Moín Container Terminal Public Hearing and the Right to Citizen ParticipationAudiencia pública de la Terminal de Contenedores de Moín y derecho a la participación ciudadana

*130130680007CO* *130130680007CO* Res. No. 2013-017305 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eleven hours and thirty-two minutes of the twentieth of December of two thousand thirteen.

Amparo action filed by Myrna Ivette Pierre Dixon, bearer of identity card 7-720-310; against the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA).

Whereas:

1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:24 hours of November 14, 2013, the petitioner files an amparo action against SETENA. She states that the respondent authority violated her right to citizen participation during the public hearing (audiencia pública) held on November 9, 2013, in the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium, in central Limón, within administrative case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA, under which the project called: "New Moín Container Terminal" (Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín) is being processed. She explains that through official communication Number FSC-004-2013, she appeared in said case file and requested to be granted the floor during the cited public hearing (audiencia pública). She affirms that by official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, she was responded that during the holding of the hearing a space for questions and comments would be established, within which she could exercise the floor. She asserts that she appeared on the day of the hearing and fulfilled the requirements demanded for exercising the floor; however, during the holding of the public hearing (audiencia pública) the floor was not granted to her nor to a large number of citizens who so requested it. She adds that she presented official communication number FSC-005-20013, which bears the receipt signature of a SETENA official, which was not read during the hearing. She considers her right to citizen participation violated. She requests the Chamber to declare the action with merit, with the consequences that this entails.

2.- By Presidency resolution of 08:58 hours of November 18, 2013, the amparo was admitted for processing.

3.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 15:26 hours of December 3, 2013, Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), reports under oath that on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental evaluation (evaluación ambiental inicial) document for the "Moín Container Terminal" (Terminal de Contenedores de Moín) project was received in that office, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., to which case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned. He relates that on August 31, 2012, by resolution number 2246-2012 of August 31, 2013, it was agreed to request the developer, within a maximum period of 1 year, to present an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), in accordance with legal requirements. He indicates that said study was presented and is under analysis. He points out that due to the magnitude of the project and considering that a rigorous analysis of the highest level must be carried out, it must be clarified that at the end of May 2013, this Secretariat requested technical criteria from 32 institutions, among them: public universities, professional associations (biologists, sociologists, geologists, engineers and architects, agronomists), Museo Nacional, SENARA, SINAC, JAPDEVA and MOPT, among others, regarding the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) presented for the project in question. He affirms that of the institutions consulted, 22 of them have pronounced to date and 4 have requested an extension to provide their criteria. He maintains that on April 11, 2013, the presentation of the environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental) was published in a nationally circulated newspaper so that interested persons could present their observations to SETENA. He maintains that later the Plenary Commission ex officio agreed to the holding of a public hearing (audiencia pública) through resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, set to take place on November 9, 2013, from 08:00 to 16:00 hours at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium, in the locality of Limón. He explains that through resolutions number 2277-2013-SETENA and 2278-2013-SETENA of November 8, 2013, 4 annulment motions (incidentes de nulidad) filed against the call for a public hearing (audiencia pública) were resolved, which were dismissed; furthermore, to date, 5 annulment motions (incidentes de nulidad) regarding the public hearing (audiencia pública) are pending to be decided, as well as a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) against resolution number 2277-2013 and 25 ordinary appeals (recursos ordinarios de apelación) against resolution number 2778-2013. He argues that through a resolution at 14:19 hours of November 19, 2013, SETENA and MINAE were granted a period of 3 days to submit a report in relation to the amparo action filed by Danny Jirón Menéndez, alleging violations of the right to citizen participation of those interested in taking part in the public hearing (audiencia pública) of November 9, 2013. He mentions that the petitioner appeared in case file number D1-7968-2012; regarding the request made for her to be granted an opportunity to exercise the floor, through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, she was informed that "during the holding, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to the floor." He states that at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program of the hearing, in which the manner in which the time and opportunities for comments and questions would be utilized was indicated. He relates that among the rules established for said activity, it was clarified to the participants that the time allocated for the comments stage would be established in proportion to the number of proposed interventions; likewise, personal time transfers to speak would be accepted. He indicates that the opportunity to participate during the hearing was granted under equal conditions, including for the petitioner. He points out that ballots for questions and others for comments were distributed, regarding which no distinction was made among those present. He affirms that the amparo petitioner, like the rest of those present, had the possibility to participate by formulating the pertinent questions and comments, for which she had to fill out the respective ballots. He maintains that to participate in the hearing, it was necessary to fill out the ballots that were handed out, as was explained at the beginning of the activity. He maintains that it was also established that the time to participate would be distributed proportionally to the number of those present. He explains that the official communication to which the petitioner alludes was presented on the same day as the public hearing (audiencia pública), even when it had already started and its development had been scheduled. He argues that many of those present fostered an atmosphere of disrespect, obstructing the normal development of the hearing and the attempt at constant intimidation against SETENA officials. He clarifies that according to what was informed by the Commissioner of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública), "during the presentations, calls for attention and calls for calm were made by SETENA officials since the participants were shouting proclamations against the project, in addition to using whistles and horns, which prevented continuing with it (…)". He states that given this situation, it was impossible to avoid the suspension of the hearing due to the abrupt entrance by a group of those present onto the gymnasium court, an area where the members of this Secretariat were located; because of this, it was not possible to carry out the comments phase. He declares that, however, the ballots corresponding to comments were received and are recorded in the file of the public hearing (audiencia pública). He relates that the comment ballot delivered by the petitioner, like the others, was received without any distinction. He asserts that the breach of security measures by a group of those present generated an evident threat against the physical integrity of the officials and other persons present. He affirms that SETENA did what was within its reach to foster participation in the hearing of those interested in the project. He maintains that in addition to the public hearing (audiencia pública) ordered in the canton of Limón, other participation spaces have been applied, such as the publication of the presentation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to SETENA in the newspaper La Prensa Libre on April 11, 2013, so that interested persons could present the pertinent observations to the study; furthermore, there is the possibility of appearing in the case file or sending the corresponding environmental observations, requesting private hearings with the SETENA Plenary Commission, among others. He maintains that the observations presented by the amparo petitioner will be evaluated, so her right to participation has not been limited. He explains that the petitioner is, in reality, dissatisfied with the particular manner in which the hearing was conducted and the mechanism used for participation, which is a matter of legality. He requests the Chamber to dismiss the action.

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

Drafter Magistrate Rueda Leal; and,

Considering:

I.- Preliminary question. Before examining the case before us, it is pertinent to indicate that in light of what is stipulated in Article 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the jurisprudence and precedents of this jurisdiction are binding erga omnes, except for itself. This implies that, before new situations of fact that are similar, this Tribunal –after prior study– may decide in a different manner, without this implying any violation to the right that assists the petitioner to resort to other avenues in aid of their rights. Thus, despite the fact that in judgment number 2013-015135 at 10:30 hours of November 15, 2013, this Chamber flatly rejected an amparo action filed against SETENA, among other issues, for the sudden suspension of the public hearing (audiencia pública) related to the port project called "Moín Container Terminal" (Terminal de Contenedores de Moín); however, in this amparo, the action was admitted for processing and, unlike the aforementioned case, the merits of the matter were heard, reason for which, based on the new evidentiary and normative elements, it is appropriate to reconsider what was provided in the vote cited above.

II.- Object of the action. The petitioner alleges that SETENA violated her right to citizen participation during the public hearing (audiencia pública) held on November 9, 2013, in the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium, in central Limón, corresponding to the case file related to the New Moín Container Terminal project, since despite the fact that she requested the floor, it was not granted to her.

III.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated: a) on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental evaluation (evaluación ambiental inicial) document for the "Moín Container Terminal" (Terminal de Contenedores de Moín) project was received at SETENA, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., to which case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); b) by resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the SETENA Plenary Commission ex officio agreed to hold a public hearing (audiencia pública), to be held from 8:00 to 16:00 hours on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium, in the locality of Limón (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); c) by note received on November 4, 2013, the petitioner appeared in case file number D1-7968-2012, requesting to be granted an opportunity to exercise the floor during the public hearing (audiencia pública) to be held (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); d) by official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated to the amparo petitioner that "during the holding, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to the floor" (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); e) on November 9, 2013, the scheduled public hearing (audiencia pública) was held, which began at approximately 8:06 hours; at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program of the activity and the rules for its development, among which it was stated that: "(…) due to the order that must prevail in the celebration of the hearing, conduct that represents a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. In the event that order is not restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing on a prudential pause, requesting the intervention of security, or the suspension of the hearing" (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); f) the hearing had the following program: from 7:00 to 8:00 hours, registration of participants; from 8:00 to 8:30 hours, first and second call respectively; from 8:30 to 8:50 hours, formal start of the activity – formal presentation of SETENA – establishment of the hearing rules; from 8:50 to 9:20 hours, project description; from 9:20 to 11:00 hours, presentation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental); from 11:00 to 11:15 hours, collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 to 12:00 hours, reading of questions and answers to questions; from 12:00 to 13:00 hours, lunch break; from 13:00 to 14:00 hours, continuation of the reading of questions and answers; from 14:00 to 14:15 hours, collection and classification of comment ballots; from 14:15 to 16:00 hours, space for reply to comments; 16:00 hours, drafting of the minutes, reading and signatures – closing of the activity (report of the respondent party); g) the proceeding in question was terminated by the Secretary General of SETENA at approximately 13:40 hours, due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of the attendees, so the last scheduled phase, corresponding to "comments," did not proceed (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); h) the comment ballot delivered by the petitioner was received and incorporated into the administrative case file (see statements given under oath and evidence provided).

IV.- On constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) and its scope. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), a specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice shall declare, by an absolute majority of its members, the unconstitutionality of norms of any nature and of acts subject to Public Law. Jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch, the declaration of election made by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), and others determined by law shall not be contestable through this avenue.

Turning to the law, Article 1 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) determines that the ratio iuris of the constitutional jurisdiction is to guarantee the supremacy of the norms and principles of the Constitution and of International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica.

Thus, the parameter of constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) encompasses a normative spectrum that goes beyond the constitutional text, because it incorporates conventional law as well as constitutional principles and values.

In amparo matters, literally, section 29 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) determines that amparo is appropriate against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, in general, against any action, omission, or simple material action not based on an effective administrative act, by public servants and bodies, that has violated, violates, or threatens to violate any of those rights. Amparo shall proceed not only against arbitrary acts but also against actions or omissions based on norms erroneously interpreted or improperly applied. (Emphasis does not correspond to the original).

Consequently, at the time of exercising constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) through amparo, the Constitutional Chamber must determine, among other aspects, which constitutional or conventional rights are being violated, which resolution, act, or omission has caused the violation of constitutional relevance, and whether an improper application or erroneous interpretation of norms contrary to a correct protection of fundamental rights has occurred.

In this regard, the very particular characteristics of constitutional norms must be highlighted: their content is often abstract, they enunciate generic provisions, and their application is frequently elastic (except for some norms with a very punctual and precise mandate).

This situation is explained because constitutional regulations are at the apex of the internal normative hierarchy, so their fundamental function consists of dictating the fundamental guidelines that serve as orientation to the rest of the normative machinery, at the time that legislative and regulatory powers are developed.

What we mean is that the normative content of fundamental rights is not restricted to the hard core contemplated in the constitutional text, but inexorably encompasses the subsequent development made of it through laws and regulations. Making a fundamental right operative demands its concretion in the infra-constitutional legal system. Ergo, attempting to exercise constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) solely in the sphere of the generic and abstract norm of the Political Constitution becomes a chimera; true constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) can only be exercised through an interaction between the constitutional and infra-constitutional spheres.

For instance, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, expressly regulated in section 50 of the Political Constitution as well as in a great number of international instruments in force in Costa Rica, is impossible to protect by mere reference to the Fundamental Law. The constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) corresponding to said right can only be developed if infra-constitutional regulations are resorted to in order to ensure that the fundamental requirements established precisely to safeguard the constitutional mandate of Article 50 of the Fundamental Law are effectively fulfilled.

Thus, a project with great environmental impact will inexcusably require an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental), which is only directly demanded by Article 17 (and following and concordant articles) of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), not by the Political Constitution; however, what said section does is nothing but develop the normative guideline previously established in section 50 of the Fundamental Law.

The distinction, then, of when a matter is one of constitutionality and when of legality in amparo matters, does not depend on the type of norm used in the analysis, but on other factors, such as the intensity of the violation to the constitutional order and the technical complexity of ascertaining the material truth.

Regarding the first element, constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) is designed to act against those gross and evident violations of the constitutional order, those violations that, by their degree of intensity, manifest themselves axiomatically and violate the core or essential content of a constitutional right, what in German doctrine is called "Kern des Grundrechtes." As for the second point, amparo aspires to a swift protection of fundamental rights, so that a matter whose ascertainment of the material truth demands an intense and complex evacuation of technical evidence is incompatible with that summary nature of amparo.

In this way, issues where violations of the constitutional order are not of relevant intensity, or matters in which the processing of evidence is extremely complex, cannot be heard through amparo. In this latter case, the complainant is left with the avenue of legality, or, eventually, that of the action of unconstitutionality, when this latter avenue proves admissible according to the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), since said constitutionality process is not summary, but rather a more in-depth examination of both constitutional criteria and factual elements is consubstantial to it.

V.- On the constitutional right to participatory government. The right to citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars on which the democratic system rests. In our country, the constitutional legislator enshrined this right in Article 9 of the Political Constitution by providing that the Government of the Republic shall be popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible. This mandate of the Fundamental Law has guided a subsequent normative constitutional and infra-constitutional development. Thus, a series of mechanisms have been established seeking that the right to participatory government can be effectively applied, and not remain only on paper, such as the referendum for the approval or repeal of laws and partial reforms to the Constitution, or the popular initiative in the formation of laws (see, among others, judgment number 2005-05649 at 14:39 hours of May 11, 2005).

The right to participatory government, elevated to constitutional rank through the reform fostered by Law N° 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta N° 146 of July 31, 2003, not only signifies a recognition of the highest normative rank to the function of political control, but also constitutes a revaluation of the citizen's role in decision-making processes. By the will of the constitutional legislator, which this Chamber should not and cannot ignore, the right to participatory government stands as a fundamental pillar of our democratic regime - a matter erroneously ignored by the minority vote, which downgrades citizen participation from a right to a general principle, in clear opposition to the jurisprudential line of this Chamber as demonstrated below - which is consistent with a political system based on tolerance, pluralism, and respect for freedom.

This right to participatory government, also called the right to citizen participation, is sheltered in several international human rights instruments.

