VIII of the Regulation to the Mining Code, called “De los Procedimientos Especiales”, the mining activity of Municipalities and Autonomous Institutions, as well as the State and its contractors, is regulated. That regulation is for the ordinary activity of the mentioned entities and bodies; in fact, Articles 135 and 159 are immersed within that regulation, as cases of exception, as “Casos de Emergencia”.

**8.-** Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, in her capacity as Attorney General of the Republic, responded to the hearing granted (folios 68-94) and stated, regarding the object of the action, that it seeks to declare the unconstitutionality of Articles 39 of the Mining Code (Ley n.° 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its reforms), 135 (which is currently repealed) and 159 (in its version prior to the currently effective one) of the Regulation to the Mining Code (Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), published in La Gaceta No. 54 of March 16, 2001, and 2 of the Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), published in La Gaceta No. 129 of July 5, 2007, considering them contrary to Articles 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, and 140, paragraphs 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights, and principles 15 and 17 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Declaration). The representative of the Advisory Body of the Chamber did not object to the petitioner's standing; however, she considers that the action must be declared partially inadmissible, in relation to Articles 135 and 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, since Article 135 has been repealed since July 5, 2007, while the version of numeral 159 that the plaintiff challenges corresponds to the one that was in force from 2001 until before it was reformed in 2004, by virtue of Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. In both cases, the plaintiff is bringing her action against two rules that are not in force; Article 135 was expressly repealed by Article 7 of the aforementioned Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33777-MINAE, one month before the petitioner filed her action. Although this is not an obstacle for the Constitutional Chamber to assess its legitimacy, it is difficult to conceive of a legal situation regarding which the Article 135 in question continues to have effects. The foregoing taking into account that the situation contemplated by the rule is foreseen for *cases of duly declared national emergency* in accordance with the Ley Nacional de Emergencia (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), whereby it is foreseeable that its effects have already been exhausted, so that in her judgment there is no sufficient reason to warrant opening the constitutionality trial of a rule that was removed from the legal system (effect of a judgment upholding the action, provided for in Article 88 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), one month before this action was filed, and of which there is no evidence that it continues to have effects, an aspect the petitioner also does not bother to explain. Likewise, the promoter of this action is not even challenging the latest version of Article 135 of the Regulation to the Mining Code that was in force, following the reform enacted by Article 1 of the cited Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP, but rather the text that was in force 6 years ago, a rule that presents significant differences regarding the environmental issue, in relation to its immediately subsequent version, which prevents assessing these two wordings with the same constitutionality parameter and treating them interchangeably. Therefore, since this action was directed against a repealed rule, which has not been in force for more than 3 years, the action is inadmissible in relation to Article 135, and we recommend the Magistrates declare it so. For the same reasons, the inadmissibility of the action must be declared in relation to Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code. The petitioner challenges the rule that was in force before the reform enacted by Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP in April 2004, and does not explain the reason why, 6 years later and despite being repealed, it would still be having effects so as to be suitable for constitutionality control. Especially when it also contemplates a situation that, if it occurs, exhausts the effects of the rule almost immediately, since extraction under Article 159 cited shall be done while the Initial Phase of the duly declared national emergency lasts. Finally, it is inadmissible to consider that we are facing a simple material error, or that the action can be directed indistinctly against the current version and against the previous version of Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code, not only because of the informality that this implies, which borders on the solemnity proper to a trial of such high instance (Article 78 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), but also because there are substantial differences between one rule and another that have a decisive impact on the constitutionality judgment. Thus, for example, the version of the rule challenged by the plaintiff omits the notification to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental and the requirement to state the name of the person responsible for the environmental regency, among other important aspects that the current Article 159 does contemplate. Given this imprecision in the object against which the action is directed, it is clear that it must also be declared inadmissible with regard to Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code. **As for the merits of the matter**, she indicated that it is appropriate to analyze whether the challenged rules constitute an exception to the constitutional requirement developed by Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, regarding Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) procedures, through the creation of special procedures for mining exploitation by the State, decentralized entities, and private parties contracting with either. Regarding Article 39 of the Mining Code, which regulates the case of temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from public domain watercourses or quarries, she indicated that according to its text, the extracted materials—a task that may be carried out by a private contractor or subcontractor—must be destined solely and exclusively for public works. Hence the express prohibition on commercializing materials extracted under said concession, which is granted by the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a maximum term of 120 days, after which, if exploitation continues, the respective bodies or territorial corporations must follow the ordinary procedure for exploration permits and exploitation concessions, in which, incidentally, the completion of the corresponding environmental impact assessments is expressly contemplated (Articles 24 paragraph ch), 34 paragraph ch), 76, and 77 of the Mining Code). Article 39 of the Mining Code institutes a special, summary procedure, in which the formalities are streamlined without being eliminated; this is justified by the timely satisfaction of the public interest by the Public Administration. However, the speed and simplicity that might be perceived in the granting of these temporary concessions does not necessarily have to conflict with the constitutional principle. An interpretation of Article 39 of the Mining Code must be made in accordance with the constitutionality block, derived from its systematic insertion with the rest of the environmental regulations. Particularly, from its relationship with the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, of May 24, 2004, which in its Annexes 1 and 2, contemplates among the list of works, projects, and activities subject to Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, the mining activity of the State and its companies, of the municipalities, as well as of the autonomous institutions, as well as, in general, open-pit extraction (quarries or public domain watercourses) of construction stones, cut stone, clay, talc, dolomite, sand, and gravel, even when the volume to be extracted is less than or equal to 20,000 m³. Articles 109 and 136 of the Regulation to the Mining Code regulate the extraction of non-metallic materials by the State and other public entities to be strictly destined for the construction, maintenance, and repair of works of public interest or utility, and complement the regulation of the special procedure of Article 39 of the cited Code (as numerals 111 and 138 of the referred Regulation contemplate that the authorizations shall have a validity of up to 3 years, subject to extension for 2 more years). Since Articles 112, paragraph 3, and 141 paragraph c) *ius ibidem* establish that the application of the interested public entity must be accompanied by the “Resolution by SETENA approving the Environmental Impact Assessment corresponding to the proposed project.” But, above all, Articles 128 and 152 of the cited Regulation regulate the so-called “specific minor projects” consisting of all those works or tasks necessary to address situations caused by geodynamic processes, such as: landslides, slumps, erosive processes, sewer collapses, bridge collapses, approach fills, repair and maintenance of existing roads and highways, and others considered as such by the Dirección de Geología y Minas and so justified by the requesting entity. These projects correspond to the situation of Article 39, as they are specific works, for a maximum term of four months, and with a maximum volume to extract or remove of 20,000 cubic meters. The Chamber, following the cited vote No. 2003-10421, considered that the environmental impact assessment and its corresponding approval by SETENA must be required, as part of the requirements established by Articles 129 and 153 of the Regulation in question. Finally, from the reading of Article 1 of the cited Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, which precisely regulates the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by municipalities, without distinction of term, to be destined for cantonal development works and public interest (Article 1.1), whose third paragraph, paragraph d), provides that the application of the respective Mayor must contain the “Resolution of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.” Therefore, in accordance with the preceding rules, it is feasible to estimate that the “Environmental precautions during temporary extraction” that must be contained in the temporary permit or concession that MINAE grants to the interested public body or entity, under Article 39, paragraph e), subsection 7, of the Mining Code, may well refer to the environmental viability issued by SETENA. This links perfectly with the precautionary or preventive nature of the Environmental Impact Assessment procedures, and Article 39 referenced caps this with the phrase in its penultimate paragraph, that “Any environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionary institution or, as applicable, of the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work.” Wherewith, this Attorney General's Office estimates that Article 39 of the Mining Code is in accordance with the constitutional environmental regulations cited by the appellant. **Regarding the issue of emergency cases and the Environmental Impact Assessment**, the Attorney General's Office maintained that the situations contemplated in Article 2 of the referred Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE and Article 157 of the Regulation to the Mining Code—and without prejudice to the considerations noted above for declaring the inadmissibility of the action with respect to this last numeral—fall within the constitutional parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, so as to consider it duly motivated and justified that approval of an environmental impact assessment is not required. Since both rules regulate exceptional measures, such as the extraction of materials to attend to cases of duly declared national emergency in accordance with the law, requiring a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment could thwart the timely attention of the emergency in question. Additionally, both rules are issued within the framework of the provisions contained in the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo (No. 8488, of November 22, 2005) and the Ley Nacional de Emergencia (No. 7914, of September 28, 1999), as can be verified from Considerando VI of Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 33777-MINAE and the express reference that the challenged articles make to said laws.

Thus, Article 2 of both laws emphasizes the need to confer an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of emergency situations. After partially transcribing Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencia y Prevención del Riesgo, she indicates that the regime of exception derived from the declaration of the state of emergency by the Executive Branch, under Article 29 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, is evident from the reading of its Articles 31, 32, 35, and 36, such as the power to expropriate without prior compensation, or the powers of occupation, demolition, restriction, and imposition of easements (servidumbres) on private properties. Likewise, Article 34 provides that the Executive Branch, under a state of emergency, “may decree temporary restrictions on land use, in order to prevent greater disasters and facilitate the construction of works.” Of particular interest, Article 30 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo includes the 3 phases for attending to an emergency; in the context of the preceding provisions, challenged Article 2 of the referred Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades seeks to articulate the exceptional, urgent, and special circumstances of a state of emergency with environmental supervision. If the information is not submitted correctly and completely, the municipality may not commence the exploitation works. Similarly, within a maximum period of 15 working days following the completion of the material extraction, the respective municipality must submit a technical closure report of the exploitation to said office, with the specifications required therein. The exploitation that a Municipality must carry out in a state of urgency and necessity can be harmonized with the guidelines that MINAE has established for that purpose in the respective environmental impact assessment, in accordance with the last paragraph of Article 36 of the Mining Code, which establishes:

“In declared emergency situations, when the municipality requires extracting material from a public domain watercourse for which a concession has already been granted, the concessionaire must permit the extraction of material in the volumes authorized by the DGM. <u>Such extraction must be carried out following the guidelines established in the exploitation plan and the environmental recommendations issued by the MINAE in the environmental impact assessment</u>.” The same considerations are valid with regard to Article 159 of the Regulation to the Mining Code—and also for Article 135 in case this Chamber admits the action regarding this latter rule, as it is a transcript of the former—since in its current version, not the one challenged by the appellant, it provides:

“Artículo 159.— **Casos de Emergencia**:

<u>In cases of duly declared national emergency pursuant to Ley Nº 7914 and its Regulation</u>, and the interested party reports such fact in writing with the approval of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias to the Dirección de Geología y Minas <u>with a copy to the Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental</u>, the latter may, after that communication, commence the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency and shall have a period of 4 months to submit a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the works to be carried out, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive works <u>and the environmental regency</u>, the source of material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the time needed to meet the need. Likewise, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan.

The rehabilitation and reconstruction works of the infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Emergency Regulatory Plan.” (Underlining is not from the original).

(Thus reformed by Article 17 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29677 and by Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).

In accordance with the foregoing text, the extraction of materials shall only be possible to attend to cases of duly declared national emergency pursuant to the Ley Nacional de Emergencia, with the obligation to notify SETENA of such tasks—in which the name of the person responsible for the extractive works and the environmental regency must be included—and for which the interested party must have the approval of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