In this way, Article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." Concordant with the above, section 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly recognizes the right of citizens: "(…) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives." In the same sense, the Inter-American Democratic Charter indicates in its Article 5 that: "Representative democracy is strengthened and deepened by permanent, ethical, and responsible participation of the citizenry within a framework of legality conforming to the respective constitutional order." More vehemently, section 6 of said Charter establishes that: "It is the right and responsibility of all citizens to participate in decisions relating to their own development. This is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy." This conventional and constitutional recognition of the mentioned right represents a fundamental aspect of the democratic model of this century, in which citizen control, transparency, and accountability stand out as inherent factors of the republican system, which in turn endows political decision-making with much greater legitimacy, a key aspect when it comes to true governance.

Precisely, one of the mechanisms designed to comply with what is stipulated in Article 9 of the Constitution is the public hearing (audiencia pública), which constitutes a means through which interested persons can assert their rights, actively participating in matters of national or local relevance, and bringing to the Administration's knowledge all those anomalies or disagreements in relation to the project that is intended to be developed. Thus, the public hearing (audiencia pública) is a typical instrument of a mature democracy, through which the active participation of the citizen in public decision-making is fostered. Due to its significance, the hearing must be carried out in such a way as to guarantee the greatest participation of the people who may be affected, hence any action or omission that prevents the above implies an open violation of the fundamental rights of the participants (see, among others, judgment number 2009-018223). Regarding the participatory character of the public hearing (audiencia pública), the Political Constitution itself obligates this, since with the reform in force as of July 31, 2003, to section 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the current government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, in today's democracy, citizens enjoy, by constitutional mandate, not only the right to vote to exercise their right to participatory government, but also a great number of instruments of a diverse nature to contribute in political decision-making, which fosters that they may exercise direct influence in major public decisions. This fundamental right of citizen participation establishes that the people must be enabled to express equally both majority and minority points of view. Thus, national participation mechanisms such as the referendum or plebiscite will be as important as local ones. During the public hearing (audiencia pública), all facilities must be granted to participants so that they are informed and can make themselves heard, all within reasonableness, as the hearing cannot become an obstacle or a resource to prevent timely resolution of a particular proceeding.

Of interest for the sub examine, it is worth recalling that Article 6 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) guarantees the right to a hearing in those matters where the environment is at stake. Literally, said norm reads as follows: "Participation of the inhabitants. The State and the municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic, in the making of decisions and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment." In the same sense, section 22 of that normative body indicates the following: "Evaluation file.

Natural and legal persons, public or private, shall have the right to be heard by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) at any stage of the assessment process and in the operational phase of the work or project. The observations of interested parties will be included in the case file (expediente) and assessed for the final report (the underlined text is not from the original). The General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental), Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, compiles a series of rules for the holding of public hearings (audiencias públicas) in the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) to a specific project. Specifically, section 3 defines the public hearing as follows: “Article 3—Definitions and abbreviations. For the purposes of this regulation, the following definitions and abbreviations are used:

(…)

12. Public Hearing (Audiencia Pública): It is the presentation that SETENA orders the developer (desarrollador) and the team of environmental consultants to carry out, for a Category A activity, work, or project, when it deems it necessary, in order to inform civil society about it and its impacts, in accordance with the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), and this regulation, and other concordant regulations, as well as to listen to the opinions of those present at the hearing so that they may be analyzed in the EIA process and a decision made on their inclusion or not.” (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

In conclusion, the public hearing within the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting or denying environmental viability to a specific project becomes a clear manifestation of the constitutional right to participatory government, enshrined in Article 9 of our Political Constitution, which has been strengthened by this Constitutional Court in its jurisprudence; hence, the Chamber is called upon to guarantee it in the sub judice, with all the prerogatives and rights for both parties. An example of the impetus that this Chamber has given to citizen participation in environmental matters are the following judgments:

• 1)Judgment number 2008-12583 of 15:02 hours on August 19, 2008: "Article 50 of our Political Constitution enshrines the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, understanding this as the right of present and future generations to inhabit an environment that guarantees their health, both physical and mental. To comply with the foregoing, the constituent granted every person standing (legitimación) to denounce any violation of the environment, as a way to guarantee citizen participation in the protection of the environment, and thus comply not only with the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, but also with the democratic principle, which derives from Article one of the Political Constitution. On this particular topic, it is appropriate to mention the provisions of judgment number 2002-10693 at eighteen hours twenty minutes on November seventh, two thousand two, in which it was stated, insofar as relevant:

“i.– The right of access to environmental information. This right has two aspects, on one hand –in its active aspect– it entails the right of all persons to receive information concerning the environment, by virtue of having made a request in that regard, without having to previously demonstrate any specific interest –it being sufficient to allege the presence of a diffuse interest, which in itself has been widely accepted by this Chamber–, and such information must be made available to the petitioner as soon as possible. In this regard, access could be excepted, only under well-founded arguments that the information to be publicized adversely affects the confidentiality inherent in judicial proceedings, State secrets, and intellectual property rights. As for the passive aspect, this right of the citizen implies that correlatively, the Administration has the duty to provide anyone who requests it with information relating to the environment, both within and outside proceedings; this would include the obligation to inform about the proposed activity, the structure of the procedure, the indication of which bodies would receive opinions or challenges, among others.

ii.– The right to public participation. This aspect implies the possibility for those persons who may be affected or who have an interest in a decision concerning the environment, to express their criteria, opinions, points of view, or challenges about it from an early stage, without these needing to be subject to specific formalities in order to be taken into account. Consequently, the information given to the administered party must contain non-technical summaries, allowing people to understand the magnitude of the discussion. Likewise, it entails the existence of adequate timeframes so that, prior to participation, a stage is carried out for citizens to become informed.

iii.– The right of access to justice in environmental matters. This dimension refers to the right of citizens to have broad active standing to proceed to request the review of the measures taken in relation to the environment, especially when they consider that either of the two aforementioned aspects has been violated within the procedure.” Precisely, one of the forms of citizen participation in decision-making on environmental matters is concretized in the possibility that people have to learn about and provide their opinion regarding the various environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, this in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Organic Environmental Law, and Article 95 of the Biodiversity Law. On this specific topic, the Chamber indicated in the aforementioned vote (voto), the following:

“The environmental impact assessment procedure (procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental) is characterized as an administrative procedure with a distinguishing feature, as what it seeks is to avoid or minimize the potential configuration of environmental damage, within the execution of activities about which there is certainty regarding the harmful effect they would produce on the environment if carried out without any containment. In other words, this instrument corresponds to the materialization of the prevention principle, since faced with an activity known beforehand to be harmful to the environment, the interested party proposes a series of measures aimed at avoiding or mitigating ecological detriment, to the public body or entity –in this case SETENA– which is responsible for determining whether they are the most suitable for that purpose. Therefore, given that this procedure seeks at all times to foresee any negative consequence through a broad flow of information, it is natural to understand that one of its characteristics is that people who may be affected by the project's development can provide fundamental data or points of view, which the competent authorities, through an omission or arbitrary conduct, could ignore or set aside, consequently failing to protect the environment. Thus, the principle or right of participation implies, within the environmental impact assessment procedure, a high degree of publicity, to the point that any act or request that has a significant effect on its final outcome must be of general scope for all interested parties, so that they can exercise their opinions at any time and not be restricted to a specific procedural moment. The role of the population as a defender of a healthy environment goes 'from the cradle to the grave', that is, from the start of the productive activity as a project, to the end of its useful life, so it would not be admissible that in an exploitation intended to last for an indefinite period, even decades –as is the case of hydroelectric projects–, and of irreversible consequences, the participation of those social sectors that may be affected be limited to a procedural stage, which, like a hearing, may last only a few hours. Thus, by reason of its preventive nature, it is required that from the very moment of its initiation, a project subject to environmental impact assessment must be brought to the attention of the population for the purpose of initiating an open phenomenon of participation.” (the highlighted text is not from the original) 2) Judgment number 2010-017488 of 14:34 hours on October 19, 2010: “Regarding the public hearing for the community. Another point claimed by the appellant (recurrente) is the lack of a public hearing with the community to communicate the different consequences of the Limón sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario). In this regard, the General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat accepts, under oath, that the public hearing has indeed not been held in the community related to this project. Thus, taking into account what is stipulated in Considerando V, it is verified that the appellant is correct in his allegation and, consequently, this appeal (recurso) must be granted with regard to this point. Indeed, the refusal of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, in the judgment of this Chamber, is arbitrary and unjustified, since the present matter concerns the construction of a sanitary landfill, which undoubtedly affects the lives of the local residents and the environment. Thus, this Court considers that a public hearing where adequate communication, information, and dialogue with the population about the sanitary landfill project took place was of importance so that the residents could have a broader overview of the benefits and detriments that a project such as the one mentioned can entail. In this sense, in the criteria of this Court, the right to citizen participation was not guaranteed, because since no hearing was held in the community, the interested parties saw their possibilities of learning about the topic under discussion in greater depth limited. Thus, by reason of the foregoing, it is deemed that the present appeal (recurso) should be upheld regarding this point” (the underlined text is not from the original) 3) Judgment number 2013-009795 of 10:00 hours on July 19, 2013: “IV.- Furthermore, this Court has strengthened the right of the population to participate in matters that are of their interest and that involve the impact on the environment. On the subject it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information concerning environmental projects, or those that may cause injury to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making in these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must promote it and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information on the matter held in public offices, relating to environmental impact studies under the responsibility of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, be made available to the interested parties, for example. It was the Rio Convention that, in Principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, stating:

"The best way to deal with environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every person must have adequate information concerning the environment that public authorities possess, including information on materials and activities that pose a danger in their communities, as well as the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided." From this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues is clearly evident, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community. Precisely, through Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that very broad standing (legitimación) is admitted to denounce acts that infringe upon that right and to claim the repair of the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of achieving a public office of popular election, but also, and in this new vision, to the fact that people are offered the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these have national significance, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is thus rescued, in which they can at least have access to information about the environment that public authorities possess. The commented precept, then, encompasses the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not confined to a limited group of interests. In the matter we now analyze, our legal system already provides that individuals can even request SETENA to hold public hearings, so that the positions formulated by the communities interested in decision-making that affects the environment are taken into account, which has been enshrined in the Organic Environmental Law and its Regulation, as the appellant authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and thus assessed by the Plenary Commission (Comisión Plenaria) (…)” VI.- Constitutional, national, and international jurisprudence in which the right to participatory government or citizen participation as a fundamental right is recognized. Now, this Chamber has established criteria within its jurisprudence on public participation in decision-making that affects the community, in topics as varied as the environment, urban planning, and the modification of public service tariffs, among others. Likewise, it has recognized participatory government as a fundamental right enforceable through the amparo (tutela) remedy. Such a decision has been made regardless of the name assigned to it, since it can also be called the right to public participation or to participatory government. In all these cases, the right to participatory government is established expressly, based on Article 9 of the Political Constitution. In addition to the precedents cited in the previous Considering (Considerando), it is relevant to recall these others:

• i)Judgment number 2007-011266 of 14:35 hours on August 8, 2007: “Based on what was said in the previous Considering (Considerando), this Court deems that in the case under study there is a violation of the provisions of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, because the Public Services Regulatory Authority (Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos) did not incorporate into resolution RRG-4771-2005 a mechanism that guarantees the participation of citizens in the resolution of requests for an extraordinary increase in fuels, presented by the Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery (Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo, RECOPE). In this sense, this Chamber considers that it is clearly arbitrary for ARESEP to approve an extraordinary model for setting the prices of the fuels sold by RECOPE without publicizing the information for each specific case, because this implies that people cannot exercise their right to participate in making said decision, thereby failing to comply with the provisions of the constitutional legislator. Although this Chamber understands that in the case of the extraordinary adjustment of prices to the fuels sold by RECOPE, what is intended is the urgent re-establishment of the financial equilibrium of the relationship between provider and user that has been affected by circumstances different from those foreseen for ordinary settings, the truth is that such readjustment cannot be achieved to the detriment of the rights of the country's inhabitants, who have the power to express their opinion regarding increases in the prices of hydrocarbons, as was indicated” (the highlighted text is not from the original) ii) Judgment number 2012-017749 of 09:30 hours on December 14, 2012: “Under that context, the appealed authority injured the right of citizen participation in environmental matters, given that a hearing is held for the purpose of giving the interested parties the opportunity to express themselves, against or in favor of a decision that undoubtedly has repercussions in their legal sphere.” iii) Judgment number 2011-005516 of 12:31 hours on April 29, 2011: “Although it is true that this Chamber has recognized the existence of the right of citizen participation in matters of an environmental nature, this right must be understood, at least to be within the knowledge of this jurisdiction, for those projects that, due to their special nature and great significance or impact, may sensitively affect a community.” iv) Judgment number 2011-007962 of 10:53 hours on June 17, 2011: “Likewise, this Constitutional Court, in Judgment No. 8125-2008 of 18:22 hrs. of May 13, 2008 –with respect to the public hearings that ARESEP must organize for the interested citizenry in those cases where a tariff-setting study for public services is being processed–, stated the following: “(…) The participation of citizens in public decision-making is provided for in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, and therefore acquires the rank and force of a fundamental constitutional right. It is not a matter of deconstitutionalizing the principle of legality of the Public Administration, although it is certainly a more democratic form of government, which broadens the forums for debate on different topics that affect the community, and by virtue of which are open to citizen intervention and opinion. We are, then, facing an option already widely accepted in the evolution of the concept of democracy, and this amparo offers a magnificent opportunity to give it clear and effective validity, so that it does not remain in mere discourse.” (the highlighted text is not from the original).