Likewise, it must adjust said activity to the Emergency Regulatory Plan. From this perspective, this Attorney General's Office also does not perceive in this additional aspect of the action any indication of unconstitutionality. For the foregoing reasons, it is the opinion of this advisory body that articles 39 of the Mining Code (Law No. 6797, of October 4, 1982, and its amendments), 135 (currently repealed) and 159 (currently amended) of the Regulations to the Mining Code (Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, of February 8, 2001), as well as article 2 of the Regulations for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by municipalities (Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, of June 18, 2007), are consistent, in the terms set forth above, with the block of constitutionality in environmental matters.</p> <p style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>9.-</strong> Daniel Gallardo Monge, in his capacity as President of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, responds on folio 97 to the hearing granted, stating that articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE, which is the Regulations to the Mining Code, were amended by Executive Decree No. 29677-MINAE published in La Gaceta No. 150 on August 7, 2001. Both provisions have the same wording, with the particularity that article 135 is within the chapter referring to municipalities, and article 159 is in the chapter on other State institutions. It derives from the power of exceptionality anchored in Article 180 of the Constitution, in cases of national emergency, and from the obligation of public institutions to coordinate and prioritize, within their institutional activities, the attention to the emergency, according to articles 31, 32, 33, and 39, of Law No. 8488, National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention. That for the application of the regulations, it is required that the Commission confirm that the roads or works to be intervened are reported within the damages of the national emergency, the need for materials, and a copy is sent to SETENA. In addition to the exceptionality regime that derives precisely from a constitutional power, the intervention in river courses to extract material, for example, generates a double benefit: first, to clean the courses of sediments dragged by the same floods (removes) and second, that said extracted material is used simultaneously in the repair and rehabilitation of roads destroyed by the same event that generated the emergency, for which reason the intervention is aimed at restoring things to their previous state, which is the spirit of the challenged regulations. Denying this possibility is to tie the hands of State institutions; logic leads us to think that it is not unconstitutional to allow such works to be carried out, without complying with environmental regulations that only operate in normal times, and provided that the causal link between the damage and the emergency is proven, and it is recorded in the General Emergency Plan, where the damages that occurred are recorded. This Plan is the "...instrument that will allow planning and channeling in a rational, efficient, and systematic manner, the actions to be carried out, the necessary supervision, and the allocation of required resources..." (Article 38, Law 8488). The Municipalities and Institutions that are competent according to the subject matter are appointed Executing Units of the CNE; their action is contemplated in the last paragraph of article 39 of Law 8488. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE published in La Gaceta on July 5, 2007, Regulations for the extraction of materials from quarries and public domain watercourses by Municipalities, it indicates that subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4 refer to Municipal extraction permits, for which I refer to the arguments previously set forth, as they are the equivalent of article 135 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, adding only what refers to undeclared emergencies, the legal basis of which will be expanded upon with article 151 of the National Law on Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. Regarding subsections 5, 6, 7, and 8, it is important to be clear that the powers to exempt from procedure are based on procedures applicable to declared emergencies, undeclared emergencies, and the execution of prevention works, and have their respective basis. With the exemption regime, the National Emergency Commission acts under the protection of Article 180 of the Political Constitution, which is explained in ruling 1992-3410, Law 8488, which is the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention, in articles 3, 4, 15, 30, 31, and 32. Based on the aforementioned regulations, in relation to exceptionality and in safeguard of the fundamental right to life, the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response carries out interventions in three areas, all aimed at the same end: the first, called "Undeclared Emergencies," which according to the last paragraph of article 15 involve attending to events that, due to being very specific, do not reach the level for declaring a National Emergency, but given their magnitude and damages, become, at the level of the affected community, a true emergency due to the danger to the life and property of persons. These cases are highly frequent, especially during the rainy season, where the Commission intervenes, in many cases, with river dredging and the extraction of materials from watercourses or quarries (tajos). The second type of interventions corresponds to those covered by emergency declarations in their three phases of action, where it is likewise necessary to carry out timely protection works, road repair, etc., where the extraction of materials is indispensable. And the third case is related to prevention works, where work is carried out in places already identified with a high degree of vulnerability, high risk, and imminent risk, where an emergency has not yet occurred but where, in the majority of cases, the dividing line between risk and emergency is so tenuous that an equally expeditious intervention is necessary, being in defense of the same legal interest, such as the life and property of persons. It is not just any work, but those destined to prevent an emergency. He cites in his support ruling No. 2006-06336, which leads him to conclude that the regulations are not unconstitutional since the right to exceptionality derives from higher-ranking regulations and binding jurisprudence. It is not possible to require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for a mining concession to be granted to State institutions when facing exceptional situations and imminent risk. The State, as regulator and owner of the absolute, inalienable, and imprescriptible dominion of all mineral resources existing in the national territory, can allocate their use, and there is no doubt that if their use has been permitted for reasons of safety and hygiene, in cases of emergencies—declared or undeclared—and in preventive matters, the use of state resources is unconditional, for the benefit of the inhabitants.</p> <p style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>10.-</strong> The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of article 81 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction were published in Judicial Bulletins numbers 191, 192, and 193 of October 4, 5, and 8, 2007 (folio 95).-</p> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<strong>11.- </strong>Mr. Alfredo Córdoba Soro, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of San Carlos, petitions the Chamber to be admitted to assist in arguing for the inadmissibility of the action of unconstitutionality. Regarding articles 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, the first has been repealed since July 5, 2007, and the second was in force until 2001, when it was amended in 2004 by article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP of April 28, 2004. It is not possible for these rules to produce legal effects, as they were repealed from national legislation; moreover, it is foreseeable that all their effects have already been exhausted. The same occurs with respect to the challenged article 159. Regarding the challenged article 39 of the Mining Code, it concerns temporary concessions for ministries and municipalities, so if it were necessary to extend beyond the maximum of 120 days, ordinary procedures must be completed; likewise, the commercialization of materials extracted based on a temporary concession is prohibited; finally, any environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionary institution, the contractor, or the subcontractor, as applicable. It is a special, summary procedure, in which procedures are not eliminated but rather expedited, taking into consideration the public interest, for the execution of pertinent public works. In this regard, it refers to the advisory opinion of the Attorney General's Office of the Republic. By ruling No. 2005-13045, the written omission of the environmental viability requirement in article 39 in question is not a reason for not integrating it through the proper interpretation of the block of constitutionality with the rest of the environmental regulations. In this sense, the General Regulations on Environmental Impact Procedures (DE No. 31849), articles 109, 128, 136, and 152 of the Regulations to the Mining Code, and article 1 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, insofar as they refer to mechanisms, provisions, or procedures aimed at environmental prevention due to the extraction activity. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, what is protected is the speed of the Public Administration's action in relation to the emergency that has arisen, and if a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) were required, it would jeopardize the timely attention to the predicament that has occurred. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need to provide an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of the emergency situation and the availability of existing resources that can be applied to the remedy of the emergency by the different state entities, without losing sight of the subsequent accountability demanded by the laws and regulations governing the Public Administration. The National Law on Emergencies contemplates an exception regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, it concludes that all this is in accordance with numerals 21 and 180 of the Political Constitution, and that if the plaintiff's thesis were accepted, proper and well-provisioned management by the state entities responsible for attending to these states of urgency and emergency would become impossible. It requests that the claim be dismissed.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>12.- </strong>Giselle Mora Peña, in her capacity as Executive Director of the National Union of Local Governments, argues for the inadmissibility of the action filed, and acts under the protection of Law No. 5119 of November 20, 1972, being composed of all municipalities and federations of municipalities of Costa Rica. She points out regarding articles 135 and 159 of the Regulations to the Mining Code that both are repealed, and their analysis becomes irrelevant, given that the events generated by the application of those regulations have extinguished their effects, and no reference is made to concrete situations where those effects are produced. Article 39 of the Mining Code reiterates that the rulings of the Constitutional Chamber No. 2003-10421, 2004-09220, and 2005-05790 coincide in that mining activity and material extraction by the State and other institutions is included in the assumption of article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment, and therefore requires an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) by SETENA. Article 39 contains a special, summary procedure, in which procedures are not eliminated but rather expedited considering the timely satisfaction of the protected public interest. It refers to ruling No. 2005-013045. Regarding article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, it protects the speed of the Public Administration's action in relation to the emergency that has arisen, and if a procedure as technical and detailed as an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) were required, it would jeopardize the timely attention to the predicament that has occurred. It is an exceptional procedure, emphasizing the need to provide an agile and effective legal framework that guarantees the reduction of risk causes, as well as the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of the emergency situation and the availability of existing resources that can be applied to the remedy of the emergency by the different state entities, without losing sight of the subsequent accountability demanded by the laws and regulations governing the Public Administration. The National Law on Emergencies contemplates an exception regime; after transcribing the relevant legal texts, it concludes that all this is in accordance with numerals 21 and 180 of the Political Constitution, and that if the plaintiff's thesis were accepted, proper and well-provisioned management by the state entities responsible for attending to these states of urgency and emergency would become impossible. It requests that the claim be dismissed.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>13.- </strong>Mr. Pedro Luis Castro Fernández, in his capacity as Vice Minister of Public Works and Transportation, appears to assist against the claims seeking to declare the unconstitutionality of the rules challenged in the action. The State and the municipalities, insofar as they pursue the attention of needs and the satisfaction of general interests, especially urgent ones such as those referring to attending to the situation of the road network, cannot be forced to submit, from the outset, to procedures and requirements such as preparing environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental) and having them subsequently analyzed and resolved, when the matter is to obtain a temporary permit—subject to a short term—to extract materials given the urgency of performing the corresponding public works. Within this context, the suspension of procedures so that the State can, for one hundred twenty days, extract materials, dispensing with environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental), is reasonable and amply justified, without contravening our legal system given the legal values at stake. The action filed against articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE has no basis, as they were repealed on July 5, 2007, by Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE, and on April 28, 2004, by Decree No. 31792-MINAE-MP, respectively. Regarding article 39 of the Mining Code, what it contemplates is a temporary concession so that ministries and municipalities, in cases of execution of public works, can extract materials—directly or through contractors—from public domain watercourses or quarries, an authorization that is of a transitory and precarious nature for a maximum of one hundred twenty calendar days. It regulates exceptional acts of very short duration, and by virtue of the fact that to extend the authorization, an ordinary procedure must be carried out that includes the submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental). But in addition to this, by providing in paragraph e), subsection 7) of the referenced numeral that said temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental provisions (prevenciones ambientales)" that the approval of the environmental authority must contain, those "warnings" would materially equate to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) required by article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment. Emergency situations render compliance with the environmental requirements provided for normal situations exempt. On this matter, article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE regulates exemption measures, such as the extraction of materials to attend to cases of national emergency in which the submission of an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) is inadmissible. In emergency situations, where supreme values and interests such as the legal interests of life and human health are at stake, the State is empowered to dispense with ordinary procedures to face the contingencies derived from the triggering event. It cites ruling No. 2001-6503; the nature of regulatory exceptionality inferred from the questioned regulations must also be accredited by the fact that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, which guarantees that the circumstances conform to such exceptional situations. There are efforts by MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, including a loan from the Government of Germany. Likewise, it highlights that in the National Development Plan 2007-2010, it is planned to increase from 20% to 30% the proportion of the Paved Road Network in good condition and increase by 5,000 km by 2010 the coverage of attention for the Cantonal Road Network throughout the country. To meet these objectives, MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the material sources necessary to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, mainly by obtaining permits and exploitation concessions. It also requests that the ruling that granted leave for the unconstitutionality action be clarified and supplemented.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>14.-</strong> The representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units, Cantonal Road Boards, Mayor's Offices and Municipal Councils of San Carlos, Los Chiles, Upala, and Guatuso, and the Municipal District Council of Peñas Blancas of San Ramón, request to be admitted to assist against the claims seeking to declare the unconstitutionality of the rules challenged. They assist in the same sense as the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transportation. They allege that articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE were repealed. They point out that it is improper to require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental) for the concessions regulated by article 39 of the Mining Code, as it is a rule authorizing temporary concessions for the execution of public works, of a transitory and precarious nature for a maximum of 120 calendar days. Paragraph e), subsection 7, of the referenced numeral provides that said temporary concessions are subject to the "environmental provisions (prevenciones ambientales)" that the approval of the environmental authority must contain; those "warnings" would materially equate to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental) required by article 17 of the Organic Law of the Environment. On the other hand, emergencies exempt compliance with environmental requirements. Due to the values and interests at stake, exceptional, expeditious, and simplified procedures are authorized to attend to the impact phases in order to provide the conditions to guarantee the well-being of the population. It cites ruling No. 2001-06503; the nature of regulatory exceptionality inferred from the questioned regulations must also be accredited by the fact that the exploitation of material sources must have the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response, which guarantees that the circumstances conform to such exceptional situations. There are efforts by MOPT, municipalities, and communities seeking to mitigate the deterioration of the road network, including a loan from the Government of Germany. Likewise, it highlights that in the National Development Plan 2007-2010, it is planned to increase from 20% to 30% the proportion of the Paved Road Network in good condition and increase by 5,000 km by 2010 the coverage of attention for the Cantonal Road Network throughout the country. To meet these objectives, MOPT, CONAVI, and the municipalities must have the material sources necessary to attend to more than 35,000 km of national roads, mainly by obtaining permits and exploitation concessions. It also requests that the ruling that granted leave for the unconstitutionality action be clarified and supplemented.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>15.- </strong>Jorge Alberto Cole de León, in his capacity as Mayor and legal representative of the Municipality of Osa, pronounces in the same sense as the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transportation and the Municipal Road Management Technical Units.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>16.-</strong> By ruling at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November 19, 2007, the Presidency of this Chamber ordered Marvín Elizondo Cordero, Jimmy Cubillo Mora, and Rafael Angel Navarro Umaña, in their capacities as Municipal Mayor of Garabito, Municipal Mayor of Golfito, and Second Vice President of the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region, to prove the capacity in which they were appearing before the Chamber, among other things.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>17- </strong>By ruling at sixteen hours fifteen minutes on December 3, two thousand seven, the Presidency of this Chamber decided to admit as passive coadjuvants of the action the Costa Rican Association of Material Concessionaires and Aggregates for Construction, the Municipal Mayor of San Carlos, the Municipal Mayor of Osa, the Union of Local Governments, the Vice Minister of Public Works and Transportation, and the representatives of the Municipal Road Management Technical Units, Cantonal Road Boards, Mayor's Offices, and Municipal Councils of the District of Peñas Blancas of San Ramón. In turn, it rejected the coadjuvancies presented by the Municipal Mayors of Garabito, of Golfito, and the Federation of Municipalities of the Southern Region, for failing to comply with the order made in the ruling at fourteen hours thirty minutes on November 19, two thousand seven, and rejected as untimely those presented by the Municipal Mayors of Coto Brus, Moravia, and San José.&nbsp;</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>18.-</strong> By ruling at eleven hours on September 11, two thousand eight, the acting President of the Chamber deemed the granted hearings answered. (folio 356)</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 34.0pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>19.-</strong> The hearing provided for in articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution to be sufficiently founded on evident principles and norms, as well as on the jurisprudence of this Court.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">&nbsp;<strong>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;20.- </strong>In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been complied with.</p> </div> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span style="color: #010101;">Written by Magistrate <strong>Castillo Víquez</strong>; and,</span></p> <p style="text-align: center;" align="center"><strong>Considering:</strong></p> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span style="font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 150%; font-family: 'Courier New';">&nbsp;</span>I. On the admissibility of the action. </strong>The action meets the formal requirements demanded by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction and is admissible as it concerns the defense of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, for which Article 50 of the Constitution grants the broadest standing, which does not require, in these cases, any qualification of the plaintiff's interest; also, their standing derives from the provisions in the second paragraph of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, which allows the filing of the action without requiring the existence of a prior matter pending resolution before the courts of justice or in procedures to exhaust administrative channels, when it concerns the defense of diffuse interests, as occurs in this case, involving the defense of the environment.- As different regulatory provisions are challenged, to facilitate their study, this Chamber will resolve matters related to them in the following order, and then resolve the matter corresponding to the challenge of article 39 of the Mining Code.</p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm; line-height: 150%;"><strong>II.- On the inadmissibility of the action against the abrogated and amended regulatory provisions. </strong>The Chamber will begin the analysis of the claim filed by the plaintiff Ávila Jones, insofar as she accuses the unconstitutionality of articles 135 and 159 of Executive Decree No. 29300-MINAE of June 18, 2007.</p> </div> The challenged provisions establish the following:</p> </div> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>Article 135.—<strong>Emergency Cases: </strong></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>In cases of national emergency duly declared in accordance with Law No. 7914 and its Regulations, and the interested party provides written notice of such fact with the approval of the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response to the Directorate of Geology and Mines with a copy to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, the latter may, after such notice, begin the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency and shall have a period of 4 months to submit a copy of the Regulatory Plan for the emergency and the appointment of the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the works to be carried out, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive activities and the environmental management (regencia ambiental), the source of the material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the period necessary to attend to the need. Furthermore, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>The rehabilitation and reconstruction works for infrastructure damaged during the emergency must be included in the Regulatory Plan for the emergency. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>(As amended by Article 16 of Executive Decree No. 29677 and by Article 1 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004).</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>Article 159.—<strong>Emergency cases</strong>. In cases of national emergency duly declared and while the Initial Phase or Phase I of the emergency lasts, in accordance with Law No. 7914 and its regulations, and the interested party provides written notice of such fact to the DGM, the latter may, after such notice, begin the extraction required to attend to the indicated emergency phase and shall have a period of 6 months to submit a copy of the Emergency Regulatory Plan and the appointment of the applicant as the Executing Unit by the National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response. </em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>The aforementioned communication must contain at least: the works to be carried out, the volume and source of the material to be used, the site where the works will be carried out, and the period necessary to attend to the need".</em></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><em>(As amended by Article 17 of Executive Decree No. 29677 of July 12, 2001). </em></p> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;">The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, in its capacity as advisory body to this constitutional jurisdiction, the authorities in the hearing granted by this Chamber for the unconstitutionality action, and the coadjuvants, agree that the challenge to Article 135 of the Regulations to the Mining Code is not viable, given that at the time the unconstitutionality action was filed, it was not in force. The Chamber verifies that the original version of Article 135 of the aforementioned Regulations was amended on two occasions, and finally repealed by Article 7 of Executive Decree No. 33777 of June 18, 2007. The repeal entered into force as of July 5, 2007, the date of publication in La Gaceta. Hence, the repeal had taken effect one month before the unconstitutionality action was filed on August 8, 2007. This situation presents us with a problem, between the need to resolve the claimant's complaint, which is based on the interest in preserving constitutional supremacy, the direct and immediate application of the Constitution, and the cleansing of the legal system, through the remedy of an unconstitutionality action by eliminating a norm found to be repugnant to the Political Constitution, for violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Notwithstanding the accusation, the Chamber must reject this action with respect to this point because it is not even a case of the subject matter of the action being lost after the filing, that is, the challenged norm was abrogated while the action was pending, but rather, on the contrary, at the time the claim was filed, there was no longer any impact, nor is there a specific case in which the application of the norm that was in force — now repealed — is being discussed. Consequently, what is sought is the "purging" of repealed norms, which is improper due to a lack of the necessary standing because the surviving effects of the challenged provision must be demonstrated, which cannot be achieved through the diffuse interest in environmental defense. In this case, no specific harm is alleged in a base proceeding, where concrete damages are demonstrated or indicated in a prior matter where it would be a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered to be harmed; therefore, if this Court were to rule, it would be issuing an opinion in the abstract, or of merely academic and historical interest. The same applies to Article 159 of the challenged Regulations. While the Chamber has interpreted standing in environmental matters broadly, where any harm to the environment is capable of being reflected in each of the inhabitants of the Republic, in the case before us, the same conclusion cannot be reached, because the legal basis of the scenarios regulated by the norm is closely associated with declared emergency situations, and the initial first phase. In this regard, according to the National Emergency Law No. 7914 of September 28, 1999, it established:</p> </div> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">“ARTICLE 6.- Phases of the emergency declaration</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">An emergency declaration is composed of three phases: </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">a) The initial or critical phase is the one immediately following the occurrence of the event. It includes informing the population, protecting people and property in the affected zone, rescuing and saving people and property, providing health care to the victims, attending socially to the victims, and immediately rehabilitating essential public services.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">b) The intermediate or medium-term phase refers to the rehabilitation of the affected zone and includes, at least, cleaning and access routes to the disaster zone, the temporary relocation of the population, the construction of shelters, and provisioning.</span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">c) The conclusion phase consists of the reconstruction of destroyed social-interest housing, aqueducts, sewers, and power lines; in general, it is the phase where the normal functioning of the affected public services is restored. </span></p> <p style="margin-left: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The three phases may be subject to attention, in accordance with the concept of national emergency. To be recognized by the legal system, the causal link between the event and the damages caused must be clearly established, which shall be recorded in the general plan to attend to the emergency, according to the resolutions or decrees adopted for its attention.</span></p> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Similarly, the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention, Law No. 8488, which will be transcribed later, regulates in greater detail the initial or critical phase transcribed above. The truth is that within them are found the reasons for acting under emergency conditions; however, the unconstitutionality action likewise seeks a pronouncement in the abstract and of merely academic and historical interest. It must be taken into account that the norm was amended by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 31792 of April 28, 2004, published in La Gaceta No. 94 of May 14, 2004, so the challenged provision is also not in force; the scope of a declaration of unconstitutionality for a norm previously amended by the Executive Branch itself would render the object of the action — this time unnecessary. Precisely, the current version — which was not expressly challenged — contemplates provisions that raise the level of requirements for the exploitation of river channels (cauces de ríos) and quarries for the extraction of materials in cases of duly declared national emergency, such as: “… <em>the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive activities and the environmental management, […]. Furthermore, the interested party must comply with the extraction methods indicated in the Exploitation Plan”</em>, a situation that would allow the issue to be complemented with what will be stated below. Therefore, the action must be rejected outright with respect to these two points, as is hereby done. </span></p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm; line-height: 150%;"><strong><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">III.- On the extraction of materials in the Chamber’s case law in emergency cases.- </span></strong><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The claimant's complaint lies in the fact that Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE of June 18, 2007, which is the Regulations for the extraction of materials from quarries and public-domain channels by municipalities, creates special procedures for mining exploitation, by public entities, private parties contracting with them, and for private parties in general, to exempt them from the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) requirement, to carry them out in unlimited numbers, thus violating the fundamental right to the protection of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. For a better understanding of what is being discussed in the claim, the challenged provision is transcribed: </span></p> </div> <p style="text-indent: 1.0cm;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">“<em>Article 2º—</em></span></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">1. In <strong>cases of duly declared national emergency</strong>, it shall suffice for the municipality to notify the Directorate of Geology and Mines of the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the works to be carried out, the public work in which the materials will be used, and the extraction period, along with a letter from the <strong>National Emergency Commission</strong>, indicating that the work to be carried out is among the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication, the municipality may begin the exploitation activities <strong>under the supervision</strong> of the Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat.</span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Within a maximum period of fifteen business days after the completion of the material extraction; the municipality must submit <strong>a technical closure report</strong> on the exploitation to the <strong>Directorate of Geology and Mines and the National Environmental Technical Secretariat</strong>, specifying the quantity of material extracted and the conditions in which the site was left.</span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">2. In cases of <strong>undeclared emergencies</strong>, in addition to the requirements established in the preceding subsection, the municipality must provide with the communication a <strong>recommendation from the National Emergency Commission</strong> indicating the need to carry out the proposed works.</span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">3. If the information is not submitted in a correct and complete manner, the municipality may not begin the exploitation activities. Should it be necessary for the municipality to correct an error or complete the requirements, the National Mining Registry of the Directorate of Geology and Mines shall, by means of a resolution, provide a single warning regarding <strong>the error or missing requirement</strong>, granting the requesting municipality a period of twenty business days. If the required documentation is not submitted within the granted period, or if it is submitted again incomplete or incorrect, the Directorate of Geology and Mines shall archive the request. </span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">4. In the event that the work is carried out by <strong>a contractor</strong>, it is prohibited for the contractor's work to be compensated with mining material found on the site. Failure to comply with the provisions of this article shall be considered a crime, making the offender subject to the sanctions provided for in the Title on Mining Crimes of the Mining Code. </span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">5. In cases of <strong>duly declared national emergency</strong>, it shall suffice for the <strong>National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response</strong> to notify the Directorate of Geology and Mines of the location of the area subject to the request, as well as the works to be carried out, the public work in which the materials will be used, and a certification stating that the work to be carried out is among the damages caused by the emergency. Two business days after the submission of the communication<strong>, THE EXECUTING UNIT designated by the Commission</strong> may begin the exploitation activities under the supervision of the Directorate of Geology and Mines.</span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">6. In <strong>prevention works and undeclared emergencies, THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR RISK PREVENTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE</strong>, shall notify the Directorate of Geology and Mines of the need to carry out the proposed works, as well as the works to be carried out, the volume, the name of the geologist or mining engineer responsible for directing the extractive activities, the site where the works will be carried out, and the period necessary to attend to the need.</span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">7. The <strong>National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response may enter, with the owner’s authorization</strong>, the open pits, quarries, and concessions in public-domain channels, to extract the materials necessary for carrying out emergency and first-impact works, in accordance with Law 8488. </span></em></p> <p style="margin-left: 34.0pt;"><em><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">8. The rehabilitation or reconstruction works for <strong>the emergency</strong> must be included in the <strong>General Emergency Plan</strong> and those for first impact, prevention, <strong>undeclared emergencies, and states of need or urgency</strong>, in the administrative resolutions of the <strong>CNE. The National Commission for Risk Prevention and Emergency Response</strong> may authorize the use of the extracted materials <strong>in other works declared of national or cantonal interest</strong> carried out on public-domain lands. If such lands are under private administration, the interested party must pay the fee set by the respective Municipality.”(the text in bold is not from the original)</span></em></p> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The norm challenged by the claimant has very specific purposes that must be pointed out for its analysis. The <em>ratio</em> of the provision lies precisely in regulating the extraction of materials from quarries and public-domain channels for public works in the different cantons of the country, in two scenarios: duly declared emergencies by the Executive Branch and undeclared emergencies but confirmed by the National Emergency Commission. According to the regulations transcribed above, it regulates the procedure for Municipalities before the Directorate of Geology and Mines, as well as that of the Commission, the requirements necessary to obtain the exploitation permit, the timelines for preventing omitted requirements and for responding, and the need to include the works in the General Emergency Plan. It is clear that the conflict pointed out by the claimant implies a conflict between two constitutional provisions and their inherent values: first, the State's duty to provide exceptional responses in equally exceptional times, as the authorities point out when answering the respective hearings, and second, Article 50 of the Constitution, which governs the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, which is what the claimant demands. This Chamber has duly addressed the issue; Article 180 of the Political Constitution regulates an indeterminate concept of "emergency" encompassing not only cases of force majeure or even fortuitous events, to satisfy urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest, or public calamity, according to the terminology of the Political Constitution. For the State, it implies the internal responsibility to satisfy the needs arising from such events, the obligation to provide the most essential aid to the affected populations, that is, the full compliance with international standards for a government acting fully responsibly (judgment No. 2010-15072). Faced with "emergency" situations, these permits must be processed by the Municipalities with the respective declaration or recommendation from the National Emergency Commission, or by the Commission itself (to subsequently appoint an Executing Unit), and these are valid in light of the provisions of Law No. 7914 of October 13, 1999, Law No. 8488 of November 22, 2005, and Article 180 of the Political Constitution. Regarding the above, the Chamber has held in judgment No. <strong>2003-06322</strong> that:</span></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 2.0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm;"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">“6.- <strong><u>only a declared state of emergency (estado de necesidad) exempts compliance with environmental standards</u></strong>: The state of emergency is a source of Law, which entails, in some cases, a displacement, and in others, an increase of public powers, precisely for the purpose of enabling it to confront the exceptional situation that arises ("urgent or unforeseen needs in cases of war, internal unrest, or public calamity"); so that the Executive Branch is empowered to waive the normal procedures of its activities or formalities, providing for such cases, exceptional, more expeditious, and simplified procedures. These are, by definition, transitory situations that are urgent, in which it is necessary to maintain the continuity of public services, so that the Administration is allowed to improvise an authority to serve general interests that cannot be sacrificed to a legalistic scruple. In this way, the law of exception — formed by the set of norms issued at the time of need — becomes unconstitutional in a situation of normality, as it is an essentially temporary law, that is, solely and exclusively to solve the specific emergency being faced, given that </span></em></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 3.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm;"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">"[...] exceptional treatment to carry out ordinary administration activity is not admissible, even if it is urgent; [...]" (judgment number 2001-6503, cited above).</span></em></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 2.0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm;"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">In this sense, a distinction must be made between "mere urgency", a term that acts as a qualifier, and in many cases is not even necessarily fundamental or imminent, insofar as </span></em></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 3.0cm; margin-right: 1.0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 1.0cm;"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">"[...] it is nothing more than the prompt execution or remedy of a given situation, originating from the effects of how it has been managed itself, [...]" (Judgment number 3410-92, at two forty-five p.m. on November tenth, nineteen ninety-two);</span></em></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 2.0cm;"> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span lang="EN" style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">so it can well be understood as the Administration's need to act in a certain situation, and in most cases, it is due to its own inertia in finding a solution, in accordance with the instruments provided by the legal system; from the "state of necessity", meaning thereby eventual situations — that is, not occurring within the framework of normality — and of such magnitude that they can imminently affect life and property, public interest and order, or public safety, so that they cannot be controlled, managed, or dominated based on the ordinary regulations available to the Government, and which make administrative intervention inevitable and urgent, even outside the law. Therefore, it is contrary to Constitutional Law, not only the regulations, but also the actions of public institutions that dispense with the ordinary formalities and procedures for the ordinary action of the Administration, and which in this case, refer to the waiver of environmental regulations, such as — for example — carrying out the <strong>environmental impact assessment</strong> or requesting health permits. <strong>In the face of situations of need (necesidad) that are foreseeable in the long, medium, or short term, the exception to compliance with environmental obligations cannot be sought, as they become ordinary activity of the Administration (case of building dikes in rivers to protect the population from floods (judgment number 2001-6503). In this regard, it must be clear that for the emergency measure to be understood as constitutionally developed, it must solely and exclusively serve to provide a solution to the emergency situation that motivates it, and also — have the common good as its purpose: that is, it must be just and also reasonable (proportionality in the strict sense)”. (The text in bold is from the original).</strong></span></em></p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"> </span></p> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The Chamber reaffirms the validity of the transcribed case law, since in the event of a declared emergency, the principle of legality is substituted by the principle of necessity (necesidad). Hence, in the case of an emergency duly declared by the Executive Branch, the extraordinary measures regulated in crisis legislation are enabled, seeking to mitigate the impact of the event on human beings and the legally protected assets in the legal system, among them, the National Law on Emergencies and Risk Prevention (Law No. 8488) insofar as it allows the application of an exceptional regime, as occurs with budget management, which was considered by this Chamber in accordance with constitutional parameters, even with the Legislative Assembly in ordinary sessions (judgment No. 2009-09427). But following on from the above is the question of whether the provisions of Article 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8 of Executive Decree No. 33777-MINAE are unconstitutional, because under that exceptional regime they allow processing material extraction permits without an official emergency declaration. In this regard, the President of the National Emergency and Risk Prevention Commission indicated, when responding to the hearing granted in the action, that there are emergency scenarios which, due to the specific area of impact and their geographic focus, often rural, do not warrant an emergency declaration, and therefore would not be covered by the scenarios of the Chamber's interpretation previously transcribed, but which undoubtedly require immediate attention. Precisely in judgment No. 2009-09427 it was established that: </span></p> </div> <div style="margin-left: 36.85pt;"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">“<em>The principle of necessity allows a new creative function [</em>of Law<em>] to face exceptional or anomalous circumstances whose urgency is implicit.</em></span></p> </div> Similarly, in Criminal Law, the state of necessity allows an individual to be exempted from punishment when they find themselves in a situation that compels them to act against the criminal legal order, to cause a harm but avoid another of greater magnitude, which is also imminent and current. Even article 226 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública allows the Executive Branch to dispense with the formalities of the procedure, and even produce a special substitute one, in cases of urgency and to avoid serious harm to persons or irreparable harm to things. Consequently, this Chamber finds itself before a situation in which the Executive Branch is not prohibited from assuming its other constitutional powers, such as exercising the initiative expressly attributed to it to issue legal norms, with sufficient value and effectiveness to allow it to confront an unpostponable, conjunctural, and generalized reality, against which ordinary legal means would produce unwanted and untimely results."</em>" </span></p> The Chamber in the transcript refers to the principle of **necessity**, in the face of generalized factual events in the life or the national community, which entail an abnormal interruption thereof and which must be confronted through a declaration of emergency by the Executive Branch. However, if the magnitude of the events does not warrant such a declaration, it is necessary to analyze whether they constitute cases of **urgency** (not of *mere* urgency), because there is a true threat or injury to assets limited to persons considered individually, or at most to small localities, but not to the national collectivity. For the foregoing, this Chamber must consequently determine what legal powers the legislator granted to the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias to act in these circumstances, as a body of maximum deconcentration attached to the Presidency of the Republic (article 13 of Ley No. 8488). In the Chamber's judgment, what is needed is to place the classification of these events in its proper dimension, to analyze whether, in the face of other circumstances that were regulated by the legislator with less rigor, they warrant exceptional treatment by the Executive Branch. The foregoing, because there are evidently events that could place local governments in precarious situations, as the public entities on the front line in the face of these very localized events, considered individually, so that in order not to impair the powers of the Municipalities and of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias at key moments of emergency response or risk prevention and imminent danger, the competencies of the Commission must be analyzed. First, the consequences that could materialize in emergencies regarding legal assets of primary value, such as the life and property of persons, must be avoided. The dividing line between a declared and an undeclared emergency seen from this angle must be drawn so as not to leave out situations that equally demand action by State entities, especially in response to very localized exceptional circumstances.