This recognition of democratic government as a fundamental right has also occurred in other latitudes. For instance, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Colombia has highlighted its importance on repeated occasions. For example, in judgment number C-180 of 1994, it was specified: “The principle of democratic participation expresses not only a system of decision-making, but also a model of social and political behavior, based on the principles of pluralism, tolerance, protection of rights and freedoms, as well as on a great responsibility of citizens in defining the collective destiny.” “The concept of participatory democracy intrinsically entails the application of the democratic principles that inform political practice to spheres different from the electoral one. It entails a revaluation and vigorous dimensioning of the concept of citizen and a rethinking of their role in national life.” “It does not simply comprise the enshrinement of mechanisms for citizens to make decisions in referendums or popular consultations, or to revoke the mandate of those who have been elected, but additionally implies that the citizen can permanently participate in non-electoral decision-making processes that will significantly affect the course of their life. It thus seeks to strengthen the channels of representation, democratize them, and promote a more balanced and less unequal pluralism.” “Citizen participation in scenarios other than the electoral one fuels the concern and interest of the citizenry for collective problems; contributes to the formation of citizens capable of being interested in a sustained manner in governmental processes and, additionally, makes the realization of the ideal that every citizen has equal opportunities to achieve the personal development to which they aspire and are entitled more viable.” “In participatory democracy, the people not only elect their representatives, through the vote, but have the possibility of intervening directly in the making of certain decisions, as well as that of nullifying or modifying those that their representatives in public corporations may have adopted, either by convocation or on their own initiative, and that of revoking the mandate of those whom they have elected.” “In summary: the participation conceived within the democratic system to which reference has been made, inspires the new framework upon which the constitutional system of the Colombian State is structured. This implies the quantitative expansion of real opportunities for citizen participation, as well as its qualitative recomposition in such a way that, in addition to the political-electoral aspect, its spectrum is projected onto the planes of the individual, family, economic, and social.” In the same vein, in judgment number C-522 of 2002, the Constitutional Court of Colombia highlighted the projection of the democratic principle and citizen participation in other scenarios by virtue of its universal and expansive character. It stated then: “On the other hand, it is necessary to point out that the Political Constitution of 1991 does not restrict the democratic principle to the political sphere but extends it to multiple social spheres. The process of expanding democracy surpasses the reflection on the mechanisms of direct participation and especially emphasizes the extension of the participation of interested persons in the deliberations of collective bodies other than political ones. The development of democracy extends from the sphere of the political, in which the individual is considered as a citizen, to the social sphere where the person is taken into account in their multiplicity of roles, for example, as a worker, student, family member, member of a health provider company, consumer, etc. Faced with the extension of democracy, the Constitutional Court has indicated that the democratic principle championed by the Charter is both universal and expansive. Universal because it involves various scenarios, processes, and places both public and private, and also because the notion of politics that sustains it is nourished by everything that may validly interest the person, the community, and the State and is therefore capable of affecting the distribution, control, and allocation of power. It is expansive, therefore, because it must progressively expand, conquering new areas and permanently deepening its validity, which demands a strenuous effort for its effective construction from the main public and private actors.” VII.- Regarding the specific case. The appellant (recurrente) alleges that SETENA injured her right of citizen participation during the public hearing held on November 9, 2013, in the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in Limón, corresponding to the case file (expediente) of the project for the New Container Terminal of Moín (Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín), since despite requesting the floor, it was not granted to her.

In this regard, the Chamber considers it demonstrated that on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental assessment document (documento de evaluación ambiental inicial) for the project “Container Terminal of Moín” (Terminal de Contenedores de Moín) was received at SETENA, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., to which case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned. Likewise, it is observed that through resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the Plenary Commission of SETENA agreed to hold a public hearing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in Limón. Moreover, through a communication received at SETENA on November 4, 2013, the appellant appeared in case file number D1-7968-2012, requesting to make use of the floor during the public hearing to be held. By official letter number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated to her that “during the event, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which she may exercise her right to use the floor.” The Chamber observes that, indeed, on November 9, 2013, the public hearing in question was held with the following program: from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., registration of participants; from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., first and second call respectively; from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m., formal start of the activity – formal presentation by SETENA – establishment of the hearing rules; from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., description of the project; from 9:20 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., presentation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental); from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., reading of questions and answers to questions; from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., lunch break; from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., continuation of reading questions and answers; from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., collection and classification of forms with comments; from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., space for replies to comments; 4:00 p.m., drafting of the minutes (acta), reading and signatures – closing of the activity. Now, as was appropriate, at the beginning of the activity, the General Secretary of SETENA read the general program and explained the hearing rules, among which he specified: “(…) by reason of the order that must prevail in the holding of the hearing, conduct that represents a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. If order is not restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing on a prudential pause, requiring the intervention of security, or the suspension of the hearing.” Now, due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of those present, the mentioned hearing, instead of being suspended as had been indicated in the rules of the general program, was concluded by the General Secretary of SETENA at approximately 1:40 p.m., so that the remainder of the hearing phases did not proceed: collection and classification of forms with comments, space for replies to comments, and, finally, drafting of the minutes (acta), reading and signatures, along with the closing of the activity. Such conclusion of the hearing has been fully accredited, both based on the video provided as evidence by the General Secretary of SETENA, and based on the literal transcription of the hearing, where it was recorded: “14. Suspension of the hearing. Uriel Juárez:… par (sic) holding this public hearing, at this time we conclude it. Thank you very much!”.

In this way, instead of suspending the hearing, it was concluded, which meant excluding fundamental aspects of said session, such as the collection of comments and their replies.

It should be noted that the right to participatory governance, enshrined in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, constitutes, as explained in Considerando IV of this ruling, a constitutional guideline that radiates over legislative and regulatory development, as well as over the actions of the Administration. Precisely, in compliance with that constitutional mandate, Articles 6 and 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment and Article 3 of the General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA) Procedures require the holding of the aforementioned hearing. For it to be considered correctly held, it must have concluded completely, which in this case did not occur, and furthermore, it is particularly serious because neither the comments nor their replies would be taken into account at the time of issuing the respective final act. Thus, in the sub examine, the protection of the constitutional right to participatory governance, which may also be viewed as a principle, can only become operative if its proper safeguarding is ensured when applying and interpreting the infra-constitutional regulations that require the holding of a complete hearing, given that we are facing a gross and evident violation of the core of the said right since, as noted, essential aspects (collection of participants' comments and their replies) were omitted, despite the fact that the hearing rules, set forth at the beginning of the activity, only referred to the suspension of the activity as the most drastic measure in the event of any disturbance. As can easily be seen, this injury to participatory governance does not require any complex evidentiary diligence for its demonstration, given the clarity with which the hearing rules were established. Furthermore, attempting to claim that constitutional review is limited to the mere fact of whether or not a hearing took place, without analyzing elementary aspects of the manner in which it is conducted (as the Constitutional Chamber has been doing), implies disfiguring the constitutional right to participatory governance and leaving it as an empty shell, devoid of effective constitutional protection.

In the sub judice, SETENA itself failed to comply with the rules it established for the proper conduct of the proceeding. It should be recalled that among the guidelines agreed upon prior to the start of the hearing was that, in the event of conduct representing a breach of order, a call to order would first be made, and if it did not have the desired effects, a prudential pause would be agreed upon, security intervention would be requested, or the hearing would be suspended. The suspension of a proceeding is not the same as its conclusion. The former entails a rescheduling in order to satisfactorily conclude what was omitted. In the latter, the hearing is definitively terminated, such that it should be used only when all scheduled phases have been exhausted without omitting any relevant one. However, in the specific case, an essential element of the public hearing was eliminated: the stage intended for interested persons to express themselves, aloud, in reply to the comments. If, due to the circumstances observed on November 9, 2013, it was not possible to conclude the public proceeding, the proper course would have been for SETENA to reschedule the hearing for subsequent days and for it to be concluded as required.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Chamber is aware that the disturbances that occurred during the final outcome of the hearing are not attributable to SETENA. Likewise, this Court recognizes that the respondent authority had scheduled the active intervention of the persons present. However, in consideration of the constitutional right to participatory governance, stipulated in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber deems it necessary to order in this amparo the completion of the public hearing that was held, for the purpose of allowing those persons who had timely requested to speak during the comments phase to present their opinions aloud, for which the pertinent organizational, security, and technological measures must be taken in order to conclude the public hearing normally.

VIII.- Dissenting vote of Magistrate Jinesta Lobo, Magistrate Hernández López, and Magistrate Salazar Alvarado, with drafting by the second. We believe that this amparo must be summarily dismissed. By amending Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the reforming constituent body wished to give positivity to the Principle of Participation and thus bring the administered closer to the state decision-making process, as part of what doctrine calls "corrective mechanisms" of representative democracy. Thus, the reforming Constituent body left the means, scope, and opportunity of citizen participation to infra-constitutional regulations, except in exceptional cases. In that sense, the natural venue to monitor its compliance is ordinary justice, not constitutional jurisdiction. For that reason, the issues raised in this case are foreign and distant to the competence of this Court, namely, whether the structure of the hearing allowed the intervention of all or only some; whether the Constitution guarantees that the petitioner must present her opinion aloud even though she had submitted her comments in writing; whether the hearing was properly or improperly concluded, having ended two hours and twenty minutes before scheduled, or whether it should have only been suspended; or the legal consequences of the actions of the groups of attendees who initiated—without knowing whether intentionally or not—the outbreaks of violence that thwarted what was planned.— In the specific case, precisely, Article 22 of the Organic Law of the Environment does not define whether that participation is aloud, in writing, or in what manner the participation requirement is satisfied, which requires analysis in a proceeding that allows for extensive evidence and adversarial debate that, from our point of view, does not fit within the amparo as a fast, simple, summary, and special proceeding for the protection of fundamental human rights. It corresponds, then, to the legality review, and not to this Constitutional Court, to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct deployed (active or omissive) by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat conform or not to the infra-constitutional legal system. For the reasons indicated, we believe that the issue raised is far from the specific competencies that the Constitutional Chamber is called upon to protect, without this meaning that it does not merit analysis in the ordinary jurisdiction or that of mere administrative contentious legality, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution.

Por tanto:

The appeal is granted. Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), or whoever occupies the position in his place, is ordered to immediately proceed to conclude the public hearing of file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA, which must be held within the 15 business days following notification of this judgment, for the purpose of concluding only the omitted phases according to the hearing rules set forth at the beginning of the same. The respondent authority is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo proceeding, and fails to comply with it or fails to have it complied with, provided the crime is not more severely punished. The State is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the facts serving as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the enforcement of judgment of the administrative contentious proceeding. This judgment shall be notified to Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, or to whoever occupies the position in his place, in person. Magistrates Jinesta Lobo, Hernández López, and Salazar Alvarado issue a dissenting vote and summarily dismiss the appeal.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Acting President a.i.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fernando Salazar A. Rosa M. Abdelnour G.

Oloria Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Building of the Supreme Court of Justice, San José, Catedral District, González Lahmann Neighborhood, streets 19 and 21, avenues 8 and 6 III.- Proven facts. Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are deemed duly demonstrated: a) on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental inicial) document for the project "Moín Container Terminal" was received at SETENA, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., to which expediente number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); b) through resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the Plenary Commission of SETENA officially agreed to hold a public hearing (audiencia pública), to be held from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium in the locality of Limón (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); c) through a note received on November 4, 2013, the appellant appeared in expediente number D1-7968-2012, requesting to be granted the opportunity to speak during the public hearing to be held (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); d) through official letter number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated to the protected party that "during the event, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to speak" (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); e) on November 9, 2013, the referenced public hearing was held, which began at approximately 8:06 a.m.; at the start of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program for the activity and the rules for its development, among which it was stated that: "(...) due to the order that must prevail in the holding of the hearing, conduct that represents a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. Should order not be restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing to a prudential pause, requiring the intervention of security, or the suspension of the hearing" (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); f) the hearing had the following program: from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., registration of participants; from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., first and second call to order respectively; from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m., formal start of the activity – formal presentation by SETENA – establishment of the rules of the hearing; from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., description of the project; from 9:20 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., presentation of the Environmental Impact Study (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental); from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., reading of questions and responses to questions; from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., recess for lunch; from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., continuation of the reading of questions and responses; from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., collection and classification of comment forms; from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., space for replies to comments; 4:00 p.m., drafting of the minutes, reading, and signatures – closing of the activity (report of the respondent party); g) the proceeding in question was concluded by the Secretary General of SETENA at approximately 1:40 p.m., due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of the attendees, such that the last scheduled phase, corresponding to "comments," did not proceed (see statements given under oath and evidence provided); h) the comment form submitted by the appellant was received and incorporated into the administrative file (expediente administrativo) (see statements given under oath and evidence provided).

IV.- Regarding constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) and its scope. Pursuant to Article 10 of the Political Constitution, a specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be responsible for declaring, by an absolute majority of its members, the unconstitutionality of norms of any nature and of acts subject to Public Law. Not challengeable through this remedy are the jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch, the declaration of election made by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and others as determined by law.

Turning to the law, Article 1 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law determines that the *ratio iuris* of the constitutional jurisdiction is to guarantee the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles and of the International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in the international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica.

In this way, the parameter of constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) encompasses a normative spectrum that goes beyond the constitutional text, because it incorporates conventional law as well as constitutional principles and values.

In matters of amparo, literally, section 29 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law determines that amparo is available against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, in general, against any action, omission, or simple material act not based on an effective administrative act, by public servants and bodies, that has violated, violates, or threatens to violate any of those rights. Amparo shall be available not only against arbitrary acts, but also against actions or omissions based on erroneously interpreted or improperly applied norms. (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

Consequently, when exercising constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) through the amparo remedy, the Constitutional Chamber must determine, among other aspects, which constitutional or conventional rights are being harmed, which resolution, act, or omission has caused the harm of constitutional relevance, and whether there has been an improper application or erroneous interpretation of norms contrary to the correct protection of fundamental rights.

In this regard, the very particular characteristics of constitutional norms must be underscored: their content is often abstract, they enunciate generic provisions, and their application is frequently elastic (except for some norms with a very specific and precise mandate).

This situation is explained because constitutional regulations are at the apex of the internal normative hierarchy, such that their fundamental function consists of dictating the fundamental guidelines that serve as orientation for the rest of the normative machinery, at the time legislative and regulatory powers are developed.

What we mean is that the normative content of fundamental rights is not restricted to the hard core contemplated in the constitutional text, but inextricably encompasses the subsequent development made thereof through laws and regulations. Making a fundamental right operational demands its concretization in the infra-constitutional order. Ergo, attempting to exercise constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) solely within the scope of the generic and abstract norm of the Political Constitution becomes a chimera; true constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) can only be exercised through an interaction between the constitutional and infra-constitutional spheres.

For instance, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, expressly regulated in section 50 of the Political Constitution as well as in a number of international instruments in force in Costa Rica, is impossible to protect by mere reference to the Fundamental Law. The constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) corresponding to said right can only be developed if one turns to the infra-constitutional regulations in order to ensure that the fundamental requirements established precisely to safeguard the constitutional mandate of Article 50 of the Fundamental Law are effectively met.

Thus, a project with significant environmental impact will inexcusably require an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental), which is only directly required by Article 17 (and following and concordant articles) of the Organic Environmental Law, not by the Political Constitution; however, what said section does is nothing other than develop the normative guideline previously established in section 50 of the Fundamental Law.

The distinction, then, of when a matter is one of constitutionality and when of legality in matters of amparo, does not depend on the type of norm used in the analysis, but on other factors, such as the intensity of the harm to the constitutional order and the technical complexity of ascertaining the material truth.

Regarding the first element, constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) is designed to act against those gross and evident violations of the constitutional order, those harms that, by their degree of intensity, manifest themselves to us axiomatically and violate the nucleus or essential content of a constitutional right, which in German doctrine is called "*Kern des Grundrechtes*". As for the second point, amparo aspires to a swift protection of fundamental rights, such that a matter whose ascertainment of material truth demands an intense and complex evacuation of technical evidence is incompatible with that summary nature of amparo.

In this way, issues where violations of the constitutional order are not of relevant intensity, or matters where the processing of evidence is very complex, cannot be heard through the amparo remedy. In this latter case, the claimant has the path of legality, or, eventually, that of the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad), when this latter remedy is admissible according to the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, since said constitutional process is not summary but rather a more profound examination of both constitutional criteria and factual elements is consubstantial to it.