&nbsp;&nbsp; <em>"**Article 5.- Risk management policy.** The risk management policy constitutes a transversal axis of the work of the Costa Rican State; it articulates instruments, programs, and public resources in ordinary and extraordinary, institutional and sectoral actions, aimed at preventing the occurrence of disasters and responding to emergencies in all their phases. </em> <em>Every development policy of the country must incorporate both the elements necessary for an adequate diagnosis of risk and susceptibility to the impact of disasters, as well as the management axes that allow their control."</em> <em>"**Article 19.- Presidency of the Commission.** The President of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall be the highest-ranking official of the Institution and shall hold its judicial and extrajudicial representation. Within the fulfillment of their duties, they must provide, by means of a fidelity bond, a security, for an amount to be defined in the Regulations to this Law. </em> <em>Among their powers are:</em> <em>a. ..</em> <em>b. ...</em> <em>c. Serve as a direct liaison between the Presidency of the Republic, the ministries, and the Governing Council, as well as attend meetings with them when summoned. </em> <em>d. ...e) ...".</em> <em>"**Article 20.- Executive Directorate.** The Executive Directorate shall be composed of a Director, who shall be responsible for the administration of the Institution; they shall serve as an official under the labor regime of trust, freely appointed and removed by the Board of Directors, and shall be subordinate to its guidelines and those of the Presidency of the Commission. They have the obligation to render accounts for their actions, in accordance with legal norms and, by means of a fidelity bond, must provide a security, for an amount to be defined via regulation.</em> <em>They shall have the following powers:</em> <em>a) ...</em> <em>b) Program and coordinate the activities of the Commission with other public and private institutions, to fulfill the policies and achieve the objectives of the institution, within the guidelines issued by the Executive Branch.</em> <em>c) ... d) ... e) ... f)... j)...".</em> <em>"**Article 15.- Extraordinary competencies of the commission.** Once the state of emergency established in article 29 of this Law is declared, it shall be the responsibility of the Commission to plan, coordinate, direct, and control actions aimed at resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. To this end, it must execute, at a minimum, the following actions: </em> <em>a)</em> <em>...</em> <em>f)</em> **<em>Except as provided in the preceding subsections, the Commission shall attend, without the need for a declaration of emergency by the Executive Branch, local and minor emergencies that, due to the high frequency with which they occur and the serious impact they cause in communities, demand the provision of a first-impact humanitarian service, consisting of the delivery of blankets, food, mattresses, and if necessary, the acquisition of materials to rehabilitate basic services and enable shelters, as well as the contracting of a maximum of one hundred machine hours for cleaning the most affected area of the zone</em>**<em>".</em> <em>(The text in bold is not from the original).</em> **_Article 30.- Phases for emergency response.-_** <em>The emergency response shall be executed in three phases: </em> <em>a) **Response phase:** Immediate operational phase upon the occurrence of the event. It includes urgent first-impact measures aimed at safeguarding life, vital public service infrastructure, the production of vital goods and services, property, and the environment, through actions of alert, alarm, public information, evacuation, and temporary relocation of persons and animals to safe sites, rescue, search for victims; the provisioning of basic supplies for life, such as food, clothing, water, medicines, and medical assistance, as well as the safeguarding of material goods, the preliminary damage assessment, and adoption of special measures or duly justified mitigation works to protect the population, infrastructure, and the environment. </em> <em>b)... </em> <em>c)... </em> <em>For the Commission to be able to use the exceptional regime established in this Law under the declaration of emergency**, there must be a causal link between the event causing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted, such that ordinary prevention activities and administrative activities of the Commission and other State institutions may not be carried out under this exceptional regime.**</em> <em>In order not to rebuild vulnerability, the works to be executed during the emergency must be carried out with a preventive approach, oriented so that future events do not generate an equal state of emergency again". (The text in bold is not from the original). </em> In the Chamber's judgment, the last paragraph of article 15 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo refers to a state of urgency that is geographically focused, such that its response is restricted to very specific cases. In these cases, the entities and institutions of the State must act with **effectiveness** for the mitigation of the emergency, and based on the **currentness** of the events, which demand urgent measures. As established, the State is called upon to mitigate those imminent dangers resulting from recurring events and their impact on the communities under its influence, whose prevention is sought, and which it is not lawful to postpone. The phrase "así como" ("as well as") in the last paragraph of article 15 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo refers to possible mitigation measures among those cited and others (*numerus apertus*), within the established limits, but including those contemplated in subsection a) of article 30 of the referenced Law that could arise from the need to address the emergency situation that is occurring. If the objective is to obtain an agile, efficient, and timely response to the emergency or its imminence, only the currentness of the same would authorize the granting of the exploitation of quarries and waterways of the public domain, in accordance with article 2.2 and 2.6 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, such that the granting of authorization by the Dirección de Geología y Minas can only be resolved when the municipal procedure is accompanied by the document from the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias recommending the works, or where appropriate, when the Commission itself carries out its procedures before the Dirección de Geología y Minas. Precisely, in accordance with article 15 of Ley No. 8488, it is the body responsible for resolving urgent needs, executing protection, rescue, and rehabilitation programs and activities. But most importantly, within risk management, it is the responsibility of the entire state conglomerate to articulate actions and efforts, especially in extraordinary events, to take mitigation measures. In the Chamber's judgment, under these strictly interpreted assumptions, it must be understood that Environmental Impact Assessments cannot be required, given the state of urgency, which, as indicated by numeral 30 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, demands currentness; the causal link between the event causing the emergency and the works, goods, and services intended to be contracted must be duly demonstrated in the resolution of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, to confront that emergency efficiently. It is important to note that section 2.8 of the challenged Regulation establishes for these types of emergencies, declared or undeclared by the Executive Branch, that the latter must be materialized in the Plan general de emergencias or in an administrative resolution of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, respectively. In this sense, this is the substantive and formal element for the other actions of the involved Administrations, to be able to extract and use the materials in the rehabilitation or reconstruction of the affected areas, including other works declared of national or cantonal interest that are developed on public domain lands. In this latter case, it concerns materials processed under activities previously authorized by the Dirección de Geología y Minas, and of course within the limits and authorizations previously given, as a form of rational use of the natural and material resources that the State must have available to confront emergencies. Any use outside that context would be unconstitutional and consequently subject to the respective avenue of constitutional jurisdiction. In the Chamber's judgment, it is necessary to reiterate that its purpose is to respond efficiently and according to the currentness of events, in consideration of the principle of state of necessity and urgency established in article 3 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo. All of the foregoing must not imply a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, given that the extractive operations must be covered by the declaration or resolutions of the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, with which the respective permits are processed. On the other hand, in the report of the Minister of Environment, it is clear that there are limits to the extraction of materials granted through concessions, regarding time and quantity, according to the regime requested, such that when it is necessary to access concessions granted to private parties, since the concession is an administrative contract, it grants real rights over an asset given under State administration, and the regulations respect such interests; the obligation of subsequent compensation for the unilateral alteration of the contract by the State does not disappear for that reason. In that sense, the provisions grant treatment of firmly acquired administrative real rights. In support of the foregoing, based on article 2.7 of the Regulation, a similar argument was established in judgment No. **2010-015738**, and in which it was established, referring to the Law Regulating the Extraction of Materials from Quarries and Waterways of Public Domain by Municipalities, that**:** </span> **_"…_** <em>there is no violation of article 45 of the Constitución Política, because prior to the granting of the authorization, it is required to present before the Dirección de Geología y Minas the permission of the property owner, from where the authorized material will be exploited and extracted. The property owner will consequently defend their rights, authorizing with the entry permit for extraction and transport, or not granting it, so it cannot be understood that there is a violation of the right to property. Hence, if the requirements demanded by law are not met, consequently it is not possible to understand that there is an action contrary to the right to property, given that, as previously stated, ...</em>**".** Regarding article 2.7 of the challenged Regulation, it is evident that the use of resources by the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias is based on a purely voluntary act of the owner, and the absence of such a requirement would not allow, under the assumption of the challenged norm, the granting of the concession to the municipality or the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias. The foregoing, of course, without prejudice to the power of expropriation, as established in article 35 of the Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo. For the reasons stated, on these points the action must be dismissed.

**IV.- Regarding environmental impact assessments in short-duration extraction permits.** Once the question of the constitutional relevance of permits for the extraction of materials from quarries and waterways of the public domain, in a situation of declared and undeclared emergency, regulated in the Law and the Decreto Ejecutivo, has been overcome, it is appropriate to analyze what was challenged regarding the possible vice of unconstitutionality in the granting of temporary concessions, insofar as the unconstitutional omission of bypassing Environmental Impact Assessments is alleged. This assumption, in the criterion of the Chamber, corresponds to the ordinary activity of State institutions, so that in congruence with precedents, the integration of environmental regulations, article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, is certainly required to quantify and qualify the risk of damage to the environment. Article 39 of the Código de Minería establishes that:

<em>"Article 39.—The State, through MINAE, shall grant temporary concessions to ministries and municipalities to extract materials from waterways of the public domain or quarries, in the relevant jurisdiction. Such concessions shall be granted for a maximum term of one hundred and twenty days and the following procedure must be fulfilled:</em> <em>a) Written request from the institution, which must indicate the location of the site where the extraction will take place.</em> <em>b) Exploitation plan and justification of the destination of the materials, which must be solely for public works. </em> <em>c) Appointment of a professional in the geological field or in mining engineering, who shall be responsible for and director of the exploitation. In the event of verified lack thereof, a qualified professional with experience in related areas may be appointed.</em> <em>d) If the concessionaire does not carry out the works directly, they must indicate to the DGM the name of the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing them.</em> <em>e) Upon receipt of the request, the DGM shall conduct an inspection and issue the recommendations for the case; if they are affirmative, it shall issue the recommendation to the Minister of Environment and Energy, so that they may grant the respective permit, which must contain the following:</em> <em>1) Location of the extraction site.</em> <em>2) Authorized volume.</em> <em>3) Validity period.</em> <em>4) Extraction method. </em> <em>5) Machinery to be used.</em> <em>6) Professional responsible for the extraction.</em> **<em>7) Environmental precautions during the temporary extraction.</em>** <em>In the case of municipalities and ministries, if the exploitation lasts more than one hundred and twenty days and they wish to continue with it, they must comply with the provisions of articles 72 and 73 of this Code, which, once the numbering is run, will become articles 76 and 77, respectively, and its Regulations. All environmental damage shall be the responsibility of the concessionaire institution or, where appropriate, the contractor or subcontractor in charge of executing the work.</em> <em>The commercialization of materials extracted under an authorization granted by this article to the State, its bodies, and municipalities is strictly prohibited.</em> Violating this provision will result in the immediate cancellation of the authorization and the application of the corresponding sanctions to the responsible officials and, as applicable, to the contractor or subcontractor tasked with executing the work." (bold not in original) The first thing that must be observed is whether it involves a concession or precarious permit (permiso en precario) granted by the Dirección de Geología y Minas that the State itself grants to its institutions. The Law is clear in indicating that it is a temporary concession for a maximum of 120 days for ministries and municipalities, but it does not grant a subjective right to a private individual as stated in the brief filing the action, not even for the private subject contracted by the Administration to carry out the extraction work, since the consequences of not respecting the terms of the concession, such as commercializing the materials, entails its cancellation, with the corresponding administrative and sanctioning responsibilities. It has in common with the rest of the regulations that its processing is expeditious and summary, and the use of the material must be destined *only* for public works. In the opinion of the Chamber, the norm refers to the ordinary, short-term activity of public administrations for the development and conservation of national or cantonal infrastructure, in a modality of temporary concession. Due to its simplicity in processing, *it can be used to carry out tasks* of the risk management policy through ordinary actions, or others, through the efforts that may be contemplated as indicated in the following articles:

"Article 6.- **National risk management system.-** The National Risk Management System is hereby constituted, **understood as the integral,** organized, coordinated, and harmonious **articulation of the organs, structures, functional relationships, methods,** **procedures, and resources of all State institutions**, seeking the participation of the entire private sector and organized civil society.

**Its purpose is the promotion and execution of public policy guidelines that allow both the Costa Rican State and the different sectors of national activity to incorporate the concept of risk management as a cross-cutting axis of planning and development practices.** The National Risk Management System is composed of and developed through subsystems, which shall be defined in the Regulations of this Law and shall have a multi-institutional coordination body." (Bold not in the original).

"**Article 7.- National risk management plan.** For the application of the Risk Management policy, the Commission is obligated to design and execute the National Risk Management Plan, as a strategic planning instrument that allows the systemic and integral articulation of the programs part of the Subsystems and, additionally, the delimitation of institutional competencies, the allocation of resources, organization, and verification and control mechanisms**.**" "Article 8.- **Inclusion of the criteria of the national risk management plan.** The State organs and entities responsible for planning tasks shall, when preparing their respective plans, take into account the guidelines indicated in the National Risk Management Plan. When formulating and drafting plans, programs, and urban development projects, these organs and entities must consider the risk prevention and mitigation component." "Article 9.- **Coordination for risk management and emergency response.** The National Risk Management System is structured through coordination bodies. The Central Administration, the Decentralized Public Administration of the State, local governments, the private sector, and organized civil society, in compliance with the principle of coordination, shall integrate into the technical or operational structures that the Commission establishes, according to the scope of the following article; however, the Commission shall be empowered to form other coordination bodies in accordance with the scope of the National Risk Management Plan and its programs." As the Chamber has indicated on other occasions, the constitutionality of the questioned provision must be analyzed against Article 50 of the Constitución Política, which expressly recognizes the right of all present and future inhabitants of this country to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, in the following terms:

"Article 50.- The State shall procure the greatest well-being for all inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth.

Every person has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Therefore, they are legitimized to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused.

The State shall guarantee, defend, and preserve that right. The law shall determine the corresponding responsibilities and sanctions." From the referenced norm, several guiding principles are deduced, among which is the principle of environmental legal guardianship (tutela del derecho ambiental) by the State, regarding which this Tribunal has indicated that:

"**the State becomes the guarantor in the protection and guardianship of the environment and natural resources**. It is under the tenor of this provision, in relation to Articles 20, 69, and 89 of the Constitución Política, that **the responsibility of the State to exercise a guardianship and governing function in this matter is born**, as provided by the constitutional norm itself under commentary, a function developed by environmental regulations. Thus, the constitutional mandate establishes the duty for the State to guarantee, defend, and preserve that right." Judgment 6322-03 of 14:14 hours on July 3, 2003.

Furthermore, the State is under the obligation to act preventively, avoiding—through oversight and direct intervention—the performance of acts that harm the environment, and under the correlative and equally unavoidable prohibition of fostering its degradation. The foregoing obligates not only recognizing the right to the environment, but also using all materially and legally valid means for its protection against attacks it may suffer. Since damage to the environment is often irreparable, the preventive oversight by the administration and the speed of the measures it adopts directly affect the magnitude of the injury to the environment. For this reason, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio) has been recognized by the jurisprudence of this Chamber, granting it constitutional rank, among others, in judgment No. 2219-99 of 15:18 hours on March 24, 1999. It is pertinent to highlight the principle of rational use of resources, derived from Article 69 of the Constitution, which refers to the "rational use of natural resources (uso racional de los recursos naturales)." This Chamber—in various resolutions—has established that environmental protection must be directed toward the adequate and intelligent utilization of its elements, and in their natural, sociocultural, technological, and political relationships (sustainable development), in order to thereby safeguard the heritage to which present and future generations are entitled. Therefore, the primary objective of sustainable use and environmental protection is that, through production and the use of technology, not only economic gains are obtained, but above all a favorable development and evolution of the environment and natural resources with the human being, that is, without causing harm or damage. Regarding the constitutional challenge, it is the opinion of the Chamber that subparagraph e) point 7) of Article 39 of the Código de Minería contemplated environmental impact studies within the temporary concessions whose maximum is 120 days, and that a specific quantity of extraction (20,000 cubic meters of material) was established by regulation, such that before granting the concession, the recommendation that the Dirección de Geología y Minas must issue to the Minister of Environment must consider the inclusion of *environmental precautions during the temporary extraction*. The second meaning in the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española defines *prevención* as: *"Preparation and disposition made in advance to avoid a risk or execute something"*, which entails a true conditioning and reconciliation of the administrative claim of the ministries and municipalities with the environmental viability studies. Without them, the Dirección de Geología y Minas could not issue its recommendation, much less the granting of the concession by the Minister. According to the foregoing, the norm refers to the subjection of the Public Administrations to environmental regulations, by the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) (Article 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, specifically regarding the principle of singular non-derogability of regulatory norms (inderogabilidad singular de las normas reglamentarias)) and Article 50 of the Constitution, in accordance with the respective regulations, as well as the measures that must be taken in the specific case for the execution of this type of extraction of materials from quarries and watercourses of public domain. In the matter at hand, the opinions of the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones coincide that there is a duty to integrate the entire block of constitutionality and legality, in order to offer protection to the environment along with the rational and sustained exploitation of natural resources. In this manner, the Minister points to Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31950-MINAE published in La Gaceta on September 28, 2004, which is the Regulation to Article 39 of the Código de Minería, and Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, which is the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, in that they establish limits for these mining exploitation activities, less than or equal to twenty thousand cubic meters, a situation under which the challenged Article 39 falls, and thus, in environmental matters, according to subparagraph b) of Article 1 of Regulation No. 31950-MINAE, it classifies it in category B2, of Low Potential Environmental Impact. In this sense, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 itself contains the definition of a more precise and detailed Environmental Impact Study for projects of low environmental impact, in Article 3.34 bis, which states:

"**Environmental Impact Study (EsIA) for activities, works, or projects of low and moderately low potential environmental impact:** For those cases in which the activity, work, or project, due to its attributes (dimension, duration over time, location, materials and equipment used, and production), is defined as of low or moderately low potential environmental impact, it must comply, when current regulations expressly require it, with the presentation of an EsIA, and following the principle of proportionality and reasonableness, with the procedure that SETENA defines, provided that the elements covered by the definition of EsIA included in this Regulation are fully met." Consequently, a specific EsIA is required for the activity, thus establishing protection from the environmental and technical point of view. The regulatory development of Article 39 of the Código de Minería requires the application of environmental law, and in that sense, implicitly incorporates the regulatory development of the Executive Branch, which is why it cannot be judged unconstitutional. Moreover, for the permits for the extraction of non-metallic materials by municipalities and autonomous institutions, Articles 112, subsection 3, and 141 subsection c) of the Regulation to the Código de Minería require the application for the resolution from SETENA approving the corresponding Environmental Impact Study. The same applies to Article 1 of the Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, which orders the Mayor to present the resolution of environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) issued by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental. Additionally, the powers of the Dirección de Geología y Minas in the Regulation to the Código de Minería, contained in the following articles, must be considered:

Article 124.—**On precautions and technical directives**. The Dirección de Geología y Minas has the competence to carry out inspections and request additional reports it deems necessary to fully comply with its obligation, especially regarding the control of the activity being developed and the protection of natural resources. **Non-compliance by the entity with what is required by the DGM, or the refusal to abide by the technical directives issued by the Dirección, shall be grounds for cancellation of the authorization**.

In any case, in the interest of the principle of in dubio pro natura, the DGM may order as a precautionary measure the suspension of exploitation activities when it is demonstrated that the technical and environmental conditions for exploitation have been breached. (bold not in the original) Article 88.—**Environmental Guarantee**. The amount of the guarantee of environmental compliance (garantía de cumplimiento ambiental), contained in Article 103 of the Código de Minería, shall be set by SETENA, it being the obligation of the holder to provide the administrative file with a certified copy of the deposit receipt issued by the bank before the start of work.

Failure to comply with the foregoing shall be grounds for cancellation in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Código de Minería, as applicable.

In the event of proven non-compliance, as determined by SETENA, with the obligations undertaken in the environmental impact study, or in the case of environmental damage caused in the exercise of the activity due to non-compliance with the environmental recovery (recuperación ambiental) norms, the DGM shall proceed to cancel the permit or concession, in accordance with Articles 62 or 63 of the Código de Minería, as applicable.

In light of the foregoing, on this point, the Chamber does not consider that there is a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, insofar as subparagraph e) point 7 of Article 39 of the Código de Minería is integrated with the rest of environmental legislation, in accordance with Article 50 of the Constitution.

For all of the foregoing, regarding this point, the action must be declared without merit (sin lugar).

**Por tanto:** The action is declared without merit (sin lugar), regarding Article 39 of the Código de Minería and Article 2 of the Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades. In all other respects, the action is summarily dismissed.

Ana Virginia Calzada M. Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Gilber Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Jorge Araya G.

rbadillaa lbarahonah 3 1 2011-05-05T16:32:00Z 2011-10-21T14:37:00Z 1 17401 95710 Poder Judicial 797 225 112886 11.6505 21 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 ES-CR X-NONE X-NONE Res: Nº 2011-002699 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las quince horas y seis minutos del dos de marzo del dos mil once.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Ana Gabriela Avila Jones, mayor, casada dos veces, consultora en trámites mineros, vecina de San José, cédula de identidad número 1-553-865 contra el artículos 39 del Código de Minería, el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo Número 33777 MINAE y los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las catorce horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del dieciocho de agosto del dos mil siete, la accionante solicita que se declaren inconstitucionales las siguientes disposiciones: el artículo 39 del Código de Minería, el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo Número 33777 MINAE y los numerales 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería por estimarlos contrarios a los artículos 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89, 140 incisos 3 y 18 de la Constitución Política, el Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana Sobre Derechos Humanos, El principio 17 de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo, la Declaración de Río y el principio N.15 de la declaración de Río. La normativa se impugna en tanto crea procedimientos especiales para la explotación minera por parte de entidades públicas y particulares que contratan con entidades públicas y para los particulares en general, en los cuales se exime del requisito de estudio de impacto ambiental, lo que implica que se puedan realizar explotaciones mineras echando de menos estudios de impacto ambiental, condición constitucional y legalmente requerida para la protección de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La omisión de dichos requisitos carece de toda razonabilidad y justificación objetiva, por las siguientes razones: 1) los principios constitucionales exigen una acción fiscalizadora y protectora del Estado en todas aquellas actividades que puedan generar impactos negativos al ambiente, sin embargo mediante la promulgación de la normativa impugnada el Estado se excepciona a sí mismo de los estudios de impacto ambiental, mediante procedimientos especiales en detrimento del ambiente y la calidad de vida de la población. 2) el riesgo ambiental generado por la actividad minera es muy alto, no existe límite de volumen de material autorizado en explotación, y explotando un mínimo es posible que se den daños ambientales como los siguientes: exponer y dañar acuíferos subterráneos, contaminar ríos y manantiales, incluso con sustancias que pueden ser tóxicas para el ser humano, sobre todo si la explotación se hace en el cauce de un río, provocar arrastre de materiales y sedimentos, generar ruidos excesivos o polvo incompatibles con el ambiente sano, riesgo para zonas de protección ambiental, riesgo en el patrimonio arqueológico nacional, riesgo de provocar la muerte de animales y especies vegetales. Las normas impugnadas no contemplan ningún mecanismo para verificar las cantidades de material a extraer. Tampoco existe límite alguno en cuanto al número de solicitudes para este tipo de explotaciones que puede tener una institución pública. Sobre las normas y principios constitucionales violados: a) el artículo 7 de la Constitución Política, que establece que los tratados públicos, los convenios internacionales y los concordatos debidamente aprobados por la Asamblea Legislativa tendrán autoridad superior a las leyes. Ni la ley ni el reglamento pueden establecer procedimientos especiales que burlen la normativa de Derecho Internacional ratificada por Costa Rica y que garantizan el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La protección efectiva de ese derecho sólo es posible mediante la exigencia de los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental como requisito previo a la ejecución de acciones que alteran el medio ambiente. b) El artículo 11 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana Sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de Derecho Ambiental; c) el principio primero de la Declaración de Estocolmo sobre el Medio Ambiente Humano, pues la normativa impugnada impide cumplir los instrumentos internacionales que garantizan la protección del ambiente, ya que exime de los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental en actividades muy sensibles como la explotación minera; d) el principio 15 de la Declaración de Río, que impone el principio de precaución cuando haya peligro de daño grave o irreversible; e) los artículos 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, que obligan al Estado, a garantizar, defender y preservar un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que en este caso consiste en una potestad amplia para que por medio de sus órganos competentes denieguen o condicionen un permiso de exploración o explotación minera. La normativa impugnada también vulnera los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política, el primero que señala que la vida humana es inviolable, y el segundo que garantiza el ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado por cuanto la legislación y reglamentación impugnada crea procedimientos especiales de explotación minera sin cumplir los necesarios Estudios de Impacto Ambiental en esas actividades de explotación y que son necesarios no sólo en aplicación de normas legales (Código de Minería y Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) sino también de tratados internacionales. Además alega que los artículos 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo N.33777 y los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería violan el artículo 140 incisos 3) y 18) y 11 de la Constitución Política, porque el Poder Ejecutivo excedió la potestad reglamentaria, dado que no sólo la Constitución Política, los Tratados Internacionales sino la ley exige Estudios de Impacto Ambiental, mecanismo para dar protección al derecho al ambiente sano en todo proyecto u obra que cause o amenace causar efectos negativos al ambiente, y desde luego el Poder Ejecutivo no puede emitir un decreto en el cual exima al Estado, las instituciones públicas y los particulares que con ellos contraten de cumplir con la ley. Hace referencia a la sentencia 2003-10421 de 17 de septiembre del 2003 que declaró con lugar una acción de inconstitucionalidad en idénticas condiciones al presente recurso.

2.- A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, la accionante invoca el párrafo segundo del artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que reconoce la legitimación de toda persona para denunciar actos que infrinjan el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, y lo dispuesto en el párrafo segundo del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, pues se trata de la defensa de un interés difuso.

3.- Por resolución de las trece horas cuarenta minutos del siete de septiembre del dos mil siete, se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República, al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y a la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias (folio 24).

4.- Daniel Gallardo Monge, Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias solicitó adición y aclaración de la resolución de las trece horas cuarenta minutos del siete de septiembre del dos mil siete, que dio curso a la acción (folio 29).

5.- Por resolución de las once horas cincuenta minutos del veintiséis de septiembre del dos mil siete, la Presidenta de la Sala dispuso que no ha lugar a la adición y aclaración solicitada (folio 46).

6.- Francela Alfaro Ulate, Presidente de la Asociación Costarricense de Concesionarios de Materiales y Agregados para la Construcción ACCMAC, solicitó que se le tenga como coadyuvante activa, pues considera que el reglamento impugnado, en cuanto no prevé la obligación estatal de indemnizar a los concesionarios de los tajos que interviene temporalmente por razones de emergencia, viola el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, porque no se trata técnicamente de una limitación a la propiedad, la cual sólo puede ser establecida por una ley aprobada por dos tercios del total de miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa y no mediante Decreto Ejecutivo, y segundo, por apoderarse a título gratuito de los materiales de un tajo concesionado, sin el pago del valor comercial de éstos, constituye una expropiación de hecho prohibida por el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política . Además viola la libertad de empresa, pues impide que los concesionarios de los tajos intervenidos por la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias a su amparo obtengan un lucro razonable en el ejercicio de su giro empresarial. Además sostiene que el reglamento impugnado vulnera los artículos 11 y 28 de la Constitución Política porque otorga potestades a la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias que sólo pueden ser conferidas directamente por la ley, como la facultad de establecer limitaciones a los derechos fundamentales de propiedad y libertad de empresa (folio 34 a 44).

7.- Roberto Dobles Mora, Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, contestó la audiencia conferida (folio 50) y manifestó que la accionante transcribe el artículo 39 del Código de Minería, pero no en forma completa y en cuanto a los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería transcribe un texto ya derogado mediante Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE publicado en La Gaceta de 28 de septiembre del 2004. De acuerdo con el nuevo texto del Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE éste sí cumple la obligación de obtener la viabilidad ambiental, no mediante la presentación del estudio de impacto ambiental, sino que de conformidad con el Decreto Ejecutivo No.31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC “Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental”, establece que las actividades de explotación minera cuyo volumen de explotación sea menor o igual a veinte mil metros cúbicos, se califican como de categoría B2 de Bajo Impacto Ambiental Potencial. No sólo se requiere de la viabilidad ambiental durante el proceso de extracción de los materiales, se requiere vigilancia de un Profesional responsable de la extracción desde el punto de vista técnico y ambiental. En síntesis, la omisión de la accionante de informar sobre la existencia del Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE implica que no es cierto que no existe límite de volumen de extracción, ya que su máximo es de 20.000 metros cúbicos según lo establecido en el inciso b) del artículo 2 del decreto mencionado. En cuanto a los artículos 135 y 159 del Decreto Ejecutivo 29300-MINAE: Reglamento al Código de Minería, reformados mediante Decreto Ejecutivo N.29677-MINAE publicado en La Gaceta No.150 del 7 de agosto del 2001. La acconante omite informar que los artículos mencionados fueron reformados por el Decreto Ejecutivo 31792-MINAE-MP publicado en el Alcance N.20 del 14 de mayo del 2004. Como parte de los requisitos que deben presentarse con la comunicación de necesidad de extracción de materiales, ante emergencias declaradas debidamente, lo cierto es que una copia de la comunicación debe ser presentada a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA). Partimos de que se trata de estados de emergencia declarada, por lo consiguiente, estado de excepción. Nuestro país está expuesto a fenómenos naturales que han causado a través de la historia distintas catástrofes nacionales, que causan el desbordamiento de ríos, deslizamientos que dejan a comunidades enteras incomunicadas y que requieren la reposición urgente de servicios básicos. En cuanto al artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 33777-MINAE publicado en La Gaceta el 5 de julio del 2007 “Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades”, indicó que regula procedimientos aplicables a emergencias declaradas y no declaradas, así como la realización de obras de prevención. En cuanto al fondo de la acción, señaló que se referirá: a) al artículo 39 del Código de Minería, relativo a los permisos temporales y b) casos de emergencia, artículos 135 y 159 del Código de Minería y artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo 33777-MINAE. Con relación al artículo 39 del Código de Minería reitera lo indicado en el sentido del procedimiento sí requiere la viabilidad ambiental, no mediante el estudio de impacto ambiental, pero sí amparados al Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC “Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. Además por Decreto Ejecutivo 31950-MINAE publicado en La Gaceta del 28 de septiembre del 2004 se reglamentó el artículo 39 del Código de Cita, se demuestra que sí hay un volumen determinado (máximo 20.000 metros cúbicos) que durante la fase de explotación de los materiales debe estar la vigilancia de un regente geológico y ambiental, además existen obligaciones como la presentación de informes de labores. Con relación a los casos de emergencia, regulados en los artículo 135 y 159 del Código de Minería y el artículo 2 de Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, es posible coincidir con la accionante de que se está creando un procedimiento especial, pero por varias razones: Primero, no es posible que el Estado, las Municipalidad y la propia Comisión Nacional de Emergencias tramite Estudios de Impacto Ambiental cuando ha acaecido una fenómeno que está causando una emergencia nacional o regional. Segundo, antes de la reforma operada por Ley No. 8246, no existía en el Código una norma que regule la actividad minera del Estado, menos el contemplar casos de emergencia, razón por la que fue necesario dictar normativa reglamentaria. Las instituciones del Estado en lato sensu, central (Poder Ejecutivo) y descentralizadas, requieren de materiales, básicamente agregados para la construcción, para la ejecución de sus fines, esto cuando se trata de la llamada “labor ordinaria”. En emergencia nacional o regional, las necesidades de esos materiales son aun mayores. Tercero: El artículo 1 del Código de Minería establece “… El Estado tiene el dominio absoluto, inalienable e imprescriptible de todos los recursos minerales que existen en el territorio nacional y en su mar patrimonial, cualquiera que sea el origen, estado físico o naturaleza de las sustancias que contengan. El Estado procurará explotar las riquezas minerales por si mismo o por medio de organismos que dependan de él. Sin embargo, el Estado podrá otorgar concesiones para el reconocimiento, exploración, explotación y beneficio de los recursos minerales, conforme con la presente ley. Las concesiones no afectarán en forma alguna el dominio del Estado, y se extinguirán en caso de incumplimiento de las exigencias legales para mantenerlas.” En tal sentido, el Ministro reitera lo establecido en los votos de la Sala Constitucional números 2003-03480, 2002-05245, 2002-06053, y 1999-04916, concluye que los recursos minerales son del dominio del Estado, que éste puede darles su uso natural cuando los necesite; si la Sala Constitucional ha considerado que puede usarlos por razones de seguridad e higiene, no cabe duda que tratándose de emergencias nacionales o regionales, declaradas o no declaradas, el uso de los recursos Estatales es incondicional. Para casos de emergencia cita la sentencia No. 1992-03410 y 2006-06336. En el Título VIII del Reglamento al Código de Minería, denominado “De los Procedimientos Especiales”, se encuentra regulada la actividad minera de las Municipalidades e Instituciones Autónomas, así como del Estado y sus contratistas. Esa reglamentación es para la actividad ordinaria de los entes y órganos mencionados, de hecho los artículo 135 y 159, se encuentran inmersos dentro de esa normativa, como casos de excepción, como “Casos de Emergencia”.