V.- Regarding the constitutional right to participatory government. The right to citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars upon which the democratic system rests. In our country, the constitutional legislator enshrined this right in Article 9 of the Political Constitution by providing that the Government of the Republic shall be popular, representative, participatory, alternative, and responsible. This mandate of the Fundamental Law has guided subsequent constitutional and infra-constitutional normative development. Thus, a series of mechanisms have been established that seek to ensure that the right to participatory government can be applied effectively, and does not remain only on paper, such as the referendum for the approval or repeal of laws and partial reforms to the Constitution, or the popular initiative in the formation of laws (see, among others, judgment number 2005-05649 of 2:39 p.m. on May 11, 2005).

The right to participatory government, elevated to constitutional rank through the reform introduced by Ley 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta No. 146 of July 31, 2003, not only signifies recognition of the highest normative rank for the function of political control, but also constitutes a revaluation of the citizen's role in decision-making processes. By the will of the constituent legislator, which this Chamber should not and cannot ignore, the right to participatory government stands as a fundamental pillar of our democratic regime - a matter erroneously disregarded by the dissenting vote, which lowers the category of citizen participation from a right to a general principle, in clear opposition to the jurisprudential line of this Chamber as demonstrated further on - which is consistent with a political system based on tolerance, pluralism, and respect for freedom.

This right to participatory government, also called the right to citizen participation, is sheltered in various international human rights instruments.

In this way, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 provides that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." Consistent with the above, section 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly recognizes the right of citizens: "(...) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives." In the same sense, the Inter-American Democratic Charter states in its Article 5 that: "Representative democracy is strengthened and deepened by permanent, ethical, and responsible participation of the citizenry within a framework of legality conforming to the respective constitutional order." More emphatically, section 6 of said Charter establishes that: "The participation of citizens in decisions relating to their own development is both a right and a responsibility. It is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy." This conventional and constitutional recognition of the aforementioned right represents a fundamental aspect of the democratic model of this century, in which citizen control, transparency, and accountability stand out as inherent factors of the republican system, which in turn endows political decision-making with much greater legitimacy, a key aspect when true governability is at stake.

Precisely, one of the mechanisms devised to fulfill the provisions of Article 9 of the Constitution is the public hearing (audiencia pública), which constitutes a means through which interested persons can assert their rights, actively participating in matters of national or local relevance, and bringing to the Administration's attention all those anomalies or disagreements in relation to the project intended to be developed. As such, the public hearing (audiencia pública) is a typical instrument of a mature democracy, through which the active participation of citizens in public decision-making is fostered. By its significance, the hearing must be held in such a way as to guarantee the greatest participation of the people who may be affected, hence any action or omission that prevents the foregoing implies an open violation of the fundamental rights of the participants (see, among others, judgment number 2009-018223). Regarding the participatory nature of the public hearing (audiencia pública), the Political Constitution itself mandates it, because with the reform effective since July 31, 2003, to section 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the acting government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, in today's democracy, citizens enjoy, by constitutional mandate, no longer only the right to vote to exercise their right to participatory government, but also a number of instruments of diverse nature to contribute to political decision-making, which allows them to exert direct influence on major public decisions. This fundamental right of citizen participation establishes that the people must be enabled to express themselves equally on both majority and minority points of view. Thus, both national participation mechanisms like the referendum or plebiscite, as well as local ones, will be important. During the public hearing (audiencia pública), participants must be granted all facilities so that they are informed and can make themselves heard, all within reasonableness, as the hearing cannot become an obstacle or a resource to prevent a timely resolution to a specific proceeding.

Of interest for the *sub examine*, it should be remembered that Article 6 of the Organic Environmental Law guarantees the right to a hearing in those matters where the environment is at stake. Literally, said norm reads as follows: "Participation of the inhabitants. The State and the municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic, in decision-making and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment." In the same vein, section 22 of that normative body indicates the following: "Evaluation File. Persons, physical or legal, public or private, shall have the right to be heard by the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work or project. The observations of interested parties shall be included in the file (expediente) and evaluated for the final report (the underlining is not in the original)." The General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, brings together a series of rules for holding public hearings (audiencias públicas) in the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to a specific project. Specifically, section 3 defines the public hearing (audiencia pública) in this manner: "Article 3—Definitions and abbreviations. For the purposes of this regulation, the following definitions and abbreviations are used:

(...)

12. Public Hearing (Audiencia Pública): It is the presentation that SETENA orders the developer and the team of environmental consultants to carry out, for a Category A activity, work, or project, when it deems necessary, in order to inform civil society about the same and its impacts, in accordance with the Organic Environmental Law, the Biodiversity Law, this regulation, and other concordant regulations, as well as to listen to the opinions of those present at the hearing to be analyzed in the EIA process and decide on their inclusion or not." (The emphasis does not correspond to the original).

In conclusion, the public hearing (audiencia pública) within the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting or not granting environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to a specific project becomes a clear manifestation of the constitutional right to participatory government, enthroned in Article 9 of our Political Constitution, which has been strengthened by this Constitutional Court in its jurisprudence; hence the Chamber is called to guarantee it in the *sub judice*, with all the prerogatives and rights for both parties.

An example of the impetus this Chamber has given to citizen participation (participación ciudadana) in environmental matters is the following rulings:

• 1)Ruling number 2008-12583 of 3:02 p.m. on August 19, 2008: "*Article 50 of our Political Constitution enshrines the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, understanding this as the right of present and future generations to inhabit an environment that guarantees their physical as well as mental health. To comply with the foregoing, the constituent granted every person standing (legitimación) to denounce any violation of the environment, as a way to guarantee citizen participation in the protection of the environment, and thus comply not only with the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution, but also with the democratic principle, which derives from Article 1 of the Political Constitution. On this particular topic, it is worth mentioning the provisions of ruling number 2002-10693 of six twenty in the afternoon on November 7, 2002, in which it was indicated, in pertinent part:* *“i.– The right of access to environmental information. This right has two aspects; on the one hand –in its active aspect– it entails the right of all persons to receive information concerning the environment, by virtue of having made a request in that regard, without having to previously demonstrate any specific interest –it being sufficient to allege the presence of a diffuse interest (interés difuso), which in itself has been widely accepted by this Chamber–, and said information must be made available to the petitioner as soon as possible. In this regard, access could be excepted, only under well-founded arguments that the information to be publicized adversely affects the confidentiality inherent to judicial processes, State secrets, and intellectual property rights. Regarding the passive aspect, this citizen's right implies that correlatively, the Administration has the duty to provide information relating to the environment to whoever requests it, both within and outside of procedures; this would include the obligation to inform about the proposed activity, the structure of the procedure, the indication of which would be the bodies to receive opinions or questions, among others.* *ii.– The right to public participation (participación pública). This aspect implies the possibility for those persons who may be affected or who have an interest in a decision regarding the environment, to express their criteria, opinions, points of view or questions about it early on, without these having to be subjected to specific formalities in order to be taken into account. Consequently, the information given to the administered party must contain non-technical summaries, allowing people to understand the magnitude of the discussion. Likewise, it entails the existence of adequate time periods so that, prior to participation, a stage is carried out for citizens to be informed.* *iii.– The right of access to justice in environmental matters. This dimension refers to the right of citizens to have broad active standing (legitimación activa) to proceed to request the review of measures taken in relation to the environment, especially when they consider that any of the two previously cited aspects have been violated within the procedure.”* Precisely, one of the forms of citizen participation in decision-making on environmental matters materializes in the possibility that people have to know and give their opinion regarding the different environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) that are submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), this in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), and Article 95 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad). On this specific topic, the Chamber indicated in the aforementioned vote (voto) the following:

“The environmental impact assessment procedure (procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental) is characterized by being an administrative procedure with a differentiating note, because what it seeks is to avoid or minimize the eventual configuration of environmental damage, within the execution of activities about which there is certainty regarding the harmful effect they would produce on the environment, if carried out without any containment. In other words, this instrument corresponds to the materialization of the principle of prevention (principio de prevención), since in the face of an activity that is known in advance to be harmful to the environment, the interested party proposes a series of measures aimed at avoiding or mitigating ecological detriment, to the public body or entity –in this case SETENA– which is responsible for determining if they are the most appropriate for such purpose. Therefore, given that this procedure seeks at all times to foresee any negative consequence, through a broad flow of information, it is natural to understand that one of its characteristics is that the people who may be affected by the development of the project can provide fundamental data or points of view, which the competent authorities, as a result of an omissive or arbitrary conduct, could ignore or set aside, consequently leaving the environment unprotected. It is thus how the principle or right of participation (principio o derecho de participación) implies, within the environmental impact assessment procedure, a high degree of publicity, to the point that any act or request that has a significant effect on its final result must be of general scope for all interested parties, so that these can exercise their opinions at any time and not be pigeonholed into a specific procedural moment. The role of the population as a defender of a healthy environment goes “from the cradle to the grave,” that is, from the beginning of the productive activity as a project, until the end of its useful life, so it would not be admissible that in an exploitation aimed at lasting for an indefinite period of time, even decades –as is the case of hydroelectric projects–, and with irreversible consequences, the participation of those social sectors that may be affected be limited to a procedural stage, which, like a hearing (audiencia), can last only a few hours. Thus, by reason of its preventive nature, it is required that from the very moment of its initiation, a project subject to an environmental impact assessment must be brought to the attention of the population for the purpose of initiating an open phenomenon of participation.” (the highlighting is not from the original) 2) Ruling number 2010-017488 of 2:34 p.m. on October 19, 2010: *“Regarding the public hearing (audiencia pública) to the community. Another point claimed by the appellant is the lack of a public hearing for the community to communicate the different consequences of the Limón landfill (relleno sanitario). In this regard, the General Secretary of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental) accepts, under oath, that indeed the public hearing has not been held in the community related to this project. Thus, taking into account what is stipulated in Considering V (considerando V), it is verified that the appellant is right in his allegation and, consequently, this appeal must be granted with regard to this point. Indeed, the refusal of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, in the judgment of this Chamber, is arbitrary and unjustified, because the present matter concerns the construction of a landfill, which undoubtedly affects the lives of the local residents and the environment. Thus, this Court considers that a public hearing where adequate communication, information and dialogue with the population about the landfill project was provided was of importance so that the residents could have a broader panorama of the benefits and damages that a project such as the aforementioned may entail. In that sense, in the opinion of this Court, the right to citizen participation was not guaranteed, because by not having held any hearing in the community, the interested parties saw their possibilities of knowing more in depth the topic under discussion limited. Thus, by reason of the foregoing, it is deemed that the present appeal must be accepted with regard to this point”* (the underlining is not from the original) 3) Ruling number 2013-009795 of 10:00 a.m. on July 19, 2013: *“IV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right that the population has to participate in those matters that are of their interest and that involve the affectation of the environment. On the subject, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information relating to environmental projects, or those that may cause an injury to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making on these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must promote it and respect it when it occurs (see rulings number 2001-10466, 2003-6322 and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held in public offices on the matter, relating to environmental impact studies in charge of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat, for example, be made available to interested parties. It was the Rio Convention that in principle 10 elevated this participation to the rank of principle in environmental matters, by stating:* *"The best way to deal with environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every person must have adequate access to environmental information held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided."* *From this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues is clearly evident, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community. Precisely, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Legislative Assembly reformed Article 50 of the Political Constitution, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. The foregoing has brought as a consequence, moreover, that a very broad standing to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused is admitted, through effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternative and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration to attain a public office of popular election, but, additionally and in this new vision, to that of offering people the real opportunity to contribute to the making of political decisions of the State, especially when these have national significance, or eventually could affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9 and 50 of the Constitution, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is thus rescued, in which they can at least have access to information on the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, then, incorporates the cited principle through access to the information available and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter we now analyze, our legal system already foresees that individuals can request even SETENA to carry out public hearings, for the purpose of taking into account the positions formulated by the interested communities in decision-making that affects the environment, which has been included in the Organic Environmental Law and its Regulation, as the appealed authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and evaluated as such by the Plenary Commission (…)”* VI.- Constitutional, national and international jurisprudence, in which the right to participatory government or citizen participation is recognized as a fundamental right. Now, this Chamber has established criteria within its jurisprudence on public participation in decision-making that affects the community, on topics as varied as the environment, urban planning and the modification of tariffs in public services, among others. Likewise, it has recognized participatory government as a fundamental right protectable by means of amparo. Such decision has been made independently of the name assigned to it, since it can also be called the right to public participation or to participatory government. In all these cases, the right to participatory government is established expressly, based on Article 9 of the Political Constitution. In addition to the precedents cited in the previous considerando, it is relevant to recall these others:

• i)Ruling number 2007-011266 of 2:35 p.m. on August 8, 2007: “*Based on what was stated in the previous considerando, this Court considers that in the case under study there is a violation of the provisions of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, because the Regulatory Authority of Public Services did not incorporate in resolution RRG-4771-2005 a mechanism that guarantees the participation of citizens in the resolution of requests for an extraordinary increase in fuels, presented by the Costa Rican Petroleum Refinery (Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo, RECOPE). In that sense, this Chamber considers that it is absolutely arbitrary for ARESEP to approve an extraordinary model for setting the prices of fuels sold by RECOPE without publicizing the information for each specific case, because this implies that people cannot exercise their right to participate in making said decision, thus failing to comply with the provisions of the constitutional legislator. Although this Chamber understands that in the case of the extraordinary adjustment of prices for fuels sold by RECOPE, what is intended is the urgent restoration of the financial equilibrium of the relationship between provider and user that has been affected by circumstances different from those foreseen for ordinary settings, the truth is that such readjustment cannot be achieved to the detriment of the rights of the country's inhabitants, who have the power to express their opinion regarding increases in the prices of hydrocarbons, just as indicated*” (the highlighting is not from the original) ii) Ruling number 2012-017749 of 9:30 a.m. on December 14, 2012: “*Under that context, the appealed authority injured the right of citizen participation in environmental matters, given that a hearing is held with the purpose of giving interested parties the opportunity to express themselves, against or in favor of a decision that has, undoubtedly, repercussions on their legal sphere.*” iii) Ruling number 2011-005516 of 12:31 p.m. on April 29, 2011: “*Although it is true this Chamber has recognized the existence of the right to citizen participation in matters of an environmental nature, this right must be understood, at least to be cognizable by this jurisdiction, for those projects that due to their special nature and great significance or affectation can sensitively affect a community.*” iv) Ruling number 2011-007962 of 10:53 a.m. on June 17, 2011: “*Similarly, this Constitutional Court, in Ruling No. 8125-2008 of 18:22 hrs. on May 13, 2008 -with regard to the public hearings that ARESEP must organize for interested citizens in those cases in which a tariff-setting study for public services is being processed-, estimated the following: “(…) The participation of citizens in public decision-making is foreseen in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, for which it acquires the rank and force of a fundamental constitutional right. It is not a matter of a deconstitutionalization of the principle of legality of the Public Administration, although it is, of course, a more democratic form of government, which broadens the forums for debate on different topics that affect the community, and which by virtue thereof, are left open to citizen intervention and opinion. We are, then, before an option already widely accepted in the evolution of the concept of democracy and this amparo offers a magnificent opportunity to give it clear and effective validity, so that it does not remain mere discourse.*” (the highlighting is not from the original).