8.- Ana Lorena Brenes Esquivel, en su condición de Procuradora General de la República, contestó la audiencia conferida (folio 68-94) y manifestó, sobre el objeto de la acción, que se pretende se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 39 del Código de Minería (Ley n.° 6797, del 4 de octubre de 1982 y sus reformas), 135 (que se encuentra en la actualidad derogado) y 159 (en su versión anterior a la actualmente vigente) del Reglamento al Código de Minería (Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 29300-MINAE, del 8 de febrero de 2001), publicado a la Gaceta No. 54 del 16 de marzo de 2001 y 2 del Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, del 18 de junio del 2007), publicado en la Gaceta No. 129 del 5 de julio del 2007, por estimarlos contrarios a los artículos 7, 11, 21, 33, 50, 89 y 140 incisos 3 y 18 de la Constitución Política, al Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y a los principios 15 y 17 de la Conferencia de la Naciones Unidas sobre el medio ambiente y el desarrollo (Declaración de Río). La representante del Órgano Asesor de la Sala no objetó la legitimación de la accionante, sin embargo estima que la acción debe ser declarada parcialmente inadmisible, en relación con los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, pues el artículo 135 se encuentra derogado desde el 5 de julio del 2007, en tanto que la versión del numeral 159 que impugna la actora, corresponde a la que estuvo vigente a partir del 2001 hasta antes de que fuera reformado en el año 2004, en virtud del artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP del 28 de abril del 2004. En ambos casos la actora está planteando su acción contra dos normas que no están vigentes, el artículo 135 fue expresamente derogado por el artículo 7° del mencionado Decreto Ejecutivo N° 33777-MINAE, un mes antes de que la promovente presentara su acción. Si bien ello no es óbice para que la Sala Constitucional entre a valorar su legitimidad, resulta difícil pensar en una situación jurídica respecto a la cual el artículo 135 en cuestión siga irradiando sus efectos. Lo anterior tomando en cuenta que el supuesto de hecho que contempla la norma está previsto para casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada conforme a la Ley Nacional de Emergencia (No. 7914, del 28 de septiembre de 1999), con lo cual es de prever, que ya se hayan consumado sus efectos, por lo que a su juicio no existe motivo suficiente que amerite abrir el juicio de constitucionalidad de una norma que se encuentra eliminada del ordenamiento (efecto de la sentencia estimatoria de la acción, previsto en el artículo 88 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), desde un mes antes de haberse interpuesto esta acción, y de la que no existe constancia de que siga surtiendo efectos, aspecto que la accionante tampoco se preocupa en explicar. Igualmente, la promotora de esta acción ni siquiera está impugnando la última versión que estuvo vigente del artículo 135 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, a raíz de la reforma operada por el artículo 1° del citado Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP, sino el texto que estuvo vigente 6 años atrás, norma que presenta diferencias de importancia por lo que al tema ambiental se refiere, en relación con su versión inmediata siguiente, lo que impide valorar estas dos redacciones con el mismo parámetro de constitucionalidad y darles un trato indistinto. De manera que al haberse enfilado esta acción contra una norma derogada, que además tiene más de 3 años de no estar vigente, la acción resulta inadmisible en relación con el artículo 135 y así recomendamos se declare por los señores Magistrados. Por los mismos motivos se debe declarar la inadmisibilidad de la acción en relación con el artículo 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería. La petente impugna la norma que estuvo vigente antes de la reforma operada por el artículo 2° del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP en abril del 2004 y tampoco explica la razón por la cual 6 años después y pese a estar derogado, todavía estaría surtiendo efectos a fin de ser apta para el control de constitucionalidad. Sobre todo cuando también contempla un supuesto de hecho, que de ocurrir, agota de manera casi inmediata los efectos de la norma, pues la extracción al amparo del artículo 159 de cita se hará mientras dure la Fase Inicial de la emergencia nacional debidamente declarada. Finalmente no cabe admitir que nos encontramos ante un simple error material o bien, que la acción puede dirigirse indistintamente contra la versión actual y contra la versión anterior del artículo 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, no sólo por la informalidad que ello implica, que roza con la solemnidad propia de un juicio de tan alta instancia (artículo 78 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional), sino también porque hay diferencias sustanciales entre una norma y otra que inciden de forma determinante en el juicio de constitucionalidad. Así por ejemplo, la versión de la norma impugnada por la actora omite la comunicación a la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y el requisito de consignar el nombre del responsable de la regencia ambiental, entre otros aspectos importantes que sí contempla el artículo 159 vigente. Ante esa imprecisión en el objeto contra el cual se dirige la acción, es claro que ésta también debe ser declarada inadmisible por lo que se refiere al artículo 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería. En cuanto al fondo del asunto, indicó que es procedente analizar si las normas impugnadas constituyen una excepción del requisito constitucional desarrollado por el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, relativo a los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, a través de la creación de procedimientos especiales para la explotación minera por parte del Estado, las entidades descentralizadas y los particulares que contraten con ambos. Sobre el artículo 39 del Código de Minería, que regula el supuesto de las concesiones temporales a los ministerios y las municipalidades para extraer materiales de los cauces de dominio público o las canteras, indicó que conforme a su texto los materiales extraídos, tarea que podrá estar a cargo de un contratista o subcontratista particular, deberán destinarse única y exclusivamente a obras públicas. De ahí la prohibición expresa de comercializar los materiales extraídos al amparo de dicha concesión, la cual se concede por medio del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía por un plazo máximo de 120 días, pasados los cuales, de continuar la explotación, los órganos o las corporaciones territoriales respectivas deberán seguir el trámite ordinario de los permisos de exploración y de las concesiones de explotación, en los que dicho sea de paso, se contempla de forma expresa la realización de los correspondientes estudios de impacto ambiental (artículos 24 inciso ch), 34 inciso ch), 76 y 77 del Código de Minería). El artículo 39 del Código de Minería instituye un procedimiento especial, sumario, en el que se agilizan sin eliminar los trámites; lo cual se justifica en la satisfacción oportuna del interés público por parte de la Administración Pública. Sin embargo, la celeridad y simplicidad que se pudiera apreciar en el otorgamiento de estas concesiones temporales no tiene porqué rozar necesariamente con el principio constitucional. Debe darse una interpretación del artículo 39 del Código de Minería conforme con el bloque de constitucionalidad, derivada de su inserción sistemática con el resto de la normativa ambiental. Particularmente, de su relación con el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, del 24 de mayo del 2004, que en sus anexos 1 y 2, contempla entre el elenco de obras, proyectos y actividades sujetos a los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, la actividad minera del Estado y sus empresas, de las municipalidades, así como de las instituciones autónomas, así como en general, la extracción a cielo abierto (canteras o cauces de dominio público), de piedras de construcción, piedra de talla, arcilla, talco, dolomita, arena y grava aun cuando el volumen a extraer sea menor o igual que 20 000 m 3. Los artículos 109 y 136 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, reglamentan la extracción de materiales no metálicos por parte del Estado y demás entidades públicas para ser destinados estrictamente a la construcción, mantenimiento y reparación de obras de interés o utilidad pública, y que complementa la regulación del procedimiento especial del artículo 39 del Código de cita (pues los numerales 111 y 138 del referido Reglamento contempla que las autorizaciones tendrán una vigencia de hasta 3 años, susceptible de prórroga por 2 años más). Ya que los artículos 112, inciso 3 y 141 inciso c) ius ibídem establecen que la solicitud de la entidad pública interesada deberá acompañarse de la “Resolución de la SETENA de la aprobación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental correspondiente al proyecto propuesto.” Pero, sobre todo, de los artículos 128 y 152 del citado Reglamento que regulan los llamados “proyectos menores y específicos” consistentes en todas aquellas obras o tareas que sean necesarias para atender situaciones ocasionadas por procesos geodinámicos, tales como: derrumbes, deslizamientos, procesos erosivos, colapsos de alcantarillas, colapso de puentes, rellenos de aproximación, reparación y mantenimiento de caminos y carreteras existentes y otros que se consideren como tales por la Dirección de Geología y Minas y así lo justifique el ente solicitante. Proyectos éstos, que se corresponden con el supuesto del artículo 39, al tratarse de trabajos puntuales, por un plazo máximo de cuatro meses, y con un volumen máximo a extraer o remover de 20.000 metros cúbicos. La Sala, a raíz del citado voto n.° 2003-10421, consideró que debía exigirse el estudio de impacto ambiental y su correspondiente aprobación por parte de la SETENA, como parte de los requisitos que establece los artículos 129 y 153 del Reglamento en cuestión. Finalmente, de la lectura del artículo 1° del citado Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, que precisamente reglamenta la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades, sin distingo de plazo, para ser destinados a obras de desarrollo cantonal e interés público (artículo 1.1), cuyo párrafo tercero inciso d) dispone que la solicitud del Alcalde respectivo deberá contener la “Resolución de la viabilidad ambiental emitida por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.” Por tanto, de conformidad con las normas anteriores es factible estimar que las “Prevenciones ambientales durante la extracción temporal” que debe contener el permiso o concesión temporal que el MINAE otorgue al órgano u entidad pública interesada, al tenor del artículo 39, párrafo e), inciso 7, del Código de Minería, bien puede referirse a la viabilidad ambiental emitida por la SETENA. Lo que enlaza perfectamente con la naturaleza cautelar o preventiva de los procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, y que el artículo 39 de referencia, remata con la frase en su penúltimo párrafo, de que “Todo daño ambiental será responsabilidad de la institución concesionaria o, en su caso, del contratista o el subcontratista encargado de ejecutar la obra”. Con lo cual, esta Procuraduría estima que el artículo 39 del Código de Minería resulta conforme con el normativa constitucional en materia ambiental que cita la recurrente. Sobre el tema de los casos de emergencia y la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, sostuvo la Procuraduría que los supuestos contemplados en los artículos 2° del referido Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE y 157 del Reglamento al Código de Minería – y sin perjuicio de las consideraciones señaladas antes para considerar la inadmisibilidad de la acción respecto a este último numeral – entran dentro de los parámetros constitucionales de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, como para considerar debidamente motivado y justificado que no se exija la aprobación de un estudio de impacto ambiental. Ya que ambas normas regulan medidas de excepción, como lo es la extracción de materiales para atender casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada conforme a la ley, que de exigirse un procedimiento tan técnico y detallado como lo es un estudio de impacto ambiental, podría dar al traste con la atención oportuna de la emergencia de que se trate. Adicionalmente, ambas normas se dictan en el marco de las disposiciones contenidas por la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo (No. 8488, del 22 de noviembre de 2005) y la Ley Nacional de Emergencia (No. 7914, del 28 de setiembre de 1999), según se puede comprobar del Considerando VI del Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 33777-MINAE y de la remisión expresa que hacen los artículos recurridos a dichas leyes.

Así, el artículo 2 de ambas leyes, enfatiza en la necesidad de conferir un marco jurídico ágil y eficaz, que garantice la reducción de las causas del riesgo, así como el manejo oportuno, coordinado y eficiente de las situaciones de emergencia. Luego de transcribir parcialmente los artículos 3, 4 y 5 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencia y Prevención del Riesgo, indica que el régimen de excepción que se deriva de la declaración del estado de emergencia por parte del Poder Ejecutivo, al tenor del artículo 29 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, queda patente de la lectura de sus artículos 31, 32, 35 y 36, como lo es la facultad para expropiar sin indemnización previa o bien, las facultades de ocupación, derribo, restricción e imposición de servidumbres en predios privados. Asimismo, el artículo 34 dispone que el Poder Ejecutivo bajo estado de emergencia, “podrá decretar restricciones temporales en el uso de la tierra, con el fin de evitar desastres mayores y facilitar la construcción de obras.” De particular interés, el artículo 30 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, recoge las 3 fases para atender una emergencia; en el contexto de las disposiciones anteriores, el artículo 2 impugnado del referido Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades, procura articular las circunstancias excepcionales, urgentes y especiales de un estado de emergencia con la supervisión ambiental. Si la información no se presenta en forma correcta y completa, la municipalidad no podrá iniciar las labores de explotación. Del mismo modo, en el plazo máximo de 15 días hábiles posteriores a la finalización de la extracción de los materiales, la municipalidad respectiva deberá presentar un informe de cierre técnico de la explotación a dicha oficina, con las especificaciones ahí requeridas. Se pueden armonizar la explotación que deba llevar a cabo una Municipalidad en un estado de urgencia y necesidad con los lineamientos que al efecto haya establecido el MINAE en el respectivo estudio de impacto ambiental, de conformidad con el último párrafo del artículo 36 del Código de Minería que establece:

“En situaciones de emergencia declarada, cuando la municipalidad requiera extraer material de un cauce de dominio público para el cual ya haya sido otorgada una concesión, el concesionario deberá permitir la extracción de material en los volúmenes autorizados por la DGM. Dicha extracción deberá realizarse siguiendo los lineamientos establecidos en el plan de explotación y las recomendaciones ambientales emitidas por el MINAE en el estudio de impacto ambiental .” Las mismas consideraciones son válidas por lo que se refiere al artículo 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería – y también para el artículo 135 en caso de que esa Sala admita la acción respecto a esta última norma, al ser un trasunto de aquella – pues en su versión vigente, no en la impugnada por la recurrente, dispone:

“Artículo 159.— Casos de Emergencia :

En casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada conforme a la Ley Nº 7914 y su Reglamento , y el interesado comunique de tal hecho por escrito con el visto bueno de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias a la Dirección de Geología y Minas con copia a la Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental , este podrá, posterior a esa comunicación iniciar la extracción que se requiere para atender la emergencia indicada y tendrá un plazo de 4 meses para presentar copia del Plan Regulador de la emergencia y del nombramiento de la Unidad Ejecutora por parte de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

La comunicación aludida deberá contener al menos: las labores a realizar, el volumen, el nombre del geólogo o ingeniero de minas responsable de dirigir las labores extractivas y de la regencia ambiental, la fuente de material a utilizar, el sitio donde se realizarán las obras y el plazo necesario para atender la necesidad. Asimismo el interesado deberá cumplir con los métodos de extracción señalados en el Plan de Explotación.

Las obras de rehabilitación y reconstrucción de la infraestructura dañada durante la emergencia deberán estar incluidas en el Plan Regulador de la emergencia.” (El subrayado no es del original).

(Así reformado por el artículo 17del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29677 y por el artículo 2° del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792 de 28 de abril de 2004).

De conformidad con el texto anterior, la extracción de materiales únicamente será posible para atender casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada conforma a la Ley Nacional de Emergencia, debiéndose comunicar a la SETENA de dichas tareas – en la que se deberá incluir el nombre de la persona responsable de las labores extractivas y de la regencia ambiental – y para lo cual el interesado deberá contar con el visto bueno de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. Asimismo deberá ajustar dicha actividad al Plan regulador de la emergencia. Desde esta perspectiva, esta Procuraduría no advierte tampoco en este extremo adicional de la acción, viso alguno de inconstitucionalidad. Por las razones anteriores, es criterio de este órgano asesor que los artículos 39 del Código de Minería (Ley No. 6797, del 4 de octubre de 1982 y sus reformas), 135 (actualmente derogado) y 159 (actualmente reformado) del Reglamento al Código de Minería (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE, del 8 de febrero de 2001), así como 2° del Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, del 18 de junio del 2007), son conformes en los términos expuestos anteriormente, con el bloque de constitucionalidad en materia ambiental.

9.- Daniel Gallardo Monge, en su condición de Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, contesta a folio 97 la audiencia concedida, manifestando que los artículos 135 y 159 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE que es el Reglamento del Código de Minería, fueron reformados por el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29677-MINAE publicado a La Gaceta No. 150 del 07 de agosto de 2001. Ambas normas tienen igual redacción, con la particularidad que el artículo 135, se encuentra dentro del capítulo que se refiere a los municipios, y el 159 en el capítulo de otras instituciones del Estado. Deviene de la facultad de excepcionalidad que tiene asidero en el artículo 180 constitucional, casos de emergencia nacionales y en la obligación que tienen las Instituciones públicas de coordinar y dar prioridad dentro de las actividades de sus instituciones a la atención de la emergencia, según los artículos 31, 32, 33 y 39, de la Ley No. 8488, Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgos. Que para la aplicación de la normativa se requiere que la Comisión haga constar que los caminos u obras en las que se va a intervenir, estén reportados dentro de los daños de la emergencia nacional, la necesidad de materiales y se remite una copia a la SETENA. Además del régimen de excepcionalidad que deviene precisamente de una facultad constitucional, la intervención de causes de ríos para extraer material por ejemplo, genera en un doble beneficio, el primero para limpiar los causes del sedimentos arrastrados por las mismas inundaciones (recaba) y el segundo que dicho material extraído se utilice a la vez en la reparación y rehabilitación de caminos destruidos por el mismo evento generador de la emergencia, por lo cual la intervención se encamina a reponer las cosas a su estado anterior, lo cual es el espíritu de la normativa impugnada. Negar esta posibilidad es atar de manos a las instituciones del Estado, la lógica nos lleva a pensar que no es inconstitucional permitir que dichas obras se lleven a cabo, sin cumplir con la normativa ambiental que sólo opera en épocas de normalidad y siempre y cuando se compruebe el nexo de causalidad, entre el daño y la emergencia, y se haga constar en el Plan General de la Emergencia, donde se deja constancia de los daños acaecidos. Este Plan es el “… instrumento que permitirá planificar y canalizar en forma racional, eficiente y sistemática, las acciones que deben realizarse, la supervisión necesaria y la asignación de los recursos que se requieran…” (Artículo 38, Ley 8488). Los Municipios e Instituciones que resulten competentes según la materia son nombradas Unidades Ejecutoras de la CNE, su actuación está contemplada en el último párrafo del artículo 39 de la Ley 8488. En cuanto al artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE publicado a La Gaceta en fecha 5 de julio de 2007, Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades, indica que los apartados 1, 2, 3 y 4 se refieren a los permisos de extracción Municipales, para los cuales me remito a las argumentaciones planteadas anteriormente, por ser el equivalente del artículo 135 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, agregándosele solo lo referente a las emergencias no declaradas, cuyo sustento legal se ampliará con el artículo 151 de la Ley Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias. En cuanto a los apartados 5, 6, 7 y 8 es importante tener en claro que las facultades de excepcionar procedimiento se fundamentan en procedimientos aplicables a emergencia declarada, no declarada y la realización de obras de prevención y tienen su respectivo fundamento. Con el régimen de excepción, la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias actúa al amparo del artículo 180 de la Constitución Política, que se explica en la sentencia 1992-3410, la ley 8488 que es Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención de Riesgos, en el artículo 3, 4, 15, 30, 31, y 32. Con fundamento en la anterior normativa, en relación a la excepcionalidad y en resguardo del derecho fundamental de la vida, la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, realiza intervenciones en tres vertientes, que llevan a un mismo fin; las primeras llamadas “Emergencias no Declaradas”, que conforme al último párrafo del artículo 15 obedecen a atenciones de eventos que por ser muy puntuales, no alcanzan para declarar una Emergencia Nacional, pero de acuerdo a su magnitud y daños, se convierten a nivel de la comunidad que sufre, en una verdadera emergencia por el peligro a la vida y bienes de las personas. Estos casos son de alta frecuencia sobre todo en la época de invierno, y donde la Comisión interviene en mucho casos con la draga de ríos y la extracción de materiales de los cauces, o de tajos. El segundo tipo de intervenciones corresponden a las que están amparadas en las declaratorias de emergencia en sus tres fases de acción, donde igualmente hay que realizar en forma oportuna trabajos de protección, reparación de caminos, etc., donde es indispensable la extracción de materiales. Y el tercer caso es el relacionado con obras de prevención, donde se realizan trabajos en los lugares que ya están identificados con un alto grado de vulnerabilidad, alto riesgo y riesgo inminente, donde no ha ocurrido una emergencia aún pero que en su mayoría la línea divisoria entre el riesgo y la emergencia es tan tenue, que hacen necesaria una intervención igualmente expedita, por estar en defensa el mismo bien jurídico como la vida y los bienes de las personas. No es cualquier obra, sino aquellas destinada a evitar una emergencia. Cita en su apoyo la sentencia No. 2006-06336, lo que le hace concluir que la normativa no es inconstitucional ya que el derecho a la excepcionalidad, deviene en normativa de mayor rango y jurisprudencia vinculante. No es posible exigir un estudio de impacto ambiental, para que se les otorgue una concesión minera a las instituciones del Estado, cuando se está frente a situaciones excepcionales y de riesgo inminente. El Estado como regulador y dueño del dominio absoluto, inalienable e imprescriptible de todos los recursos minerales que existan en el territorio nacional puede destinar su uso y no hay duda que si se ha permitido usarles por razones de seguridad e higiene, tratándose de casos de emergencias, declaradas o no declaradas, y en materia preventiva el uso de los recursos estatales es incondicional, en beneficio de los habitantes.

10.- Los edictos a que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los Boletines Judiciales números 191, 192 y 193 del 4, 5 y 8 de octubre de 2007 (folio 95).- 11.- El señor Alfredo Córdoba Soro, en su carácter de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de San Carlos, gestiona ante la Sala se le admita a fin de coadyuvar por la improcedencia de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. Sobre los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, el primero se encuentra derogado desde el 5 de julio de 2007 y el segundo estuvo vigente hasta el 2001, cuando fue reformada en el año 2004, por el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792-MINAE-MP del 28 de abril de 2004. Que no es posible que estas normas irradien efectos jurídicos, por cuanto fueron derogadas de la legislación nacional, además en predecible que ya se hayan consumado todos sus efectos. Lo mismo ocurre con respecto al artículo 159 impugnado. En cuanto al artículo 39 del Código de Minería impugnado, se trata de concesiones temporales para los ministerios y municipalidades, por lo que si fuera necesario extenderse del máximo de los 120 días, deberán cumplirse con los trámites ordinarios, asimismo, que está prohibida la comercialización de los materiales extraídos a partir de una concesión temporal, finalmente, que todo daño ambiental será responsabilidad de la institución concesionaria, del contratista o del subcontratista, en su caso. Es un procedimiento especial, sumario, en que los trámites no se eliminan sino que se agilizan tomando en consideración el interés público, para la realización de obras públicas pertinentes. En tal sentido, refiere a la opinión consultiva de la Procuraduría General de la República. Por sentencia No. 2005-13045, la omisión escrita del requisito de viabilidad ambiental en el artículo 39 que nos ocupa no es motivo para no integrarlo a partir de la debida interpretación del bloque de constitucionalidad, con el resto de la normativa ambiental. En tal sentido, el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Impacto Ambiental (DE No. 31849), los artículos 109, 128, 136 y 152 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, y el artículo 1 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, en tanto refieren mecanismos, previsiones o procedimientos tendientes a la prevención ambiental con motivo de la actividad de extracción. En cuanto al artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, lo que se protege es la celeridad de la acción de la Administración Pública en relación con la emergencia suscitada, y que de exigirse un procedimiento tan técnico y detallado como lo es un estudio de impacto ambiental, se atentaría contra la oportuna atención del apuro ocurrido. Es un trámite excepcional, enfatizando en la necesidad de conferir un marco jurídico ágil y eficaz, que garantice la reducción de las causas de riesgo, así como el manejo oportuno, coordinado y eficiente de la situación de emergencia y la disponibilidad de los recursos existentes que puedan ser aplicados a la enmienda de la emergencia, por las diferentes entidades estatales, sin perder de vista el posterior rendimiento de cuentas, que demandan las leyes y reglamentos que rigen la Administración Pública. La Ley Nacional de Emergencias contempla un régimen de excepción, luego de transcritos los textos legales relevantes, concluye que todo ello es acorde con el numeral 21 y 180 de la Constitución Política, y que de aceptar la tesis de la accionante, se tornaría imposible una buena y proveída gestión de los entes estatales que tienen a cargo la atención a estos estados de urgencia y emergencia. Solicita desestimar la demanda.

12.- Giselle Mora Peña, en su condición de Director Ejecutiva de la Unión Nacional de Gobiernos Locales, justifica la improcedencia de la acción planteada, y actúa amparada a la Ley No. 5119 de 20 de noviembre de 1972, al estar integrada por todas las municipalidades y federaciones de municipalidades de Costa Rica. Señala en cuanto a los artículos 135 y 159 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, que ambos se encuentran derogados, y su análisis deviene en irrelevante, partiendo de que los eventos generados con la aplicación de esa normativa han extinguido sus efectos, y no se hace referencia a situaciones concretas donde surten esos efectos. El artículo 39 del Código de Minería reitera que los votos de la Sala Constitucional No. 2003-10421, 2004-09220 y 2005-05790 son coincidentes en cuanto a que la actividad minera y de extracción de materiales por parte del Estado y demás instituciones está incluida en el supuesto del artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, por lo que requiere de una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la SETENA. El artículo 39 contiene un procedimiento especial, sumario, en el que los trámites no se eliminan sino que se agilizan considerando la satisfacción oportuna del interés público tutelado. Refiere a la sentencia No. 2005-013045. Sobre el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, que protege la celeridad de la acción de la Administración Pública en relación con la emergencia suscitada, y que de exigirse un procedimiento tan técnico y detallado como lo es un estudio de impacto ambiental, se atentaría contra la oportuna atención del apuro ocurrido. Es un trámite excepcional, enfatizando en la necesidad de conferir un marco jurídico ágil y eficaz, que garantice la reducción de las causas de riesgo, así como el manejo oportuno, coordinado y eficiente de la situación de emergencia y la disponibilidad de los recursos existentes que puedan ser aplicados a la enmienda de la emergencia, por las diferentes entidades estatales, sin perder de vista el posterior rendimiento de cuentas, que demandan las leyes y reglamentos que rigen la Administración Pública. La Ley Nacional de Emergencias contempla un régimen de excepción, luego de transcritos los textos legales relevantes, concluye que todo ello es acorde con el numeral 21 y 180 de la Constitución Política, y que de aceptar la tesis de la accionante, se tornaría imposible una buena y proveída gestión de los entes estatales que tienen a cargo la atención a estos estados de urgencia y emergencia. Solicita desestimar la demanda.

13.- El señor Pedro Luis Castro Fernández, en su condición de Viceministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes, se apersona a fin de coadyuvar contra las pretensiones de declarar la inconstitucionalidad de las normas impugnadas en la acción. No pueden el Estado ni las municipalidades, en cuanto persiguen la atención de necesidades y la satisfacción de intereses generales, especialmente urgentes como los referentes a atender la situación de la red vial, tener que someterse desde el principio, a trámites y requisitos tales como elaborar estudios de impacto ambiental y que éstos sean a su vez analizados y resueltos, cuando lo que se trata es de obtener un permiso temporal –está sujeto a un plazo breve- para extraer materiales dada la urgencia de realizar las obras públicas correspondientes. Dentro de este contexto, la suspensión de los trámites para que el Estado pueda por ciento veinte días extraer materiales, prescindiendo de los estudios de impacto ambiental, resulta razonable y ampliamente justificada, sin que contravenga nuestro ordenamiento jurídico dado los valores jurídicos que están en juego. No tiene asidero la acción planteada contra los artículos 135 y 159 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE, los cuales fueron derogados el 5 de julio de 2007 mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, y el 28 de abril de 2004, a través del Decreto No. 31792-MINAE-MP, respectivamente. En cuanto al artículo 39 del Código de Minería, lo que contempla es una concesión temporal para que los ministerios y municipalidades en casos de ejecución de obras públicas, puedan extraer materiales –directamente o a través de contratistas- de los cauces de dominio público o las canteras, autorización que es de naturaleza transitoria y precaria hasta por un máximo de ciento veinte días naturales. Se regula actos excepcionales, de muy corta duración, y que en virtud de que para prorrogarse la autorización, se debe tramitar un procedimiento ordinario que conlleva la presentación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental. Pero además de ello, al disponer el párrafo e), inciso 7) del numeral de referencia que dichas concesiones temporales están supeditadas a las “prevenciones ambientales” que deberá contener la aprobación del jerarca del ambiente, esas “advertencias” se equipararían materialmente a los requerimientos de la Evaluación Ambiental que exige el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Las situaciones de emergencia excepcionan el cumplimiento de los requerimientos ambientales previstos para las situaciones normales. Sobre el particular, el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE regula medidas de excepción, como lo es la extracción de materiales para atender casos de emergencia nacional en las que resulta inadmisible la presentación de un estudio de impacto ambiental. Ante situaciones de emergencia, en donde están en juego valores e intereses supremos como lo son los bienes jurídicos de la vida y la salud humana, se faculta al Estado para dispensar de la tramitología ordinaria para hacer frente a las contingencias derivadas del hecho generador. Cita la sentencia No. 2001-6503, el carácter de excepcionalidad regulatoria que infiere la normativa cuestionada, debe quedar también acreditado que la explotación de las fuentes de material deberá contar con el visto bueno de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, lo cual garantiza que las circunstancias se adecuen a tales situaciones excepcionales. Existen esfuerzos del MOPT, municipalidades y comunidades que buscan mitigar el deterioro de la red vial, entre ellos con una préstamo del Gobierno de Alemania. De igual manera destaca que en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2010, se tiene previsto incrementar del 20 al 30% la proporción de la Red Vial Asfaltada en buenas condiciones e incrementar en 5.000 km al 2010 la cobertura de atención de la Red Vial Cantonal en todo el país. Para cumplir esos objetivos, el MOPT, CONAVI, y las municipalidades debe contar con fuentes de material necesarios para atender más de 35.000 km de vías nacionales, principalmente mediante la obtención de permisos y concesiones de explotación. De igual manera solicita que se le aclare y adicione la resolución que dio curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad.

14.- Los representantes de las Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal, Juntas Viales Cantorales, Alcadía y Concejos de San Carlos, Los Chiles, Upala y Guatuso, y Concejo Municipal de Distrito de Peñas Blancas de San Ramón, solicitan ser admitidos para coadyuvar contra las pretensiones de declarar la inconstitucionalidad de la normas impugnadas. Coadyuvan en el mismo sentido, que lo hace el Viceministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Alegan que los artículos 135 y 159 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE fueron derogados. Señalan que es improcedente exigir estudio de impacto ambiental para las concesiones reguladas por el artículo 39 del Código de Minería, al ser una norma autorizante de concesiones temporales para ejecución de obras públicas, de naturaleza transitoria y precaria hasta por un máximo de 120 días naturales. Se dispone en el párrafo e) inciso 7 del numeral de referencia que dichas concesiones temporales están supeditadas a las “prevenciones ambientales” que deberá contener la aprobación del jerarca del ambiente, esas “advertencias” se equipararían materialmente a los requerimientos de la Evaluación Ambiental que exige el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente. Por otra parte, las emergencias excepcionan el cumplimiento de requerimientos ambientales. Por los valores e intereses en juego, se autorizan procedimientos excepcionales, expeditos y simplificados para atender las fases de impacto a fin de suministrar las condiciones para garantizar el bienestar de la población. Cita la sentencia No. 2001-06503, el carácter de excepcionalidad regulatoria que infiere la normativa cuestionada, debe quedar también acreditado que la explotación de las fuentes de material deberá contar con el visto bueno de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, lo cual garantiza que las circunstancias se adecuen a tales situaciones excepcionales. Existen esfuerzos del MOPT, municipalidades y comunidades que buscan mitigar el deterioro de la red vial, entre ellos con una préstamo del Gobierno de Alemania. De igual manera destaca que en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2010, se tiene previsto incrementar del 20 al 30% la proporción de la Red Vial Asfaltada en buenas condiciones e incrementar en 5.000 km al 2010 la cobertura de atención de la Red Vial Cantonal en todo el país. Para cumplir esos objetivos, el MOPT, CONAVI, y las municipalidades debe contar con fuentes de material necesarios para atender más de 35.000 km de vías nacionales, principalmente mediante la obtención de permisos y concesiones de explotación. De igual manera solicita que se le aclare y adicione la resolución que dio curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad.

15.- Jorge Alberto Cole de León, en su condición de Alcalde y representante legal de la Municipalidad de Osa, se pronuncia en el mismo sentido que el Viceministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes y las Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal.

16.- Mediante resolución de las catorce horas treinta minutos del diecinueve de noviembre de 2007, la Presidencia de esta Sala, previno a Marvín Elizondo Cordero, Jimmy Cubillo Mora y Rafael Angel Navarrro Umaña, en sus condiciones de Alcalde Municipal de Garabito, Alcalde Miunicipal de Golfito y Segundo Vicepresidente de la Federación de Municipalidades de la Región Sur, que acreditaran sus condición en que comparecían ante la Sala, entre otras cosas.

17- Por resolución de las dieciséis horas quince minutos del tres de diciembre de dos mil siete, la Presidencia de esta Sala resolvió admitir como coadyuvantes pasivos de la acción a la Asociación Costarricense de Concesionarios de Materiales y Agregados para la Construcción, el Alcalde Municipal de San Carlos, el Alcalde Municipal de Osa, la Unión de Gobierno Locales, el Viceministro de Obras Públicas y Transportes, y los representantes de las Unidades Técnicas de Gestión Vial Municipal, Juntas Viales Cantonales, Alcaldías y Concejos Municipales del Distrito de Peñas Blancas de San Ramón. A su vez, rechazó las coadyuvancias presentadas por Alcades Municipales de Garabito, de Golfito, la Federación de Municipalidades de la Región Sur, por incumplir con la prevención realizada en la resolución de las catorce horas treinta minutos del diecinueve de noviembre de dos mil siete, y rechazó por extemporáneas las presentadas por los Alcaldes Municipales de Coto Brus, Moravia y San José.

18.- Por resolución de las once horas del once de septiembre del dos mil ocho, la Presidenta a.i. de la Sala tuvo por contestadas las audiencias conferidas. (folio 356) 19.- Se prescinde de la vista señalada en los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, con base en la potestad que otorga a la Sala el numeral 9 ibídem, al estimar suficientemente fundada esta resolución en principios y normas evidentes, así como en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal.

20.- En los procedimientos se han cumplido las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,

Considerando:

I.Sobre la admisibilidad de la acción. La acción cumple los requisitos formales exigidos por la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional y es admisible por tratarse de la defensa del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, para lo cual el artículo 50 de la Constitución otorga la más amplia legitimación, la cual no requiere, en estos casos, calificación alguna del interés de los accionantes; también, su legitimación se deriva de lo dispuesto en el artículo 75 párrafo segundo de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, que permite la interposición de la acción sin requerir la existencia de un asunto previo, pendiente de resolver, ante los tribunales de justicia o en procedimientos para agotar la vía administrativa, cuando se trata de la defensa de intereses difusos, como ocurre en este caso, en que se trata de la defensa del ambiente.- Al estar impugnadas diferentes disposiciones reglamentarias, para facilitar su estudio, esta Sala resolverá en el siguiente orden lo relacionado con ellas, para luego resolver lo correspondiente a la impugnación del artículo 39 del Código de Minería.

II.- Sobre la improcedencia de la acción contra las disposiciones reglamentarias abrogada y reformada. La Sala iniciará el análisis de la demanda interpuesta por la accionante Ávila Jones, en cuanto acusa la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 135 y 159 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29300-MINAE del 18 de junio de 2007. Los numerales impugnados establecen lo siguiente:

Artículo 135.—Casos de Emergencia:

En casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada conforme a la Ley Nº 7914 y su Reglamento, y el interesado comunique de tal hecho por escrito con el visto bueno de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias a la Dirección de Geología y Minas con copia a la Secretaria Técnica Nacional Ambiental, este podrá, posterior a esa comunicación iniciar la extracción que se requiere para atender la emergencia indicada y tendrá un plazo de 4 meses para presentar copia del Plan Regulador de la emergencia y del nombramiento de la Unidad Ejecutora por parte de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

La comunicación aludida deberá contener al menos: las labores a realizar, el volumen, el nombre del geólogo o ingeniero de minas responsable de dirigir las labores extractivas y de la regencia ambiental, la fuente de material a utilizar, el sitio donde se realizarán las obras y el plazo necesario para atender la necesidad. Asimismo el interesado deberá cumplir con los métodos de extracción señalados en el Plan de Explotación.

Las obras de rehabilitación y reconstrucción de la infraestructura dañada durante la emergencia deberán estar incluidas en el Plan Regulador de la emergencia.

(Así reformado por el artículo 16 del Decreto Ejecutivo N° 29677 y por el artículo 1° del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792 de 28 de abril de 2004).

Artículo 159.—Casos de emergencia. En casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada y mientras dure la Fase Inicial o I Fase de la emergencia, conforme a la Ley Nº 7914 y su reglamento, y el interesado comunique de tal hecho por escrito a la DGM , este podrá, posterior a esa comunicación, iniciar la extracción que se requiere para atender la fase de la emergencia indicada y tendrá un plazo de 6 meses para presentar copia del Plan Regulador de la Emergencia y del nombramiento al solicitante como Unidad Ejecutora por parte de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias.

La comunicación aludida deberá contener al menos : las labores a realizar, el volumen y la fuente de material a utilizar, el sitio donde se realizarán las obras y el plazo necesario para atender la necesidad".

(Así reformado por el artículo 17 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 29677 de 12 de julio de 2001).

La Procuraduría General de la República, en su condición de órgano asesor de esta jurisdicción constitucional, las autoridades en la audiencia otorgada por esta Sala a la acción de inconstitucionalidad, y los coadyuvantes, coinciden en que no es viable la impugnación del artículo 135 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, dado que al momento de interpuesta la acción de inconstitucionalidad no se encontraba vigente. La Sala constata que la versión original del numeral 135 del mencionado Reglamento fue reformado en dos ocasiones, y finalmente derogado por el artículo 7 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777 de 18 de junio de 2007. La derogatoria entra en vigencia a partir del 5 de julio de 2007, fecha de publicación a La Gaceta. De ahí que, la derogatoria había operado un mes antes de que fuera interpuesta la inconstitucionalidad el 8 de agosto de 2007. Esta situación nos plantea una problemática, entre la necesidad de resolver la queja de la accionante que se funda en el interés por conservar la supremacía constitucional, la aplicación directa e inmediata de la Constitución, y el saneamiento del ordenamiento jurídico, en la vía de la acción de inconstitucionalidad con la eliminación de una norma por resultar repugnante a la Constitución Política, por lesionar el derecho a un medio ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. No obstante lo acusado, la Sala debe rechazar esta acción en cuanto a este extremo por cuanto ni siquiera se trata de una pérdida sobrevenida del objeto de la acción, es decir, la norma impugnada fue abrogada estando en trámite en la acción, sino, al contario, al momento de la interposición de la demanda ya no había ninguna afectación, ni existe un caso concreto en el que se discutía la aplicación de la norma que estuvo vigente - ahora derogada. Consecuentemente, lo que se pretende es la “depuración” de normas derogadas, lo cual es improcedente al carecer de la legitimación necesaria porque debe demostrarse los efectos supervivientes de la disposición cuestionada, lo cual no puede lograrse con el interés difuso a la defensa del medio ambiente. En el caso, no se alegan lesiones concretas en un juicio base, donde se demuestren o señalen perjuicios concretos en un asunto previo en el que sea medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado, por lo que, de pronunciarse este Tribunal, estaría emitiendo una opinión en abstracto o de mero interés académico e histórico. Lo mismo ocurre con el artículo 159 del Reglamento impugnado. Si bien, la Sala ha interpretado la legitimación en los temas ambientales en forma amplia, donde toda lesión al medio ambiente es susceptible de reflejarse en cada uno de los habitantes de la República, en el caso que nos ocupa, no puede concluirse de igual manera, por cuanto la base legal de los supuestos regulados por la norma están asociados estrechamente con situaciones de emergencia declaradas, y la primera fase inicial. De esta forma, según la Ley Nacional de Emergencias No. 7914 del 28 de septiembre de 1999, establecía:

“ARTÍCULO 6.- Fases de la declaración de emergencia Una declaración de emergencia está compuesta por tres fases:

• a)La fase inicial o crítica es la inmediata a la ocurrencia del evento. Incluye informar a la población, proteger en la zona siniestrada a las personas y los bienes que resulten afectados, rescatar y salvar personas y bienes, brindar la asistencia sanitaria a las víctimas, atender socialmente a los damnificados y rehabilitar de inmediato los servicios públicos esenciales.
• b)La fase intermedia o de mediano plazo se refiere a la rehabilitación de la zona afectada e incluye, al menos, la limpieza y los accesos a la zona de desastre, el traslado temporal de la población, la construcción de refugios y el aprovisionamiento.
• c)La fase de conclusión consiste en la reconstrucción de viviendas de interés social destruidas, los acueductos, los alcantarillados y los tendidos eléctricos; en general, es la fase donde se repone el funcionamiento normal de los servicios públicos afectados.

Las tres fases pueden ser objeto de atención, conforme al concepto de emergencia nacional. Para ser reconocidas por el ordenamiento jurídico, debe establecerse claramente el nexo de causa y efecto entre el evento y los daños causados que se harán constar en el plan general para atender la emergencia, según las resoluciones o los decretos adoptados para su atención.

De igual manera, la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, Ley No. 8488 que se transcribirá más adelante regula de forma más detallada, la fase inicial o crítica transcrita arriba. Lo cierto es que en ellas se encuentran las razones para actuar bajo condiciones de emergencia, sin embargo, la acción de inconstitucionalidad igualmente persigue un pronunciamiento en abstracto y de mero interés académico e histórico. Debe tomarse en cuenta que la norma se enmendó por el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31792 de 28 de abril de 2004, publicado a La Gaceta No. 94 de 14 de mayo de 2004, de manera que la disposición impugnada tampoco se encuentra vigente; los alcances de una declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad de una norma previamente reformada por el propio Poder Ejecutivo, tornaría el objeto de la acción –esta vez innecesario. Precisamente, la versión vigente –que no fue expresamente impugnada- contempla disposiciones que elevan el nivel de exigencias para la explotación de cauces de ríos y canteras para la extracción de materiales en casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada, como lo es: “… el nombre del geólogo o ingeniero de minas responsable de dirigir las labores extractivas y de la regencia ambiental, […]. Asimismo el interesado deberá cumplir con los métodos de extracción señalados en el Plan de Explotación”, situación que permitiría complementar la cuestión con lo que se dirá más abajo. Por lo expuesto, la acción debe rechazarse de plano en cuanto a estos dos extremos, como en efecto se hace.