This recognition of democratic government as a fundamental right has also occurred in other latitudes. For example, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Colombia has highlighted its importance on repeated occasions. For example, in ruling number C-180 of 1994, the following was specified: “*The principle of democratic participation expresses not only a system of decision-making, but a model of social and political behavior, based on the principles of pluralism, tolerance, protection of rights and liberties as well as a great responsibility of citizens in defining the collective destiny.*” *“The concept of participatory democracy entails the application of the democratic principles that inform political practice to spheres different from the electoral one. It entails a revaluation and a vigorous dimensioning of the concept of citizen and a rethinking of their role in national life.”* *“It does not simply comprise the consecration of mechanisms for citizens to make decisions in referendums or in popular consultations, or to revoke the mandate of those who have been elected, but additionally implies that the citizen can permanently participate in non-electoral decision-making processes that will significantly impact the course of their life. It seeks thus to strengthen the channels of representation, democratize them and promote a more balanced and less unequal pluralism.”* *“Citizen participation in scenarios other than the electoral one fuels the concern and interest of the citizenry for collective problems; contributes to the formation of citizens capable of being interested in a sustained manner in governmental processes and, additionally, makes more viable the realization of the ideal that every citizen has equal opportunities to achieve the personal development to which they aspire and have a right.”* *“In participatory democracy, the people not only elect their representatives, by means of the vote, but also have the possibility of intervening directly in the making of certain decisions, as well as that of nullifying or modifying those that their representatives in public corporations have adopted, whether by convocation or by their own initiative, and that of revoking the mandate of those they have elected.”* *“In synthesis: the participation conceived within the democratic system to which reference has been made, inspires the new framework upon which the constitutional system of the Colombian State is structured. This implies the quantitative expansion of real opportunities for citizen participation, as well as its qualitative recomposition in a way that, in addition to the political-electoral aspect, its spectrum is projected to the planes of the individual, family, economic and social.”* In the same vein, in ruling number C-522 of 2002, the Constitutional Court of Colombia highlighted the projection of the democratic principle and of citizen participation in other scenarios by virtue of its universal and expansive nature.

He then stated: “<i>Moreover, it is necessary to point out that the Political Constitution of 1991 does not restrict the democratic principle to the political sphere but extends it to multiple social spheres. The process of expanding democracy goes beyond reflection on mechanisms of direct participation and especially emphasizes the extension of participation by interested persons in the deliberations of collective bodies other than political ones. The development of democracy extends from the political sphere, in which the individual is considered a citizen, to the social sphere where the person is taken into account in their multiplicity of roles, for example, as a worker, student, family member, member of a health care company, consumer, etc. In light of the expansion of democracy, the Constitutional Court has pointed out that the democratic principle that the Charter upholds is both universal and expansive. Universal because it engages various scenarios, processes, and places, both public and private, and also because the notion of politics that sustains it is nourished by everything that may validly interest the person, the community, and the State and is therefore capable of affecting the distribution, control, and assignment of power. It is expansive because it must progressively broaden, conquering new areas and permanently deepening its validity, which demands a strenuous effort for its effective construction from the main public and private actors</i>”.</span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;VII.- Regarding the specific case. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt; line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>The appellant alleges that SETENA violated her right to citizen participation during the public hearing held on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in Limón, corresponding to the file for the Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín project, since despite requesting the floor, she was not granted it. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this regard, the Chamber considers it proven that on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental inicial) document for the “Terminal de Contenedores de Moín” project, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., was received at SETENA, to which file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned. Likewise, it is observed that through resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the Plenary Commission of SETENA agreed to hold a public hearing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium in Limón. On the other hand, through a note received at SETENA on November 4, 2013, the appellant appeared in file number D1-7968-2012, requesting to speak during the public hearing to be held. Through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated that “<i>during the event, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to speak.” </i>The Chamber observes that, indeed, on November 9, 2013, the public hearing in question was held with the following program: from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., registration of participants; from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., first and second call, respectively; from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m., formal start of the activity – formal presentation by SETENA – establishment of the hearing rules; from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., project description; from 9:20 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., presentation of the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental, EIA); from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., reading of questions and answers to questions; from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., lunch break; from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., continuation of the reading of questions and answers; from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., collection and classification of comment forms; from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., space for replies to comments; 4:00 p.m., preparation of the minutes, reading, and signatures – closing of the activity. Now then, as was appropriate, at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program and explained the hearing rules, among which he specified: “<i>(…) due to the order that must prevail in the holding of the hearing, behaviors that represent a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. If order is not restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing to a prudent pause, requiring the intervention of security, or <u>the suspension of the hearing</u>”. </i>Now then, due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of those present, the aforementioned hearing, instead of being suspended as had been indicated in the general program rules, was brought to an end by the Secretary General of SETENA at approximately 1:40 p.m., such that the remaining phases of the hearing were not carried out: collection and classification of comment forms, space for replies to comments, and, finally, preparation of the minutes, reading, and signatures, along with the closing of the activity. This conclusion of the hearing has been fully accredited, both based on the video provided as evidence by the Secretary General of SETENA, and based on the literal transcript of the hearing, where it was recorded: “<i>14. Suspension of the hearing. Uriel Juárez:… par (sic) holding this public hearing, at this moment we bring it to an end. Thank you very much!”.</i></span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, instead of suspending the hearing, it was brought to an end, which implied excluding fundamental aspects of said session, such as the collection of comments and their replies. It should be noted that the right to participatory government, enshrined in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, constitutes, as explained in Considerando IV of this ruling, a guideline of constitutional orientation that permeates legislative and regulatory development, as well as the actions of the Administration. Precisely, in accordance with this constitutional mandate, numerals 6 and 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and 3 of the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental require the holding of the aforementioned hearing. For it to be considered correctly held, it should have concluded completely, which did not occur in this case, and, moreover, this is particularly serious, because neither the comments nor their replies would come to be taken into account at the time of issuance of the respective final act. This being the case, in the <i>sub examine</i>, the protection of the constitutional right to participatory government, which can also be seen as a principle, can only become operative if its correct safeguarding is ensured when applying and interpreting the infra-constitutional regulations that require the holding of a complete hearing, given that we are facing a gross and evident violation of the hard core of the aforementioned right since, as noted, essential aspects (collection of participants' comments and their replies) have come to be left out, despite the fact that the hearing rules, set forth at the beginning of the activity, only referred to the suspension of the activity as the most drastic measure in the event of some disturbance.<span style='color:navy'> </span>As is easily noted, this injury to participatory government does not require any complex evidentiary diligence for its demonstration, given the clarity with which the hearing rules were established. Furthermore, to claim that constitutional review is limited to the mere fact of whether or not a hearing took place, without analyzing basic aspects of the manner in which it is conducted (as the Constitutional Chamber has been doing), implies disfiguring the constitutional right to participatory government and leaving it as an empty shell, devoid of effective constitutional protection.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In the <i>sub judice</i>, SETENA itself breached the rules that it itself established for the proper conduct of the proceeding. It should be remembered that among the guidelines agreed upon prior to the start of the hearing was that, in the event of behaviors representing a breach of order, first a call to order would be made and if this did not produce the desired effects, a prudent pause would be agreed upon, the intervention of security would be requested, or the hearing would be <u>suspended</u>. The suspension of a proceeding is not the same as its conclusion. The former entails a rescheduling in order to satisfactorily complete what was omitted. In the second, the hearing is definitively terminated, such that it must be used when all scheduled phases have been exhausted without omitting any relevant one. However, in the specific case, an essential element of the public hearing was eliminated: the stage intended for interested persons to express themselves, aloud, for the reply to comments. If, due to the circumstances verified on November 9, 2013, it was not possible to conclude the public proceeding, the appropriate course of action would have been for SETENA to reschedule the hearing for later days and for it to be concluded as was appropriate. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Without detriment to what has been noted, the Chamber is aware that the disturbances that occurred during the final outcome of the hearing are not attributable to SETENA. Likewise, this Court recognizes that the respondent authority had scheduled the active intervention of the persons present. However, in consideration of the constitutional right to participatory government, stipulated in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber deems it necessary to order in this amparo the conclusion of the public hearing held, with the purpose that the persons who had timely requested the floor during the comments phase may express their opinions aloud, for which purpose the pertinent organizational, security, and technological measures must be taken in order to conclude the public hearing normally. </span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;VIII.- Dissenting vote of Magistrate Jinesta Lobo, Magistrate Hernández López, and Magistrate Salazar Alvarado, with drafting by the second. </span></b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>We consider that this amparo must be rejected outright. By modifying Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the reforming constituent body sought to give positivity to the Principle of Participation and thus bring the administered closer to the state decision-making process, as part of what the doctrine calls “correction mechanisms” of representative democracy. Thus, the reforming Constituent body left the means, scope, and timing of citizen participation to infra-constitutional regulations, except in exceptional cases. In that sense, the natural venue to monitor its compliance is ordinary justice and not constitutional jurisdiction. For this reason, the questions raised in the case are foreign and distant to the competence of this Court, namely, whether the structure of the hearing allowed the intervention of all or only some; whether the Constitution guarantees that the appellant must express her opinion aloud even though she submitted her comments in writing; whether the hearing was ended well or badly, having been concluded two hours and twenty minutes before scheduled, or whether it should only have been suspended; or the legal consequences of the conduct of the groups of attendees who initiated -without knowing if deliberately or not- the outbreaks of violence that ruined what was scheduled.- In the specific case, precisely Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente does not define whether that participation is aloud, in writing, or in what manner the requirement of participation is satisfied, which requires analysis in a process that allows the broadness of evidence and contradictory proceedings that, from our point of view, does not fit within the amparo as a rapid, simple, summary, and special process for the protection of fundamental human rights. It therefore falls under the control of legality and not to this Constitutional Court to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct displayed (active or omitted) by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental conform or not to the infra-constitutional legal system. For the reasons indicated, we consider that the issue raised is far from the specific competencies that the Constitutional Chamber is called upon to protect, without this meaning that it does not deserve analysis in the ordinary jurisdiction or that of mere contentious-administrative legality, in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution.</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p align=center style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt; margin-left:0cm;text-align:center;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Therefore:</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style='margin-top:5.05pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.05pt;margin-left: 0cm;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The appeal is granted. Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or whoever holds the position in his stead, is ordered to <u>immediately</u> proceed to conclude the public hearing of file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA, which must be held within the 15 business days following the notification of this judgment, with the purpose of concluding only the omitted phases according to the hearing rules set forth at the beginning thereof. The respondent authority is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that must be complied with or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal, and does not comply with it or does not enforce it, provided that the crime is not more severely punished. The State is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts that serve as the basis for this declaration, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative court. Notify this judgment to Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, or to whoever holds the position in his stead, personally. Magistrates Jinesta Lobo, Hernández López, and Salazar Alvarado dissent and reject the appeal outright.-</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>Gilbert Armijo S.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%; mso-ansi-language:EN'>Presidente a.i.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;text-indent:34.0pt; line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Ernesto Jinesta L. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Fernando Cruz C.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Paul Rueda L. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Nancy Hernández L.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Luis Fernando Salazar A. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rosa M. Abdelnour G.</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:34.0pt;line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Oloria</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size: 14.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;</span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> <p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>EXPEDIENTE N° </span></b><b><span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;mso-ansi-language:EN'>13-013068-0007-CO </span></b><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #010101 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .75pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm'> <div style='margin-top:1.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Teléfonos: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6</span><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> Nº 2013-017305 **SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at eleven hours and thirty-two minutes on the twentieth of December, two thousand thirteen.** An amparo action (Recurso de amparo) filed by Myrna Ivette Pierre Dixon, bearer of identity card 7-720-310; against the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA).

**Resultando:** **1.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:24 a.m. on November 14, 2013, the petitioner files an amparo action against SETENA. She states that the respondent authority violated her right to citizen participation during the public hearing held on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in downtown Limón, within administrative case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA, under which the project denominated: “New Moín Container Terminal” (Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín) is being processed. She explains that through official communication Number FSC-004-2013, she appeared in that case file and requested that she be granted the right to speak during said public hearing. She affirms that through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, she was answered that during the holding of the hearing, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which she could exercise her right to speak. She assures that she appeared on the day of the hearing and fulfilled the requirements demanded for exercising the right to speak; nevertheless, during the holding of the public hearing, the right to speak was not granted to her, nor was it granted to a large number of citizens who likewise requested it. She adds that she submitted official communication number FSC-005-20013, which bears the receipt signature of a SETENA official, which was not read during the hearing. She considers her right to citizen participation infringed. She requests the Chamber to declare the action with merit, with the consequences that this implies.

**2.-** By ruling of the Presidency at 8:58 a.m. on November 18, 2013, the amparo was given course.

**3.-** By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 3:26 p.m. on December 3, 2013, Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA), reports under oath that on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental assessment (evaluación ambiental inicial) document for the "Moín Container Terminal" project, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., was received at that office, to which case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned. He relates that on August 31, 2012, through ruling number 2246-2012 of August 31, 2013, it was agreed to request the developer, within a maximum period of 1 year, to submit an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental, EIA), in accordance with legal requirements. He indicates that said assessment was submitted and is in the analysis stage. He points out that due to the magnitude of the project and considering that a rigorous analysis of the highest level must be carried out, it must be clarified that in late May 2013, that Secretariat requested technical opinions from 32 institutions, among them: public universities, professional associations (biologists, sociologists, geologists, engineers and architects, agronomists), the National Museum, SENARA, SINAC, JAPDEVA, and MOPT, among others, regarding the environmental impact assessment submitted for the project in question. He states that of the institutions consulted, to date 22 of them have made pronouncements and 4 have requested an extension to provide their opinion. He maintains that on April 11, 2013, the submission of the environmental impact assessment was published in a nationally circulated newspaper so that interested persons could submit their observations to SETENA. He maintains that subsequently the Plenary Commission officially agreed to hold a public hearing through ruling number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, set to take place on November 9, 2013, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium, in the locality of Limón. He explains that through rulings number 2277-2013-SETENA and 2278-2013-SETENA of November 8, 2013, 4 nullity pleas (incidentes de nulidad) filed against the call for the public hearing were resolved, which were resolved without merit; furthermore, 5 nullity pleas against the public hearing are currently pending, as well as a motion for revocation against ruling number 2277-2013 and 25 ordinary appeals against ruling number 2778-2013. He argues that by ruling at 2:19 p.m. on November 19, 2013, SETENA and MINAE were granted a period of 3 days to submit a report in relation to the amparo action filed by Danny Jirón Menéndez, alleging violations of the right to citizen participation of those interested in taking part in the public hearing of November 9, 2013. He mentions that the petitioner appeared in case file number D1-7968-2012; regarding the request made to be granted an opportunity to exercise her right to speak, through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, she was informed that “*during the holding, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to speak*.” He states that at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program of the hearing, which indicated the manner in which time and opportunities for comments and questions would be used. He relates that among the rules established for said activity, it was clarified to the participants that the time allotted for the comments stage would be established in proportion to the number of proposed interventions; likewise, personal assignments of time to speak would be admitted. He indicates that the opportunity to participate during the hearing was granted under equal conditions, including for the petitioner. He points out that ballots for questions and others for comments were distributed, regarding which no distinction was made among those present. He affirms that the petitioner, like the rest of those present, had the possibility of participating by formulating pertinent questions and comments, for which she had to fill out the respective ballots. He maintains that to participate in the hearing it was necessary to fill out the ballots that were handed out, as was explained at the beginning of the activity. He maintains that it was also established that the time to participate would be distributed proportionally to the number of those present. He explains that the official communication to which the petitioner alludes was submitted the very day of the public hearing, even after it had begun and its development had been scheduled. He argues that many of those present fostered an atmosphere of disrespect, hindering the normal development of the hearing and a constant attempt at intimidation against SETENA officials. He clarifies that according to what was reported by the Commissioner of the Ministry of Public Security, “*during the presentations, calls to order and calls for calm were made by SETENA officials, as participants shouted slogans against the project, in addition to using whistles and horns, which made it impossible to continue with it (…)*.” He states that faced with this situation, it was impossible to avoid the suspension of the hearing due to the abrupt entry by a group of those present onto the gymnasium court, the area where the members of that Secretariat were located; because of this, it was not possible to carry out the comments phase. He states that, however, the corresponding comment ballots were received and are recorded in the public hearing file. He relates that the comment ballot delivered by the petitioner, like all the others, was received without any distinction. He assures that the breach of security measures by a group of those present generated an evident threat against the physical integrity of the officials and other persons present. He affirms that SETENA did what was within its reach to foster participation in the hearing by those interested in the project. He maintains that in addition to the public hearing ordered in the canton of Limón, other spaces for participation have been applied, such as the publication of the submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental) to SETENA in the newspaper La Prensa Libre on April 11, 2013, so that interested persons could present pertinent observations to the assessment; furthermore, there is the possibility of appearing in the case file or submitting the corresponding environmental observations, requesting private hearings with the Plenary Commission of SETENA, among others. He maintains that the observations presented by the petitioner will be assessed, such that her right to participation has not been limited. He explains that the petitioner is, in reality, dissatisfied with the particular manner in which the hearing unfolded and the mechanism used for participation, which is a matter of legality. He requests the Chamber to declare the action without merit.

**4.-** The legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings followed.

Drafted by Magistrate **Rueda Leal**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- Preliminary Matter.** Before examining the case before us, it is pertinent to indicate that in light of the provisions of article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the jurisprudence and precedents of this court are binding *erga omnes*, except for itself. This implies that, faced with new factual situations that are similar, this Court – after prior review – may decide differently, without this implying any violation of the right of the petitioner to resort to other avenues in aid of their rights. Thus, even though in ruling number 2013-015135 at 10:30 a.m. on November 15, 2013, this Chamber flatly rejected an amparo action filed against SETENA, among other matters, due to the sudden suspension of the public hearing related to the port project called “Moín Container Terminal”; however, in this amparo, the action was given course and, unlike the aforementioned case, the merits of the matter were indeed heard, which is why, based on the new evidentiary and normative elements, it is appropriate to reconsider the provisions in the vote *supra* cited.

**II.- Object of the Action.** The petitioner alleges that SETENA violated her right to citizen participation during the public hearing held on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in downtown Limón, corresponding to the case file related to the New Moín Container Terminal project, given that despite having requested the right to speak, it was not granted to her.

**III.- Proven Facts.** Of importance for the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly proven: **a)** on May 25, 2012, the initial environmental assessment document for the "Moín Container Terminal" project, submitted on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., was received at SETENA, to which case file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **b)** through ruling number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the Plenary Commission of SETENA officially agreed to hold a public hearing, to take place from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez Gymnasium in the locality of Limón (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **c)** through a note received on November 4, 2013, the petitioner appeared in case file number D1-7968-2012, requesting to be granted the opportunity to exercise her right to speak during the public hearing to be held (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **d)** through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated to the petitioner that “*during the holding, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to speak*” (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **e)** on November 9, 2013, the referenced public hearing was held, which began at approximately 8:06 a.m.; at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program of the activity and the rules for its development, among which it was recorded that: “*(…) by reason of the order that must prevail in the holding of the hearing, conduct that represents a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. In case it is not restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing to a prudential pause, requesting the intervention of security, or <u>the suspension of the hearing</u>*” (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **f)** the hearing had the following program: from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., participant registration; from 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., first and second call to order respectively; from 8:30 a.m. to 8:50 a.m., formal start of the activity – formal presentation by SETENA – establishment of the hearing rules; from 8:50 a.m. to 9:20 a.m., project description; from 9:20 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., presentation of the Environmental Impact Assessment; from 11:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m., collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., reading of questions and answers to questions; from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., recess for lunch; from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., continuation of reading of questions and answers; from 2:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., collection and classification of ballots with comments; from 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., space for reply to comments; 4:00 p.m., drafting of minutes, reading, and signatures – closure of the activity (report of the respondent party); **g)** the proceeding in question was concluded by the Secretary General of SETENA at approximately 1:40 p.m., due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of the attendees, such that the last scheduled phase, corresponding to "comments," was not proceeded with (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted); **h)** the comment ballot delivered by the petitioner was received and incorporated into the administrative case file (see statements given under oath and evidence submitted).

**IV.- On the Control of Constitutionality and its Scope.** Pursuant to article 10 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), a specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be responsible for declaring, by an absolute majority of its members, the unconstitutionality of norms of any nature and of acts subject to Public Law. The jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch, the declaration of election made by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), and others determined by law shall not be challengeable through this avenue.

Appealing to the law, article 1 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law determines that the *ratio iuris* of the constitutional jurisdiction is to guarantee the supremacy of constitutional norms and principles and of the International or Community Law in force in the Republic, their uniform interpretation and application, as well as the fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution or in international human rights instruments in force in Costa Rica.

In this manner, the parameter of constitutionality control comprises a normative spectrum that goes beyond the constitutional text, because it incorporates conventional law as well as constitutional principles and values.

In matters of amparo, literally, ordinal 29 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law determines that the amparo is appropriate against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, in general, against any action, omission, or simple material act not based on an effective administrative act, by public servants and bodies, that has violated, violates, or threatens to violate any of those rights. The amparo shall be appropriate not only against arbitrary acts but also against actions or omissions <u>based on norms erroneously interpreted or improperly applied</u>. (Emphasis not in the original).

Consequently, at the moment of exercising constitutionality control through amparo, the Constitutional Chamber must determine, among other aspects, which constitutional or conventional rights are being infringed, which resolution, act, or omission has come to provoke the violation of constitutional relevance, and whether there has been an improper application or erroneous interpretation of norms contrary to a correct protection of fundamental rights.

In this respect, the particularly specific characteristics of constitutional norms must be underlined: their content is often abstract, they enunciate generic provisions, and their application is frequently elastic (save for some norms with a very specific and precise mandate).

This situation is explained because constitutional norms are located at the pinnacle of the internal normative hierarchy, such that their fundamental function consists of dictating the fundamental guidelines that serve as orientation for the rest of the normative framework, at the time they develop legislative and regulatory powers.

What we mean is that the normative content of fundamental rights is not restricted to the hard core contemplated in the constitutional text, but inexorably encompasses the subsequent development made of it through laws and regulations. Making a fundamental right operational demands its concretion in the infra-constitutional legal order. Ergo, to attempt to exercise constitutionality control solely within the sphere of the generic and abstract norm of the Political Constitution becomes a chimera; true constitutionality control can only be exercised through an interaction between the constitutional and infra-constitutional spheres.

For instance, the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, expressly regulated in numeral 50 of the Political Constitution as well as in a number of international instruments in force in Costa Rica, is impossible to protect through mere reference to the Fundamental Law. The constitutionality control corresponding to said right can only develop if the infra-constitutional legal framework is resorted to in order to ensure that the fundamental requirements established precisely to safeguard the constitutional mandate of article 50 of the Fundamental Law are effectively fulfilled.

Thus, a project with a great environmental impact shall inexcusably require an environmental impact assessment, which is only demanded directly by article 17 (and subsequent and concordant articles) of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), not by the Political Constitution; however, what said numeral does is nothing other than developing the normative guideline previously established in ordinal 50 of the Fundamental Law.

The distinction, then, of when a matter belongs to constitutionality and when to legality in amparo matters, does not depend on the type of norm used in the analysis, but on other factors, such as the intensity of the violation to the constitutional order and the technical complexity of ascertaining the real truth.

Regarding the first element, constitutionality control is designed to act against those gross and evident violations to the constitutional order, those violations that, by their degree of intensity, manifest themselves to us axiomatically and violate the nucleus or essential content of a constitutional right, what in German doctrine is called “*Kern des Grundrechtes*”. As for the second point, the amparo aspires to a swift protection of fundamental rights, such that a matter whose ascertainment of the real truth demands an intense and complex evaluation of technical evidence is incompatible with that summary nature of the amparo.

Thus, issues in which violations of the constitutional order are not of relevant intensity, or matters in which the gathering of evidence is highly complex, cannot be heard through the amparo remedy. In this latter case, the claimant is left with the path of legality, or, eventually, that of the acción de inconstitucionalidad, when this latter remedy is admissible under the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, since said constitutional process is not summary but rather inherently involves a deeper examination of both constitutional criteria and factual elements.

V.- On the constitutional right to participatory government. The right to citizen participation in decision-making has become one of the fundamental pillars upon which the democratic system rests. In our country, the constitutional legislator enshrined this right in Article 9 of the Constitución Política by providing that the Government of the Republic shall be popular, representative, participatory, alternable, and responsible. This mandate of the Fundamental Law has guided subsequent constitutional and infra-constitutional normative development. Thus, a series of mechanisms have been established that seek to ensure that the right to participatory government can be effectively applied, and does not remain merely on paper, such as the referendum for the approval or repeal of laws and partial reforms to the Constitution, or the popular initiative in the formation of laws (see, among others, judgment number 2005-05649 of 14:39 hours on May 11, 2005).

The right to participatory government, elevated to constitutional rank through the reform brought about by Ley N° 8364 of July 1, 2003, published in La Gaceta N° 146 of July 31, 2003, not only signifies a recognition of the highest normative rank for the function of political control, but also constitutes a revaluation of the citizen’s role in decision-making processes. By the will of the constitutional legislator, which this Chamber must not and cannot disregard, the right to participatory government stands as a fundamental pillar of our democratic regime—a matter erroneously disregarded by the dissenting vote, which lowers the category of citizen participation from a right to a general principle, in clear opposition to the jurisprudential line of this Chamber as will be demonstrated below—which is consistent with a political system based on tolerance, pluralism, and respect for liberty.

This right to participatory government, also called the right to citizen participation, is sheltered in several international human rights instruments.

Thus, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 provides that "everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives." Consistent with the foregoing, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressly recognizes the right of citizens: “(…) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” Along the same lines, the Inter-American Democratic Charter states in its Article 5 that: “Representative democracy is strengthened and deepened by the permanent, ethical, and responsible participation of the citizenry within a framework of legality in accordance with the respective constitutional order.” More emphatically, Article 6 of said Charter stipulates that: “The participation of the citizenry in decisions relating to their own development is a right and a responsibility. It is also a necessary condition for the full and effective exercise of democracy. Promoting and fostering diverse forms of participation strengthens democracy.” This conventional and constitutional recognition of the aforementioned right represents a fundamental aspect of the democratic model of this century, in which citizen control, transparency, and accountability stand out as factors inherent to the republican system, which in turn endows political decision-making with much greater legitimacy, a key aspect when it comes to true governance.

Precisely, one of the mechanisms devised to comply with the provisions of constitutional Article 9 is the public hearing, which constitutes a means through which interested persons can assert their rights, actively participating in matters of national or local relevance, and bringing to the attention of the Administration all those anomalies or disagreements in relation to the project intended to be developed. Thus, the public hearing is a typical instrument of a mature democracy, through which the active participation of the citizen in public decision-making is fostered. Due to its significance, the hearing must be conducted in such a way as to guarantee the greatest participation of persons who may be affected, hence any action or omission that prevents the foregoing implies an open violation of the fundamental rights of the participants (see, among others, judgment number 2009-018223). Regarding the participatory character of the public hearing, the Constitución Política itself mandates it, because with the reform effective since July 31, 2003, to Article 9 of the Fundamental Law, it was established that the Government of the Republic must be, among other aspects, participatory, which implies that the sitting government is an articulator of what is established by popular deliberation. In other words, in today’s democracy, citizens enjoy, by constitutional mandate, not only the right to vote to exercise their right to participatory government, but a multitude of instruments of diverse nature to contribute to political decision-making, which fosters their ability to exert direct influence on major public decisions. This fundamental right of citizen participation establishes that the people must be enabled to express themselves equally on both majority and minority viewpoints. Thus, national participation mechanisms such as the referendum or plebiscite will be just as important as local ones. During the public hearing, participants must be granted all facilities so that they are informed and can make themselves heard, all within reason, since the hearing cannot become an obstacle or a resource to prevent a given procedure from being resolved in a timely manner.

Of interest to the sub examine, it is worth recalling that Article 6 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente guarantees the right to a hearing in those matters where the environment is at stake. Literally, that provision reads as follows: “Participation of the inhabitants. The State and the municipalities shall foster the active and organized participation of the inhabitants of the Republic, in the decision-making and actions aimed at protecting and improving the environment.” In the same vein, Article 22 of that normative body states the following: “Evaluation file. Persons, physical or juridical, public or private, shall have the right to be heard by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, at any stage of the evaluation process and in the operational phase of the work or project. The observations of the interested parties shall be included in the file and assessed for the final report (the underlining is not from the original).” The Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, compiles a series of rules for holding public hearings in the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to a specific project. Specifically, Article 3 defines the public hearing in this manner: “Article 3º—Definitions and abbreviations. For the purposes of this regulation, the following definitions and abbreviations are used:

(…)

12. Public Hearing: It is the presentation that SETENA orders the developer and the team of environmental consultants to carry out, for a Category A activity, work, or project, when deemed necessary, in order to inform civil society about the same and its impacts, in accordance with the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Ley de Biodiversidad, and this regulation, and other concordant regulations, as well as to listen to the opinions of those present at the hearing so that they may be analyzed in the EIA process and a decision made on their inclusion or not.” (The highlighted text does not correspond to the original).