III.- Sobre la extracción de materiales en la jurisprudencia de la Sala en casos de emergencia.- La queja de la accionante radica en que el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE del 18 de junio de 2007, que es Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades, crea procedimientos especiales para la explotación minera, por parte de las entidades públicas, particulares que contratan con éstas, y para los particulares en general, para eximirlos del requisito del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, para realizarlas en número ilimitado, lesionando así el derecho fundamental a la protección de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Para una mejor comprensión de lo que se discute en la demanda, se transcribe el numeral impugnado:

“Artículo 2º— 1. En casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada, bastará con que la municipalidad comunique a la Dirección de Geología y Minas la ubicación del área objeto de solicitud, así como las labores a realizar, la obra pública en la que se emplearán los materiales y plazo de la extracción, así como una carta de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, en la que se indique que la obra a realizar se encuentra dentro de los daños ocasionados por la emergencia. Dos días hábiles posteriores a la presentación de la comunicación, la municipalidad podrá iniciar las labores de explotación bajo la supervisión de la Dirección de Geología y Minas y de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental.

En un plazo máximo de quince días hábiles posteriores a la finalización de la extracción de los materiales; la municipalidad debe presentar un informe de cierre técnico de la explotación ante la Dirección de Geología y Minas y la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, en el cual, se especifique la cantidad de material extraído y cuales son las condiciones en que se dejó el sitio.

2. En casos de emergencias no declaradas, además de los requisitos establecidos en el inciso anterior, la municipalidad deberá aportar con la comunicación una recomendación de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias en la que se indique la necesidad de realizar las obras propuestas.

3. Si la información no se presenta en forma correcta y completa, la municipalidad no podrá iniciar las labores de explotación. En caso de ser necesario que la municipalidad subsane algún error o complete los requisitos, el Registro Nacional Minero de la Dirección de Geología y Minas, prevendrá por una única vez mediante resolución el error o requisito faltante, otorgando a la municipalidad solicitante un plazo de veinte días hábiles. De no presentarse la documentación requerida dentro del plazo otorgado, o si ésta se presentare nuevamente incompleta o incorrecta la Dirección de Geología y Minas archivará la solicitud.

4. En caso que las labores sean ejecutadas por un contratista, queda prohibido que el trabajo del contratista sea compensado con material minero hallado en el sitio. El incumplimiento a lo dispuesto en este artículo, será considerado como delito haciéndose acreedor a las sanciones previstas en el Título de los Delitos Mineros del Código de Minería.

5. En casos de emergencia nacional debidamente declarada, bastará con que la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, comunique a la Dirección de Geología y Minas la ubicación del área objeto de solicitud, así como las labores a realizar, la obra pública en la que se emplearán los materiales y una constancia en la que haga constar que la obra a realizar se encuentra dentro de los daños ocasionados por la emergencia. Dos días hábiles posteriores a la presentación de la comunicación, LA UNIDAD EJECUTORA designada por la Comisión podrá iniciar las labores de explotación bajo la supervisión de la Dirección de Geología y Minas.

6. En obras de prevención y emergencias no declaradas, LA COMISIÓN NACIONAL DE PREVENCIÓN DE RIESGOS Y ATENCIÓN DE EMERGENCIAS, comunicará a la Dirección de Geología y Minas la necesidad de realizar las obras propuestas, así corno las labores a realizar el volumen, el nombre del geólogo o ingeniero de minas responsable de dirigir las labores extractivas, el sitio donde se realizarán las obras y el plazo necesario para atender la necesidad.

7. La Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias podrá ingresar con la autorización del propietario, a los tajos, canteras y concesiones en cauces de dominio público, para extraer los materiales que sean necesarios para la realización de las obras de emergencia y primer impacto, conforme la Ley 8488.

8. Las obras de rehabilitación o reconstrucción de la emergencia, deberán estar incluidas en el Plan General de la Emergencia y las de primer impacto, prevención, emergencias no declaradas y estados de necesidad o urgencia, en las resoluciones administrativas de la CNE. La Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias podrá autorizar la utilización de los materiales extraídos en otras obras declaradas de interés nacional o cantonal que se desarrollen en terrenos demaniales. Si dichos terrenos se encontraren en administración privada, el interesado deberá pagarle el canon que fije la respectiva Municipalidad.”(lo escrito en negrita no es del original) La norma que impugna la accionante tiene fines muy puntuales que deben señalarse para su análisis. La ratio de la disposición radica precisamente en regular la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público para obras públicas en los diferentes cantones del país, en dos supuestos: la de emergencias debidamente declaradas por el Poder Ejecutivo y por emergencias no declaradas pero confirmadas por la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias. Según la normativa transcrita arriba, regula el trámite de las Municipalidades ante la Dirección de Geología y Minas, así como el de la Comisión, los requisitos necesarios para obtener el permiso de explotación, los tiempos de prevención de requisitos omitidos y de respuesta, y de la necesidad de la inclusión de las obras en el Plan General de Emergencia. Es claro que, el conflicto que apunta la accionante supone un conflicto de dos disposiciones constitucionales y sus valores inherentes, el primero, el deber del Estado de brindar respuestas excepcionales en tiempos también excepcionales, como apuntan las autoridades al contestar las audiencias respectivas, y el segundo, el artículo 50 constitucional que regula el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, que es el que reclama la accionante. Esta Sala ha resuelto oportunamente el tema, el artículo 180 de la Constitución Política regula un concepto indeterminado de “emergencia” integrado no sólo por casos de fuerza mayor o incluso el caso fortuito, para satisfacer necesidades urgentes o imprevistas en casos de guerra, conmoción interna o calamidad pública, según la terminología de la Constitución Política. Para el Estado implica la responsabilidad interna de satisfacer las necesidades que surgen de tales eventos, la obligación de brindar la ayuda más esencial a las poblaciones afectadas, es decir, el cabal cumplimiento de los estándares internacionales para un gobierno que actúa plenamente responsable (sentencia No. 2010-15072). Ante situaciones de “emergencia”, estos permisos los debe gestionar las Municipalidades con la declaratoria o recomendación respectiva de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, o por la Comisión misma (para nombrar posteriormente a una Unidad Ejecutora), éstos resultan válidas a la luz de lo que disponen las Leyes No. 7914 del 13 de octubre de 1999, 8488 del 22 de noviembre de 2005 y el numeral 180 de la Constitución Política. Sobre lo anterior, la Sala ha sostenido en la sentencia No. 2003-06322 que:

“6.- sólo el estado de necesidad declarado excepciona el cumplimiento de las normas ambientales: El estado de emergencia es fuente de Derecho, que conlleva, en algunos casos, un desplazamiento, y en otros un acrecentamiento de competencias públicas, precisamente con la finalidad de que pueda hacerle frente a la situación excepcional que se presente ("necesidades urgentes o imprevistas en casos de guerra, conmoción interna o calamidad pública"); de manera que se faculta al Poder Ejecutivo excepcionar los normales procedimientos de sus actividades o trámites, previéndose para tales casos, procedimientos excepcionales, más expeditos y simplificados. Se trata, por definición, de situaciones transitorias y que son urgentes en las que se hace necesario mantener la continuidad de los servicios públicos, de manera que se permite a la Administración improvisar una autoridad para el servicio de los intereses generales que no pueden ser sacrificados a un prurito legalista. De esta suerte, el derecho de excepción -formado por el conjunto de normas dictadas en el momento de necesidad-, deviene en inconstitucional en caso de normalidad, por cuanto se trata de un derecho esencialmente temporal, esto es, única y exclusivamente para solucionar la emergencia concreta que se enfrenta, toda vez que "[...] no es admisible un tratamiento de excepción para realizar actividad ordinaria de la administración, aunque ésta sea de carácter urgente; [...]" (sentencia número 2001-6503, supra citada).

En este sentido debe hacerse la distinción entre la "mera urgencia", término que actúa a modo de calificativo, y que en muchos casos ni siquiera es necesariamente fundamental o inminente, en tanto "[...] no es otra cosa más [que] la pronta ejecución o remedio de una situación dada, que se ha originado en los efectos de cómo ha sido manejada ella misma, [...]" (Sentencia número 3410-92, de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del diez de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y dos); por lo que bien se le puede entender como la necesidad de actuar de la Administración en determinada situación, y en la mayoría de los casos, se debe a la inercia de ésta para encontrarle solución, conforme a los instrumentos que el ordenamiento jurídico le dota; del "estado de necesidad", entendiendo por tal las situaciones eventuales esto es- no dadas en el marco de la normalidad, y de tal magnitud que pueden afectar, de manera inminente la vida y la propiedad, el interés y el orden públicos, o la seguridad públicas, de manera que no pueden ser controladas, manejadas o dominadas a partir de la normativa ordinaria de que dispone el Gobierno, y que hacen inevitable e inaplazable la intervención administrativa, incluso, al margen de la ley. Por ello, es que es contraria al Derecho de la Constitucional, no sólo la normativa, sino la actuación de las instituciones públicas que dispensen los trámites y procedimientos ordinarios para la actuación ordinaria de la Administración, y que en este caso, se refieren a la dispensa de la normativa ambiental, como lo son -por ejemplo- la realización del estudio de impacto ambiental o la solicitud de los permisos de salud. Ante situaciones de necesidad, pero que son previsibles a largo, mediano o corto plazo, no puede pretenderse la excepción del cumplimiento de las obligaciones ambientales, toda vez que se convierten en actividad ordinaria de la Administración (caso de la construcción de diques en los ríos para proteger a la población de inundaciones (sentencia número 2001-6503). Al respecto, debe tenerse claro, que para que se entienda de desarrollo constitucional la medida de emergencia, ésta debe atender única y exclusivamente a darle solución a la situación de emergencia que la motiva, y tener -además- como propósito el bien común: esto es, debe ser justa y además razonable (proporcionalidad en sentido estricto)”. (Lo resaltado en negrita es del original).

La Sala reafirma la validez de la jurisprudencia transcrita, pues en el supuesto de una emergencia declarada el principio de legalidad queda sustituido por el principio de necesidad. De ahí que en el caso de una emergencia debidamente declarada por el Poder Ejecutivo, quedan habilitadas las medidas extraordinarias reguladas en la legislación de crisis, que pretenden mitigar el impacto del evento en los seres humanos y los bienes jurídicamente tutelados en el ordenamiento jurídico, entre ellas, la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo (Ley No. 8488) en cuanto permite aplicar un régimen de excepción, como ocurre con el manejo presupuestario, lo cual fue considerado por esta Sala conforme a los parámetros de constitucionalidad, aún estando la Asamblea Legislativa en sesiones ordinarias (sentencia No. 2009-09427). Pero sigue a lo anterior, el cuestionamiento de si las disposiciones del artículo 2.2, 2.6 y 2.8 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE resultan inconstitucionales, porque bajo aquél régimen de excepcionalidad admiten gestionar los permisos de extracción de materiales sin una declaratoria oficial de emergencia. En este sentido, el Presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo señaló al contestar la audiencia otorgada en la acción, que existen supuestos de emergencia que por el área específica de afectación y su focalización geográfica, muchas veces rurales, no amerita una declaratoria de emergencia, razón por la cual, no quedaría amparada a los supuestos de la interpretación de la Sala que anteriormente se transcribió, pero que sin duda alguna exige una atención inmediata. Precisamente en la sentencia No. 2009-09427 se estableció que:

“El principio de necesidad permite una nueva función creadora [de Derecho] para enfrentar las circunstancias excepcionales o anómalas cuya urgencia es implícita. Similarmente en el Derecho Penal el estado de necesidad permite eximir la pena a un individuo, cuando se encuentra en una situación que le obliga a actuar contra el ordenamiento jurídico penal, para causar un mal pero evitar otro de mayor magnitud, que es además inminente y actual. Incluso el artículo 226 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, permite al Poder Ejecutivo prescindir de las formalidades del procedimiento, e incluso producir uno sustitutivo especial, en casos de urgencia y para evitar daños graves a las personas o irreparables a las cosas. Consecuentemente, esta Sala se encuentra frente a una situación en la cual al Poder Ejecutivo no se le prohíbe asumir sus otras atribuciones constitucionales, como ejercer la iniciativa que expresamente se le atribuye para dictar normas jurídicas, con suficiente valor y eficacia que le permita enfrentar una realidad inaplazable, coyuntural y generalizada, frente a la cual los medios legales comunes producirían resultados indeseados y a destiempo.” La Sala en la trascripción se refiere al principio de necesidad, frente a los acontecimientos de hecho generalizados en la vida o la comunidad nacional, que conllevan una interrupción anormal de ellas y que se deben enfrentar mediante una declaratoria de emergencia por parte del Poder Ejecutivo. Sin embargo, si la magnitud de los eventos no amerita tal declaratoria, resulta necesario analizar si se trata de supuestos de urgencia (no de mera urgencia), porque existe una verdadera amenaza o lesión de bienes circunscritos a personas consideradas individualmente, o a lo sumo a pequeñas localidades, pero no a la colectividad nacional. Para lo anterior, esta Sala debe determinar en consecuencia cuáles son los poderes legales que le otorgó el legislador a la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias para actuar en estas circunstancias, como órgano de desconcentración máxima adscrita a la Presidencia de la República (artículo 13 de la Ley No. 8488). A juicio de la Sala, lo que precisa es colocar en su justa dimensión la calificación de estos eventos, para analizar si frente a otras circunstancias que fueron reguladas por el legislador con menor rigurosidad, ameritan un tratamiento de excepción por parte del Poder Ejecutivo. Lo anterior, porque evidentemente hay acontecimientos que podrían poner en situaciones precarias a los gobiernos locales, como los entes públicos en primera línea ante estos eventos muy focalizados, considerados individualmente, de modo que para no lesionar las facultades de las Municipalidades, y de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias en momentos claves de atención de emergencias o prevención de riesgos y de peligro inminente, se debe analizar las competencias de la Comisión. Primero, se debe evitar las consecuencias que podrían materializarse en emergencias sobre bienes jurídicos de primer valor, como la vida y la propiedad de las personas. La línea divisoria entre una emergencia declarada y no declarada vista desde este ángulo debe ser trazada para no dejar por fuera situaciones que igualmente demandan una actuación de los entes del Estado, especialmente en respuesta a circunstancias excepcionales muy focalizadas.

“Artículo 5.- Política de gestión del riesgo. La política de gestión del riesgo constituye un eje transversal de la labor del Estado Costarricense; articula los instrumentos, los programas y los recursos públicos en acciones ordinarias y extraordinarias, institucionales y sectoriales, orientadas a evitar la ocurrencia de los desastres y la atención de las emergencias en todas sus fases.

Toda política de desarrollo del país debe incorporar tanto los elementos necesarios para un diagnóstico adecuado del riesgo y de la susceptibilidad al impacto de los desastres, así como los ejes de gestión que permitan su control”.

“Artículo 19.- Presidencia de la Comisión. El Presidente de la Junta Directiva de la Comisión será el funcionario de mayor jerarquía de la Institución y ostentará su representación judicial y extrajudicial. Dentro del cumplimiento de sus funciones deberá rendir, mediante un bono de fidelidad, una caución, por un monto que se definirá en el Reglamento a esta Ley.

Entre sus atribuciones están:

<![if !supportLists]>a. <![endif]>..

<![if !supportLists]>b. <![endif]>…

<![if !supportLists]>c. <![endif]>Servir de enlace directo entre la Presidencia de la República, los ministerios y el Consejo de Gobierno, así como asistir a las reuniones con ellos cuando sea convocado.

<![if !supportLists]>d. <![endif]>…e) …”.

“Artículo 20.- Dirección Ejecutiva. La Dirección Ejecutiva estará compuesta por un Director, quien será responsable de la administración de la Institución; se desempeñará como funcionario del régimen laboral de confianza, de libre nombramiento y remoción por parte de la Junta Directiva y estará subordinado a sus directrices y las de la Presidencia de la Comisión. Esta en la obligación de rendir cuentas por sus actuaciones, de conformidad con las normas legales y, mediante un bono de fidelidad, deberá rendir una caución, por un monto que se definirá vía reglamento.

Tendrá las siguientes atribuciones:

a) …

• b)Programar y coordinar las actividades de la Comisión con las demás instituciones públicas y privadas, para cumplir las políticas y alcanzar los objetivos de la institución, dentro de los lineamientos emitidos por el Poder Ejecutivo.
• c)… d) … e) … f)… j)…”.

“Artículo 15.- Competencias extraordinarias de la comisión. Declarado el estado de emergencia establecido en el artículo 29 de esta Ley corresponderá a la Comisión planear, coordinar, dirigir y controlar las acciones orientadas a resolver necesidades urgentes, ejecutar programas y actividades de protección, salvamento y rehabilitación. Para ello, deberá ejecutar, como mínimo, las siguientes acciones:

a) …

• f)Salvo lo dispuesto en los incisos anteriores, la Comisión atenderá, sin que medie una declaratoria de emergencia por parte del Poder Ejecutivo, las emergencias locales y menores que, por la alta frecuencia con que ocurren y la seria afectación que provocan en las comunidades, demandan la prestación de un servicio humanitario de primer impacto, consistente en la entrega de cobijas, alimentación, colchonetas y de ser necesario, la adquisición de materiales para rehabilitar los servicios básicos y habilitar albergues, así como la contratación de un máximo de cien horas máquina para la limpieza del área más afectada de la zona”. (Lo escrito en negrita no es del original).

Artículo 30.- Fases para la atención de una emergencia.- La atención de la emergencia se ejecutará en tres fases:

• a)Fase de respuesta: Fase operativa inmediata a la ocurrencia del suceso. Incluye las medidas urgentes de primer impacto orientadas a salvaguardar la vida, la infraestructura de los servicios públicos vitales, la producción de bienes y servicios vitales, la propiedad y el ambiente, mediante acciones de alerta, alarma, información pública, evacuación y reubicación temporal de personas y animales hacia sitios seguros, el salvamento, el rescate y la búsqueda de víctimas; el aprovisionamiento de los insumos básicos para la vida, tales como alimentos, ropa, agua, medicamentos y la asistencia médica, así como el resguardo de los bienes materiales, la evaluación preliminar de daños y adopción de medidas especiales u obras de mitigación debidamente justificadas para proteger a la población, la infraestructura y el ambiente.

b)…

c)…

Para que la Comisión pueda utilizar el régimen de excepción establecido en esta Ley bajo la declaratoria de emergencia, deberá existir un nexo de causalidad entre el hecho productor de la emergencia y las obras, los bienes y servicios que se pretenda contratar, de manera que las actividades ordinarias de prevención y las administrativas de la Comisión y de las demás instituciones del Estado, no podrán llevarse a cabo bajo este régimen de excepción.

Para no reconstruir la vulnerabilidad, las obras por ejecutar durante la emergencia deberán realizarse con un enfoque preventivo, orientado a que futuros eventos no vuelvan a generar un estado de emergencia igual”. (Lo escrito en negrita no es del original).