In conclusion, the public hearing within the procedures processed by SETENA for the purpose of granting or denying environmental feasibility to a specific project becomes a clear manifestation of the constitutional right to participatory government, enshrined in Article 9 of our Constitución Política, which has been strengthened by this Constitutional Court in its jurisprudence; hence, the Chamber is called upon to guarantee it in the sub judice, with all the prerogatives and rights for both parties. An example of the impetus this Chamber has given to citizen participation in environmental matters are the following judgments:

• 1)Judgment number 2008-12583 of 15:02 hours on August 19, 2008: "Article 50 of our Constitución Política enshrines the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, understanding this as the right of present and future generations to inhabit an environment that guarantees their physical and mental health. To comply with the foregoing, the constituent granted all persons standing to denounce any violation to the environment, as a way of guaranteeing citizen participation in the protection of the environment, and thus complying not only with the provisions of constitutional Article 50, but also with the democratic principle, which derives from Article 1 of the Constitución Política. On this particular topic, it is appropriate to mention the provisions of judgment number 2002-10693 of eighteen hours and twenty minutes on November seventh, two thousand two, in which it was indicated in relevant part:

“i.– The right of access to environmental information. This right has two aspects, on one hand—in its active aspect—it entails the right of all persons to receive information concerning the environment, by virtue of having made a request in that sense, without thereby having to previously demonstrate any specific interest—it being sufficient to allege the existence of a diffuse interest, which in itself has been widely accepted by this Chamber—and said information must be made available to the petitioner as soon as possible. In this regard, access could be excepted, only under well-founded arguments that the information to be publicized adversely affects the confidentiality inherent to judicial processes, State secrets, and intellectual property rights. Regarding the passive aspect, this citizen right implies that correlatively, the Administration has the duty to provide, to whoever requests it, information relating to the environment, both within procedures and outside of them; this would include the obligation to inform about the proposed activity, the structure of the procedure, the indication of which bodies would receive opinions or questions, among others.

ii.– The right to public participation. This aspect implies the possibility for those persons who may be affected or who have an interest in a decision regarding the environment, to express their criteria, opinions, points of view, or questions about it from an early stage, without these having to be subject to specific formalities to be taken into account. Consequently, the information given to the administered party must contain non-technical summaries, allowing persons to understand the magnitude of the discussion. Likewise, it entails the existence of adequate timeframes so that, prior to participation, a stage is carried out for citizens to inform themselves.

iii.– The right of access to justice in environmental matters. This dimension refers to the right of citizens to have broad active legal standing to proceed to request the review of the measures taken in relation to the environment, especially when they consider that any of the two previously cited aspects have been violated within the procedure.” Precisely, one of the forms of citizen participation in environmental decision-making is materialized in the possibility that persons have to know about and provide their opinion regarding the different environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental) submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, this in accordance with Article 6 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and Article 95 of the Ley de Biodiversidad. On this specific topic, the Chamber stated in the aforementioned vote, the following:

“The environmental impact assessment procedure is characterized as an administrative procedure with a differentiating note, because what it seeks is to avoid or minimize the eventual configuration of environmental damage, within the execution of activities about which there is certainty regarding the harmful effect they would produce on the environment if carried out without any containment. In other words, this instrument corresponds to the materialization of the prevention principle, in that given an activity known in advance to be harmful to the environment, the interested party proposes a series of measures aimed at avoiding or mitigating ecological detriment, to the public body or entity—in this case SETENA—which is responsible for determining whether they are the most suitable for that purpose. Consequently, since this procedure pursues at all times the prevention of any negative consequences, through a broad flow of information, it is natural to understand that one of its characteristics is that persons who may be affected by the development of the project can provide fundamental data or points of view, which the competent authorities, as a result of omissive or arbitrary conduct, could ignore or set aside, consequently leaving the environment unprotected. Thus, the principle or right of participation implies, within the environmental impact assessment procedure, a high degree of publicity, to the point that any act or request that has a significant effect on the final result thereof must be of general scope for all interested parties, so that they can exercise their opinions at any time and not be boxed into a specific procedural moment. The role of the population as defender of a healthy environment goes ‘from the cradle to the grave,’ that is, from the start of the productive activity as a project, until the end of its useful life, such that it would not be admissible that in an exploitation aimed at lasting for an indefinite period, even decades—as is the case with hydroelectric projects—and with irreversible consequences, the participation of those social sectors that may be affected is limited to a procedural stage, which, like a hearing, can last only a few hours. Thus, by reason of its preventive nature, it is required that from the very moment of its initiation, a project subjected to an environmental impact assessment must be brought to the knowledge of the population for the purpose of initiating an open phenomenon of participation.” (the highlighted text is not from the original) 2) Judgment number 2010-017488 of 14:34 hours on October 19, 2010: “On the public hearing for the community. Another point claimed by the petitioner is the lack of a public hearing for the community to communicate the various consequences of the Limón sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario). In this regard, the Secretaria General of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental accepts, under oath, that indeed the public hearing has not been held in the community related to this project. Thus, taking into account what is stipulated in considerando V, it is proven that the petitioner is correct in his allegation and, consequently, this recourse must be granted with respect to this point. Indeed, the refusal of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, in the judgment of this Chamber, is arbitrary and unjustified, since the present matter involves the construction of a sanitary landfill, which undoubtedly affects the lives of the local residents and the environment. Thus, this Court considers that a public hearing where adequate communication, information, and dialogue with the population about the sanitary landfill project were provided was of importance so that the residents could have a broader panorama of the benefits and detriments that a project like the aforementioned can entail. In that sense, in the opinion of this Court, the right to citizen participation was not guaranteed, because by not holding any hearing in the community, the interested parties saw their possibilities of learning more deeply about the topic under discussion limited. Thus, based on the foregoing, it is considered that this recourse must be upheld on this point” (the underlined text is not from the original) 3) Judgment number 2013-009795 of 10:00 hours on July 19, 2013: “IV.- On the other hand, this Court has strengthened the right that the population has to participate in those matters that are of their interest and that involve an effect on the environment. On this point, it has been indicated that citizen participation in environmental matters encompasses two essential points: the right to information relating to environmental projects, or those that may cause injury to natural resources and the environment, and the guarantee of effective participation in decision-making in these matters. Therefore, the Costa Rican State must not only invite citizen participation, but must promote it and respect it when it occurs (see judgments number 2001-10466, 2003-6322, and 2010-6922). Thus, it is of great importance that the information held on the matter in public offices be made available to interested parties, relating to the environmental impact assessments under the responsibility of the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, for example. It was the Rio Convention that, in principle 10, elevated this participation to the rank of a principle in environmental matters, by stating:

‘The best way to address environmental issues is with the participation of all interested citizens, at the corresponding level. At the national level, every individual should have adequate access to environmental information held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information available to all. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, among them redress and relevant remedies, shall be provided.’ From this principle, the importance given at the international level to environmental issues, and in general, above all, to the participation of civil society in decisions of great significance for the community is clearly evidenced. Precisely, through Ley No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, the Asamblea Legislativa reformed Article 50 of the Constitución Política, guaranteeing every person the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.” The foregoing has also brought as a consequence that a very broad standing is admitted to denounce acts that infringe that right and to claim reparation for the damage caused, through effective access to judicial and administrative procedures. Likewise, when the Political Constitution mentions in Article 9 that the Government of the Republic is popular, representative, participatory, alternating, and responsible, we must be clear that citizen participation would not be limited to the mere exercise of the right to vote, or to the aspiration of attaining a popularly elected public office, but also, and in this new vision, to <u>offering persons the real opportunity to contribute to the making of the State's political decisions, especially when these have national significance</u>, or could potentially affect the fundamental rights of certain sectors of the population. From Articles 1, 9, and 50 of the Constitution, the consideration that citizens deserve in a democratic State is thus rescued, in which they can at least have access to information about the environment held by public authorities. The commented precept, then, embodies the cited principle through access to available information and its dissemination, so that decision-making is not circumscribed to a limited group of interests. In the matter we now analyze, our legal system already provides that individuals may even request SETENA to hold <u>public hearings, so that the positions formulated by interested communities are taken into account in decision-making affecting the environment</u>, which has been included in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and its Regulations, as the respondent authority reported. The foregoing, of course, in those matters whose significance warrants it, which may be requested by any interested party and assessed as such by the Plenary Commission (…)" VI.- Constitutional, national, and international case law recognizing the right to participatory government or citizen participation as a fundamental right. Now, this Chamber has established criteria within its case law on public participation in decision-making affecting the community, in topics as varied as the environment, urban planning, and the modification of public service rates, among others. Likewise, it has recognized participatory government as a fundamental right protectable through the amparo proceeding. Such decision has been made regardless of the name assigned to it, as it can also be called the right to public participation or to participatory government. In all these cases, the right to participatory government is established expressly, grounded in Article 9 of the Political Constitution. In addition to the precedents cited in the preceding considerando, it is relevant to recall these others:

• i)Judgment number 2007-011266 of 14:35 hours on August 8, 2007: "*Based on what was stated in the preceding considerando, this Court considers that in the case under study <u>there is a violation of the provisions of Article 9 of the Political Constitution</u>, because the Public Services Regulatory Authority did not incorporate in resolution RRG-4771-2005 a mechanism that guarantees the participation of citizens in the resolution of requests for extraordinary increases in fuels, presented by the Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo. In this regard, this Chamber considers that it is utterly arbitrary for ARESEP to approve an extraordinary model for setting the prices of fuels sold by RECOPE without publicizing the information for each specific case, <u>because this means that persons cannot exercise their right to participate in making said decision, thus failing to comply with the provisions of the constitutional legislator</u>. Although this Chamber understands that in the case of the extraordinary price adjustment for fuels sold by RECOPE, what is sought is the urgent restoration of the financial equilibrium of the relationship between provider and user that has been affected by circumstances different from those foreseen for ordinary setting, the truth is that such readjustment cannot be achieved <u>to the detriment of the rights of the country's inhabitants, who have the power to express their opinion regarding increases in hydrocarbon prices, as indicated</u>*" (the emphasis is not from the original) ii) Judgment number 2012-017749 of 09:30 hours on December 14, 2012: "*Under that context, the respondent authority injured the right of citizen participation in environmental matters, given that a hearing is held in order to give interested parties the opportunity to express themselves, against or in favor of a decision that undoubtedly has repercussions in their legal sphere.*" iii) Judgment number 2011-005516 of 12:31 hours on April 29, 2011: "*Although it is true that this Chamber has recognized the existence of the right of citizen participation in environmental matters, this right must be understood, at least to be cognizable by this jurisdiction, for those projects which, due to their special nature and great significance or impact, may sensibly affect a community.*" iv) Judgment number 2011-007962 of 10:53 hours on June 17, 2011: "*Likewise, this Constitutional Court, in Judgment No. 8125-2008 of 18:22 hrs. on May 13, 2008 -with respect to the public hearings that ARESEP must organize for interested citizens in those cases where a study for setting public service rates is processed-, considered the following: '(…) <u>The participation of citizens in public decision-making is provided for in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, thereby acquiring the rank and force of a fundamental constitutional right.</u> It is not about a de-constitutionalization of the principle of legality of the Public Administration, though it certainly is a more democratic form of government, which broadens the forums for debate on different topics that affect the community, and by virtue of which, they are open to citizen intervention and opinion. We are, then, facing an option already very accepted in the evolution of the concept of democracy, and this amparo offers a magnificent opportunity to give it clear and effective validity, so that it does not remain mere discourse.'*" (the emphasis is not from the original).

This recognition of democratic government as a fundamental right has also occurred in other latitudes. For example, the case law of the Constitutional Court of Colombia has highlighted its importance on repeated occasions. For instance, in judgment number C-180 of 1994, the following was specified: "*The principle of democratic participation expresses not only a decision-making system, but also a model of social and political behavior, founded on the principles of pluralism, tolerance, protection of rights and freedoms, as well as a great responsibility of citizens in defining the collective destiny*".

"*The concept of participatory democracy inherently carries the application of the democratic principles that inform political practice to spheres other than the electoral one. It entails a revaluation and vigorous dimensioning of the concept of citizen and a rethinking of their role in national life*." "*It does not simply comprise the enshrinement of mechanisms for citizens to make decisions in referendums or popular consultations, or to revoke the mandate of those who have been elected, but additionally implies that the citizen can participate permanently in non-electoral decision-making processes that will significantly influence the course of their life. The aim is thus to strengthen the channels of representation, democratize them, and promote a more balanced and less unequal pluralism*." "*Citizen participation in scenarios other than the electoral one nourishes the concern and interest of the citizenry for collective problems; contributes to the formation of citizens capable of sustained interest in governmental processes and, additionally, makes more viable the realization of the ideal that every citizen has equal opportunities to achieve the personal development to which they aspire and have a right*." "*In participatory democracy, the people not only elect their representatives, through the vote, but also have the possibility to intervene directly in making certain decisions, as well as to annul or modify those that their representatives in public corporations may have adopted, either by convocation or on their own initiative, and to revoke the mandate of those they have elected*." "*In summary: participation conceived within the democratic system referred to inspires the new framework upon which the constitutional system of the Colombian State is structured. This implies the quantitative expansion of real opportunities for citizen participation, as well as its qualitative recomposition in such a way that, in addition to the political-electoral aspect, its spectrum projects onto the planes of the individual, family, economic, and social*".

In the same vein, in judgment number C-522 of 2002, the Constitutional Court of Colombia highlighted the projection of the democratic principle and citizen participation in other scenarios by virtue of their universal and expansive nature. It then stated: "*On the other hand, it is necessary to point out that the Political Constitution of 1991 does not restrict the democratic principle to the political sphere but extends it to multiple social spheres. The process of expanding democracy surpasses the reflection on the mechanisms of direct participation and especially emphasizes the extension of the participation of interested persons in the deliberations of collective bodies different from political ones. The development of democracy extends from the political sphere, in which the individual is considered as a citizen, to the social sphere where the person is taken into account in their multiplicity of roles, for example, as a worker, student, family member, member of a health provider company, consumer, etc. Given the extension of democracy, the Constitutional Court has noted that the democratic principle that the Charter upholds is at once universal and expansive. Universal because it engages various scenarios, processes, and places both public and private, and also because the notion of politics that sustains it is nourished by everything that can validly interest the person, the community, and the State and is therefore susceptible to affecting the distribution, control, and allocation of power. It is expansive because it must be progressively expanded, conquering new areas and permanently deepening its validity, which demands from the main public and private actors a strenuous effort for its effective construction*." VII.- On the specific case. The appellant alleges that SETENA injured her right of citizen participation during the public hearing held on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in Limón, corresponding to the expediente for the New Moín Container Terminal project, because even though she requested the floor, she was not granted it.