A juicio de la Sala, el último párrafo del artículo 15 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo hace referencia a un estado de urgencia que se focaliza geográficamente, de manera que su atención está restringida a casos muy concretos. En estos casos los entes e instituciones del Estado deben actuar con efectividad para la mitigación de la emergencia, y con base en la actualidad de los eventos, que demandan medidas urgentes. Conforme lo establece, el Estado es el llamado a mitigar esos peligros inminentes producto de acontecimientos recurrentes y de impacto en las comunidades bajo su influencia, cuya prevención se procura, y que no es lícito postergar. El “así como” del último párrafo del artículo 15 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo se refiere a medidas posibles de mitigación entre las citadas y otras (números apertus), dentro de los límites establecidos, pero incluidas las contempladas en el inciso a) del artículo 30 de la Ley de referencia que pudieran surgir de la necesidad de atender la situación de emergencia que se está presentando. Si el objetivo es obtener una respuesta ágil, eficiente y oportuna a la emergencia o a su inminencia, sólo la actualidad de la misma, autorizaría el otorgamiento de la explotación de canteras y cauces del demanio público, en concordancia con el artículo 2.2 y 2.6 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE, de modo que el otorgamiento de la autorización por parte de la Dirección de Geología y Minas únicamente puede ser resuelto cuando la gestión municipal se acompaña del documento de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias que recomienda las obras, o en su caso, cuando la Comisión misma realiza sus gestiones ante la Dirección de Geología y Minas. Precisamente, de conformidad con el artículo 15 de la Ley No. 8488 es el órgano encargado de resolver necesidades urgentes, ejecutar programas y actividades de protección, salvamento y rehabilitación. Pero lo más importante, es que dentro de la gestión del riesgo, le corresponde a todo el conglomerado estatal articular las acciones y esfuerzos, especialmente en eventos extraordinarios tomar las medidas de mitigación. A juicio de la Sala, bajo estos supuestos estrictamente interpretados, debe entenderse que los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental no pueden ser requeridos, dado el estado de urgencia, que conforme lo indica el numeral 30 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo, exige actualidad, debe quedar debidamente demostrado en la resolución de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, el nexo de causalidad entre el hecho productor de la emergencia y las obras, los bienes y servicios que se pretenden contratar, para enfrentar esa emergencia con eficiencia. Es importante señalar que el 2.8 del Reglamento impugnado establece para este tipo de emergencias declaradas o no declaradas por el Poder Ejecutivo, que éstas últimas estén materializadas en el Plan general de emergencias o en una resolución administrativa de la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, respectivamente. En este sentido, es el elemento sustantivo y formal para las demás actuaciones de las Administraciones involucradas, para poder extraer y utilizar los materiales en la rehabilitación o reconstrucción de las zonas afectadas, incluso de otras obras declaradas de interés nacional o cantonal que se desarrollen en terrenos demaniales. En este último caso, se trata de materiales tramitados al amparo de actividades previamente autorizadas por la Dirección de Geología y Minas, y por supuesto dentro de los límites y autorizaciones previamente dadas, como una forma de utilización racional de los recursos naturales y materiales con que debe disponer el Estado para enfrentar emergencias. Cualquier uso fuera de ese contexto sería inconstitucional y por consiguiente sujeto a la vía respectiva de la jurisdicción constitucional. A juicio de la Sala es necesario reiterar que su fin es responder con eficiencia y acorde a la actualidad de los eventos, en atención al principio de estado de necesidad y urgencia establecido en el artículo 3 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo. Todo lo anterior, no debe suponer una infracción al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, dado que la operaciones extractivas deben estar amparadas a la declaratoria o resoluciones de la Comisión Nacional de emergencias, con los cuales se tramitan los permisos respectivos. Por otra parte, en el informe del Ministro de Ambiente es claro que existen límites a la extracción de materiales otorgadas mediante concesiones, en cuanto al tiempo y en cuanto a la cantidad, según el régimen solicitado, de modo que cuando es necesario acceder a concesiones otorgadas a particulares, al ser la concesión un contrato administrativo, concede derechos reales sobre un bien dado en administración del Estado, y la normativa respeta tales intereses, no desaparece por tal motivo la obligación de indemnización posterior por la alteración unilateral del contrato por parte del Estado. En tal sentido, las disposiciones otorgan un tratamiento de derechos reales administrativos adquiridos en firme. En abono a lo anterior, con base en el artículo 2.7 del Reglamento, se estableció un argumento similar en la sentencia No. 2010-015738, y en la que se estableció, refiriéndose a la Ley de Regulación de la Extracción de Materiales de Canteras y Cauces de Dominio Público por Parte de las Municipalidades que:

“… no hay vulneración al artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, pues antes del otorgamiento de la autorización, se requiere presentar ante la Dirección de Geología y Minas el permiso del propietario del bien inmueble, desde donde se explotará y se extraerá el material autorizado. El propietario del bien consecuentemente defenderá sus derechos, autorizando con el permiso de ingreso para la extracción y transporte, o no otorgándolo, de manera que no se puede entender que exista infracción al derecho a la propiedad. De ahí que, si no se cumplen con los requisitos que exige la ley, consecuentemente no es posible entender que haya una actuación contraria al derecho a la propiedad, dado que, como se afirmó anteriormente, …”.

En cuanto al artículo 2.7 del Reglamento impugnado, es evidente que la utilización de los recursos por la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias se funda en un acto puramente voluntario del propietario, y la ausencia de tal requisito no permitiría, en el supuesto de la norma impugnada, el otorgamiento de la concesión a la municipalidad o la Comisión Nacional de Emergencias. Lo anterior, claro está sin perjuicio de la potestad de expropiar, según lo establece el artículo 35 de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo. Por lo expuesto, sobre estos extremos debe desestimarse la acción.

IV.- Sobre los estudios de impacto ambiental en los permisos de extracción de corta duración. Una vez superado la cuestión de relevancia constitucional de los permisos de extracción de materiales provenientes de canteras y cauces del demanio público, en situación de emergencia declaradas y no declaradas, regulado en la Ley y el Decreto Ejecutivo, corresponde analizar lo impugnado respecto del posible vicio de constitucionalidad en el otorgamiento de concesiones temporales, en cuanto se acusa la omisión inconstitucional de obviar los Estudios de Impacto Ambiental. Este supuesto, en el criterio de la Sala corresponde a la actividad ordinaria de las instituciones del Estado, de modo que en congruencia con los precedentes, ciertamente se requiere la integración de la normativa ambiental, artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, para que se cuantifique y califique el riesgo de daño para el medio ambiente. El artículo 39 del Código de Minería establece que:

"Artículo 39.—El Estado, por medio del MINAE, otorgará concesiones temporales a los ministerios y las municipalidades para extraer materiales de los cauces de dominio público o las canteras, en la jurisdicción de que se trate. Dichas concesiones se extenderán por un plazo máximo de ciento veinte días y deberá cumplirse el siguiente trámite:

• a)Solicitud escrita de la institución, que deberá indicar la ubicación del lugar donde se realizará la extracción.
• b)Plan de explotación y justificación del destino de los materiales, el cual deberá ser únicamente para obras públicas.
• c)Nombramiento de un profesional en el campo geológico o en ingeniería de minas, quien será el responsable y director de la explotación. En caso de inopia comprobada, podrá nombrarse a un profesional calificado, con experiencia en áreas afines.
• d)Si el concesionario no realiza las obras directamente, deberá indicar a la DGM el nombre del contratista o subcontratista encargado de ejecutarlas.
• e)Recibida la solicitud, la DGM hará una inspección y emitirá las recomendaciones del caso; si son afirmativas, emitirá la recomendación ante el ministro del Ambiente y Energía, para que otorgue el permiso respectivo, el cual deberá contener lo siguiente:
• 1)Ubicación del sitio de extracción.
• 2)Volumen autorizado.
• 3)Plazo de vigencia.
• 4)Método de extracción.
• 5)Maquinaria por utilizar.
• 6)Profesional responsable de la extracción.
• 7)Prevenciones ambientales durante la extracción temporal.

En el caso de las municipalidades y los ministerios, si la explotación dura más de ciento veinte días y desean continuar con ella deberán cumplir lo dispuesto en los artículos 72 y 73 de este Código, los cuales, una vez corrida la numeración, pasarán a ser los artículos 76 y 77, respectivamente, y su Reglamento. Todo daño ambiental será responsabilidad de la institución concesionaria o, en su caso, del contratista o el subcontratista encargado de ejecutar la obra.

Prohíbese terminantemente comercializar los materiales extraídos al amparo de una autorización otorgada por este artículo al Estado, a sus órganos y a las municipalidades. Transgredir esta disposición ocasionará la cancelación inmediata de la autorización y la aplicación de las sanciones correspondientes a los funcionarios responsables y, en su caso, al contratista o subcontratista encargado de ejecutar la obra."(la negrita no es del original) Lo primero que debe observarse es si se trata de una concesión o permiso en precario otorgados por la Dirección de Geología y Minas que el mismo Estado otorga a sus instituciones. La Ley es clara al señalar que se trata de una concesión temporal por el máximo de 120 días para los ministerios y las municipalidades, pero no otorga un derecho subjetivo a un particular como se afirma en el libelo de interposición de la acción, ni siquiera para el sujeto privado contratado por la Administración para realizar las labores de extracción, pues las consecuencias de no respetar los términos de la concesión, como lo sería comercializar los materiales, implica su cancelación, con las responsabilidades administrativas y sancionatorias correspondientes. Tiene en común con el resto de la normativa que su tramitación es expedita y sumaria, y la utilización del material debe destinarse únicamente para obras públicas. A juicio de la Sala, la norma se refiere a la actividad ordinaria de las administraciones públicas de corto plazo, para el desarrollo, conservación de la infraestructura nacional o cantonal, en una modalidad de concesión temporal. Por su simplicidad en la tramitología, se puede utilizar para realizar labores de la política de gestión del riesgo por medio de acciones ordinarias, u otras, mediante los esfuerzos que pudieran estar contempladas conforme se señala en los artículos siguientes:

“Artículo 6.- Sistema nacional de gestión del riesgo.- Constituyese el Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo, entendido como la articulación integral, organizada, coordinada y armónica de los órganos, las estructuras, las relaciones funcionales, los métodos, los procedimientos y los recursos de todas las instituciones del Estado, procurando la participación de todo el sector privado y la sociedad civil organizada.

Su propósito es la promoción y ejecución de los lineamientos de política pública que permiten tanto al Estado costarricense como a los distintos sectores de la actividad nacional, incorporar el concepto de gestión del riesgo como eje transversal de la planificación y de las prácticas del desarrollo.

El Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo se compone y se desarrolla por medio de los susbsistemas, los cuales se definirán en el Reglamento de esta Ley y contarán con una instancia de coordinación multiinstitucional”. (La negrita no es del original).

“Artículo 7.- Plan nacional de gestión del riesgo. Para la aplicación de la política de Gestión del Riesgo, la Comisión queda obligada al diseño y la ejecución del Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo, como instrumento de planificación estratégica, que permita la articulación sistémica e integral de los programas parte de los Subsistemas y, además, la delimitación de las competencias institucionales, la asignación de recursos, la organización y los mecanismo de verificación y control”.

“Artículo 8.- Inclusión de los criterios del plan nacional de gestión del riesgo. Los órganos y entes del Estado, responsables de las tareas de planificación, a la hora de elaborar los respectivos planes tomarán en cuenta las orientaciones señaladas en el Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo. Al formular y elaborar planes, programas y proyectos de desarrollo urbano, estos órganos y entes deberán considerar el componente de prevención y mitigación del riesgo”.

“Artículo 9.- Coordinación para la gestión del riesgo y atención de emergencias. El Sistema Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo se estructura por medio de las instancias de coordinación. La Administración Central, la Administración Pública Descentralizada del Estado, los gobiernos locales, el sector privado y la sociedad civil organizada, en cumplimiento del principio de coordinación, se integrarán a las estructuras técnicas u operativas que conforme la Comisión, según los alcances del artículo siguiente; sin embargo la Comisión estará facultada para conformar otras instancias de coordinación de acuerdo con los alcances del Plan Nacional de Gestión del Riesgo y sus programas”.

Como lo ha señalado la Sala en otras oportunidades, debe analizarse la constitucionalidad de la disposición cuestionada frente al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, que reconoce expresamente el derecho de todos los habitantes presentes y futuros de este país, de disfrutar de un medio ambiente saludable y en perfecto equilibrio, en los siguientes términos:

"Artículo 50.- El Estado procurará el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza.

Toda persona tiene derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológiamente equilibrado. Por ello está legitimada para denunciar los actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado.

El Estado garantizará, defenderá y preservará ese derecho. La ley determinará las responsabilidades y las sanciones correspondientes." De la norma referida se deducen varios principios rectores, entre los cuales se encuentra el de la tutela del derecho ambiental a cargo del Estado, sobre el cual ha indicado este Tribunal que:

“el Estado se constituye en el garante en la protección y tutela del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales. Es al tenor de esta disposición, en relación con los artículos 20, 69 y 89 de la Constitución Política, que nace 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 normativa ambiental. Es así como el mandato constitucional establece el deber para el Estado de garantizar, defender y preservar ese derecho” Sentencia 6322-03 de las 14:14 horas del 3 de julio del 2003.

Además, el Estado se encuentra en la obligación actuar preventivamente evitando -a través de la fiscalización y la intervención directa- la realización de actos que lesionen el medio ambiente, y en la correlativa e igualmente ineludible prohibición de fomentar su degradación. Lo anterior obliga no sólo a reconocer el derecho al medio ambiente, sino además a utilizar todos los medios material y jurídicamente válidos para su protección contra los ataques de que pueda ser objeto. En virtud de que los daños al entorno suelen ser irreparables, la fiscalización preventiva de la administración y la celeridad de las medidas que adopte, incide directamente en la magnitud de la lesión al ambiente. En razón de lo anterior, el principio precautorio ha sido reconocido por la jurisprudencia de esta Sala, otorgándole rango constitucional, entre otras, en la sentencia N. 2219-99 de las 15:18 horas del 24 de marzo de 1999. Interesa destacar el principio del uso racional de los recursos, derivado del artículo 69 constitucional, que se refiere al "uso racional de los recursos naturales". Esta Sala -en diversas resoluciones- ha establecido que la protección al ambiente debe encaminarse a la utilización adecuada e inteligente de sus elementos, y en sus relaciones naturales, socioculturales, tecnológicas y de orden político (desarrollo sostenible), para con ello salvaguardar el patrimonio al que tienen derecho las generaciones presentes y futuras. Por ello, el objetivo primordial del uso sostenible y protección del ambiente, es que a través de la producción y uso de la tecnología, se obtengan no sólo ganancias económicas, sino sobre todo un desarrollo y evolución favorable del medio ambiente y los recursos naturales con el ser humano, esto es, sin que se cause daño o perjuicio. En cuanto al cuestionamiento constitucional, es opinión de la Sala, que el inciso e) punto 7) del artículo 39 del Código de Minería, contempló los estudios de impacto ambiental dentro de las concesiones temporales cuyo máximo es de 120 días, y que reglamentariamente se fijó una cantidad específica de la extracción (20.000 metros cúbicos de material), de modo que antes del otorgamiento de la concesión, la recomendación que debe girar la Dirección de Geología y Minas al Ministro de Ambiente, debe considerar la inclusión de las prevenciones ambientales durante la extracción temporal. En la segunda acepción del Diccionario de la Real Academia Española define prevención como: “Preparación y disposición que se hace anticipadamente para evitar un riesgo o ejecutar algo”, lo cual conlleva un verdadero condicionamiento y conciliación de la pretensión administrativa de los ministerios y municipalidades con los estudios de viabilidad ambiental. Sin ellos, no podría la Dirección de Geología y Minas expedir su recomendación y mucho menos el otorgamiento de la concesión por parte del Ministro. Según lo anterior, la norma hace referencia a la sujeción de las Administraciones Públicas a la normativa ambiental, por el principio de legalidad (artículo 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, específicamente en cuanto al principio de la inderogabilidad singular de las normas reglamentarias) y el artículo 50 constitucional, conforme a la reglamentación respectiva, como por las medidas que deben tomarse en el caso concreto, para la ejecución de este tipo de extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público. En el asunto que nos ocupa, son coincidentes las opiniones de la Procuraduría General de la República, y el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, que existe un deber de integrar todo el bloque de constitucionalidad y de legalidad, con el fin de ofrecer protección al medio ambiente junto con la explotación racional y sostenida de los recursos naturales. De esta manera, el Ministro señala al Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31950-MINAE publicado a La Gaceta del 28 de septiembre de 2004, que es el Reglamento al artículo 39 del Código de Minería, y el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849-MINAE-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, que es el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, en cuanto establecen los limites a estas actividades de explotación minera, menores o iguales a veinte mil metros cúbicos, supuesto en el que cae el artículo 39 impugnado, por lo que en materia ambiental, según lo establece inciso b) del artículo 1 del Reglamento No. 31950-MINAE, la califica en la categoría B2, de Bajo Impacto Ambiental Potencial. En este sentido, el propio Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 contiene la definición de un Estudio de Impacto Ambiental más preciso y detallado para proyectos de bajo impacto ambiental, en el artículo 3.34 bis que dice:

“Estudio de Impacto Ambiental (EsIA) para actividades, obras o proyectos de bajo y moderado bajo impacto ambiental potencial: Para aquellos casos en que la actividad, obra o proyecto, por su atributos (dimensión, duración en el tiempo, localización, materiales y equipos que utiliza, y producción), se defina como de bajo o moderado bajo impacto ambiental potencial, deberá cumplir, cuando la normativa vigente le solicita de forma expresa, la presentación de un ESiA, y siguiente el principio de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad, con el trámite que la SETENA defina, siempre y cuando se cumplan de forma cabal los elementos que abarca la definición de ESiA que se incluyen en el presente Reglamento.” Se exige en consecuencia un ESiA específico para la actividad, por lo que se establece la protección desde el punto de vista ambiental y técnico. El desarrollo normativo del artículo 39 del Código de Minería exige la aplicación del ordenamiento ambiental, y en tal sentido, incorpora implícitamente el desarrollo normativo del Poder Ejecutivo, razón por la cual no puede juzgarse de inconstitucional. Más aun, para los permisos de extracción de materiales no metálicos por parte de las municipalidades e instituciones autónomas, los artículos 112, inciso 3 y, 141 inciso c) del Reglamento al Código de Minería, exigen la solicitud de la Resolución de la SETENA de aprobación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental correspondiente. Lo mismo que el artículo 1 del Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las Municipalidades, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 33777-MINAE que ordena al Alcalde presentar la resolución de la viabilidad ambiental emitida por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental. Debe agregarse además, las potestades de la Dirección de Geología y Minas en el Reglamento al Código de Minería contenido en los siguientes artículos:

Artículo 124.—De prevenciones y directrices técnicas. La Dirección de Geología y Minas tiene la competencia para realizar las inspecciones y solicitar los informes adicionales que considere necesarios para cumplir a cabalidad con su obligación, especialmente en punto al control de la actividad que se desarrolle y a la protección de los recursos naturales. El incumplimiento por parte del ente a lo requerido por la DGM, o la negativa de acatar las directrices técnicas que gire la Dirección, será causal de cancelación de la autorización.

En todo caso, en aras del principio de indubio pro natura, la DGM podrá ordenar como medida cautelar la suspensión de labores de explotación, cuando se demuestre que se ha incumplido con las condiciones técnicas y ambientales para la explotación. (la negrita no es del original) Artículo 88.—Garantía Ambiental. El monto de garantía de cumplimiento ambiental, contenido en el articulo 103 del Código de Minería, será fijado por la SETENA, siendo obligación del titular aportar al expediente administrativo, copia certificada del recibo de depósito emitido por el banco antes del inicio de labores.

El incumplimiento a lo anterior, será causal de cancelación de conformidad con los artículos 62 ó 63 del Código de Minería, según corresponda.

En caso de incumplimiento comprobado por la SETENA a las obligaciones contraídas en el estudio de impacto ambiental, o en caso de daño ambiental ocasionado en ejercicio de la actividad por incumplimiento a las normas de recuperación ambiental, la DGM procederá a cancelar el permiso o concesión, de conformidad con los artículos 62 o 63 del Código de Minería, según corresponda.

Por lo expuesto, sobre este extremo, la Sala no considera que exista vulneración al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el tanto el inciso e) punto 7 del artículo 39 del Código de Minería, sea integrado con la demás legislación ambiental, conforme al artículo 50 constitucional.

Por todo lo anterior, en relación a este extremo, debe declararse sin lugar la acción.

Por tanto:

Se declara sin lugar la acción, en cuanto al artículo 39 del Código de Minería y el artículo 2 del Reglamento para la extracción de materiales de canteras y cauces de dominio público por las municipalidades. En lo demás, se rechaza de plano la acción.

Ana Virginia Calzada M.

Presidenta Luis Paulino Mora M. Gilber Armijo S.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V. Jorge Araya G.