In this regard, the Chamber has established that on May 25, 2012, SETENA received the initial environmental assessment document for the project "Moín Container Terminal" presented on behalf of the company APM Terminals Moín S.A., to which the expediente number D1-7968-2012-SETENA was assigned. Likewise, it is observed that through resolution number 2539-2013-SETENA of October 10, 2013, the Plenary Commission of SETENA agreed to hold a public hearing from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 9, 2013, at the Eddy Bermúdez gymnasium in Limón. Furthermore, through a note received at SETENA on November 4, 2013, the appellant appeared in expediente number D1-7968-2012, requesting to take the floor during the upcoming public hearing. Through official communication number SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, SETENA indicated to her that "*during the event, a space for questions and comments would be established, within which you may exercise your right to take the floor*." The Chamber observes that, indeed, on November 9, 2013, the scheduled public hearing was held with the following program: from 7:00 to 8:00 hours, registration of participants; from 8:00 to 8:30 hours, first and second call respectively; from 8:30 to 8:50 hours, formal start of the activity – formal presentation by SETENA – establishment of hearing rules; from 8:50 to 9:20 hours, description of the project; from 9:20 to 11:00 hours, presentation of the environmental impact assessment (Estudio de Impacto Ambiental); from 11:00 to 11:15 hours, collection and classification of questions; from 11:15 to 12:00 hours, reading of questions and answers to questions; from 12:00 to 13:00 hours, lunch break; from 13:00 to 14:00 hours, continuation of reading of questions and answers; from 14:00 to 14:15 hours, collection and classification of comment slips; from 14:15 to 16:00 hours, space for reply to comments; 16:00 hours, drafting of the minutes, reading and signatures – closing of the activity. Now, as appropriate, at the beginning of the activity, the Secretary General of SETENA read the general program and explained the hearing rules, among which he specified: "*(…) due to the order that must prevail in the holding of the hearing, conduct that represents a breach of said purpose will generate, in the first instance, a call to order. If order is not restored, measures may be taken such as agreeing on a prudential pause, requesting security intervention, or <u>the suspension of the hearing</u>*." Now, due to an outbreak of violence generated by some of those present, the mentioned hearing, instead of being suspended as indicated in the rules of the general program, was ended by the Secretary General of SETENA at approximately 13:40 hours, so that the remaining phases of the hearing were not proceeded with: collection and classification of comment slips, space for reply to comments, and, finally, drafting of the minutes, reading and signatures, along with the closing of the activity. Such ending of the hearing has been fully accredited, both based on the video provided as evidence by the Secretary General of SETENA, and on the literal transcript of the hearing, where it was recorded: "*14. Suspension of the hearing. Uriel Juárez:… par (sic) holding this public hearing, at this moment we conclude it. Thank you very much!*." Thus, instead of suspending the hearing, it was ended, which implied excluding fundamental aspects of said session, such as the collection of comments and their replies. It should be noted that the right to participatory government, established in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, constitutes, as explained in Considerando IV of this ruling, a constitutional guiding standard that radiates over legislative and regulatory development, as well as over the actions of the Administration. Precisely, in accordance with that constitutional mandate, Articles 6 and 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente and 3 of the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental require the holding of the said hearing. For it to be considered correctly held, it must have concluded completely, which did not happen in the present case and, moreover, is particularly serious, because neither the comments nor their replies would come to be taken into account at the time of issuing the respective final act. Thus, in the *sub examine* case, the protection of the constitutional right to participatory government, which can also be seen as a principle, can only become operative if its correct safeguarding is ensured at the time of applying and interpreting the infra-constitutional regulations that require the holding of a complete hearing, given that we are faced with a gross and evident violation of the hard core of the referred right, since, as noted, essential aspects (collection of participants' comments and their replies) have come to be left out, despite the fact that the hearing rules, explained at the start of the activity, only referred to the suspension of the activity as the most drastic measure in case of any disturbance. As is easily noticed, this injury to participatory government does not require, for its demonstration, any complex evidentiary diligence, given the clarity with which the hearing rules were set. Furthermore, attempting to claim that constitutional review is limited to the mere fact of whether a hearing did or did not occur, without analyzing elementary aspects of the manner in which it is conducted (as the Constitutional Chamber has been doing), implies distorting the constitutional right to participatory government and leaving it as an empty shell, devoid of effective constitutional protection.

In the *sub judice* case, SETENA itself failed to comply with the rules it established for the adequate development of the proceeding. It should be remembered that among the guidelines agreed upon prior to the start of the hearing was that, in case of evidence of conduct representing a breach of order, a call to order would first be made, and if this did not produce the desired effects, a prudential pause would be agreed upon, security intervention would be requested, or the hearing would be <u>suspended</u>. The suspension of a proceeding is not the same as its ending. The former entails a rescheduling in order to satisfactorily conclude what was omitted. In the latter, the hearing is definitively terminated, so it should be used when all scheduled phases have already been exhausted without omitting any relevant one. However, in the specific case, an essential element of the public hearing was eliminated: the stage intended for interested persons to express themselves, aloud, for the reply to comments. If, due to the circumstances verified on November 9, 2013, it was not possible to conclude the public proceeding, the proper course would have been for SETENA to reschedule the hearing for subsequent days and for it to be concluded as appropriate.

Without detriment to what was stated, the Chamber is aware that the disturbances that occurred during the final outcome of the hearing are not attributable to SETENA. Likewise, this Court recognizes that the respondent authority had planned for the active intervention of the persons present. However, in view of the constitutional right to participatory government, stipulated in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber deems it necessary to order, in this amparo, the completion of the public hearing held, with the purpose that the persons who had timely requested the floor during the comment phase may express their opinions aloud, for which the pertinent organizational, security, and technological measures must be taken to conclude the public hearing normally.

VIII.- Dissenting vote of Magistrate Jinesta Lobo, Magistrate Hernández López, and Magistrate Salazar Alvarado, drafted by the latter. We consider that this amparo must be rejected outright. By amending Article 9 of the Political Constitution, the reforming constituent body wished to give positivity to the Principle of Participation and thus bring the administered closer to the State decision-making process, as part of what doctrine calls "corrective mechanisms" of representative democracy. Thus, the reforming Constituent left the means, scope, and timing of citizen participation to infra-constitutional regulations, except in exceptional cases. In that sense, the natural venue to monitor its compliance is the ordinary justice system and not the constitutional jurisdiction. For that reason, the questions raised in the case are alien and distant from this Court’s competence, namely, whether the structure of the hearing allowed the intervention of all or only some; whether the Constitution guarantees that the appellant must express her criteria aloud even when she submitted her comments in writing; whether the hearing was well or badly terminated, having concluded two hours and twenty minutes before scheduled, or whether it should have only been suspended; or the legal consequences of the behavior of the groups of attendees who initiated —without knowing whether deliberately or not— the outbreaks of violence that ruined what was planned. In the specific case, precisely Article 22 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente does not define whether that participation is aloud, in writing, or in what manner the participation requirement is satisfied, which needs to be analyzed in a proceeding that allows for broad evidence and adversarial debate, which, from our point of view, does not fit within the amparo as a fast, simple, summary, and special proceeding for protecting fundamental human rights. It is then up to the legality review, and not to this Constitutional Court, to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct deployed (active or omitted), by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, conform or not to the infra-constitutional legal system.

For the reasons stated, we consider that the matter raised lies far from the specific competencies which the Constitutional Chamber is called upon to protect, without this meaning that it does not merit analysis in the ordinary jurisdiction or in the purely administrative contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa), in accordance with Article 49 of the Constitution.

**Por tanto:** The appeal is granted. Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), or whoever occupies the position in his stead, is ordered to <u>immediately</u> conclude the public hearing in file number D1-7968-2012-SETENA, which must be carried out within the 15 business days following notification of this judgment, for the sole purpose of concluding the omitted phases according to the hearing rules set forth at the beginning of the same. The respondent authority is warned that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 71 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, a penalty of three months to two years of imprisonment or twenty to sixty days’ fine shall be imposed upon anyone who receives an order that must be obeyed or enforced, issued within an amparo appeal (recurso de amparo), and fails to obey it or to enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely punished. The State is ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts giving rise to this ruling, which shall be liquidated during the execution of the judgment in administrative-contentious proceedings. Notify this judgment personally to Miguel Marín Cantarero, in his capacity as ad hoc Secretary General of the National Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), or to whoever occupies the position in his stead. Justices Jinesta Lobo, Hernández López, and Salazar Alvarado dissent and reject the appeal outright.- **Gilbert Armijo S.** **President a.i.** **Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.** **Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.** **Luis Fernando Salazar A. Rosa M. Abdelnour G.** **Oloria** **EXPEDIENTE N° 13-013068-0007-CO** Telephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6

*130130680007CO* *130130680007CO* Res. Nº 2013-017305 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las once horas treinta y dos minutos del veinte de diciembre de dos mil trece.

Recurso de amparo interpuesto por Myrna Ivette Pierre Dixon, portadora de la cédula de identidad 7-720-310; contra la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA).

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:24 horas del 14 de noviembre de 2013, la recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra la SETENA. Manifiesta que la autoridad recurrida lesionó su derecho de participación ciudadana durante la audiencia pública realizada el 09 de noviembre de 2013, en el gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez, en Limón centro, dentro del el proyecto denominado: “Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín”. Explica que por medio del oficio Número FSC-004-2013, se apersonó a ese expediente y solicitó que se le otorgara el uso de la palabra durante la citada audiencia pública. Afirma que por oficio número SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, se le respondió que durante la realización de la audiencia se establecería un espacio de preguntas y comentarios, dentro del cual podría ejercer el uso de la palabra. Asegura que se apersonó el día de la audiencia y cumplió con los requisitos exigidos para el ejercicio de la palabra; no obstante, durante la celebración de la audiencia pública no se le concedió el uso de la palabra ni tampoco a gran cantidad de ciudadanos que así lo solicitaron. Agrega que presentó el oficio número FSC-005-20013, que cuenta con la firma de recibido de una funcionaria de la SETENA, el cual no fue leído durante la audiencia. Estima lesionado su derecho de participación ciudadana. Solicita a la Sala que declare con lugar el recurso, con las consecuencias que ello implique.

2.- Mediante resolución de Presidencia de las 08:58 horas del 18 de noviembre de 2013, se le dio curso al amparo.

3.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 15:26 horas del 03 de diciembre de 2013, informa bajo juramento Miguel Marín Cantarero, en su condición de Secretario General ad hoc de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), que el 25 de mayo de 2012 fue recibido en esa dependencia el documento de evaluación ambiental inicial del proyecto “Terminal de Contenedores de Moín” presentado a nombre de la empresa APM Terminals Moín S.A., al cual se le asignó el expediente número D1-7968-2012-SETENA. Refiere que el 31 de agosto de 2012, mediante resolución número 2246-2012 del 31 de agosto de 2013, se acordó solicitar al desarrollador en el plazo máximo de 1 año, la presentación de un estudio de impacto ambiental, de conformidad con los requerimientos legales. Indica que dicho estudio fue presentado y se encuentra en etapa de análisis. Señala que por la magnitud del proyecto y considerando que se debe realizar un análisis riguroso del más alto nivel, se debe aclarar que a finales de mayo de 2013, esa Secretaría solicitó criterio técnico a 32 instituciones, entre ellas: universidades públicas, colegios profesionales (biólogos, sociólogos, geólogos, ingenieros y arquitectos, ingenieros agrónomos), Museo Nacional, SENARA, SINAC, JAPDEVA y MOPT, entre otros, respecto al estudio de impacto ambiental presentado para el proyecto en cuestión. Afirma que de las instituciones consultadas, a la fecha se han pronunciado 22 de ellas y 4 han solicitado prórroga para suministrar su criterio. Sostiene que el 11 de abril de 2013 se publicó en un periódico de circulación nacional la presentación del estudio de impacto ambiental para que las personas interesadas presentaran a SETENA sus observaciones. Sostiene que luego la Comisión Plenaria acordó oficiosamente la realización de una audiencia pública mediante resolución número 2539-2013-SETENA del 10 de octubre de 2013, fijada a realizarse el 09 de noviembre de 2013 de las 08:00 a las 16:00 horas en el Gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez, de la localidad de Limón. Explica que mediante resoluciones número 2277-2013-SETENA y 2278-2013-SETENA del 08 de noviembre de 2013, se resolvieron 4 incidentes de nulidad presentados en contra de la convocatoria a audiencia pública, los cuales fueron resueltos sin lugar; además, a la fecha están pendientes de conocerse 5 incidentes de nulidad de la audiencia pública, así como un recurso de revocatoria contra la resolución número 2277-2013 y 25 recursos ordinarios de apelación contra la resolución número 2778-2013. Aduce que mediante resolución de las 14:19 horas del 19 de noviembre de 2013, se otorgó a la SETENA y al MINAE un plazo de 3 días para presentar informe en relación con el recurso de amparo presentado por Danny Jirón Menéndez, alegando lesiones al derecho de participación ciudadana de los interesados en formar parte de la audiencia pública del 09 de noviembre de 2013. Menciona que la recurrente se apersonó al expediente número D1-7968-2012; en cuanto a la solicitud planteada para que se le concediera oportunidad de hacer uso de la palabra, mediante oficio número SG-UE-DEA-146-2013 se le indicó que “durante la realización se establecería un espacio de preguntas y comentarios, dentro del cual podrá ejercer su derecho uso de la palabra”. Expresa que al inicio de la actividad, el Secretario General de SETENA dio lectura al programa general de la audiencia, en el que se indicó la manera en la que se utilizaría el tiempo y las oportunidades de comentarios y preguntas. Refiere que entre las reglas que se establecieron para dicha actividad se aclaró a los participantes que el tiempo dispuesto para la etapa de comentarios sería establecido en proporción a la cantidad de intervenciones propuestas; asimismo, serían admitidas las cesiones personales de tiempo para manifestarse. Indica que la oportunidad para participar durante la audiencia se otorgó en igualdad de condiciones, incluso para la recurrente. Señala que se repartieron boletas para preguntas y otras para comentarios, respecto de las cuales no se hizo distinción alguna entre los presentes. Afirma que la amparada, al igual que el resto de los presentes, tuvo la posibilidad de participar formulando las preguntas y comentarios procedentes, para lo cual debió llenar las boletas respectivas. Sostiene que para participar en la audiencia era necesario llenar las boletas que se entregaron, tal como fue explicado al inicio de la actividad. Sostiene que también se estableció que el tiempo para participar se distribuiría de manera proporcional a la cantidad de presentes. Explica que el oficio al que hace alusión la tutelada se presentó el mismo día de la audiencia pública, incluso cuando ya había iniciado y se había programado su desarrollo. Aduce que muchos de los presentes propiciaron un ambiente de irrespeto, obstaculizando el desarrollo normal de la audiencia y el intento de intimidación constante frente a funcionarios de SETENA. Aclara que según lo informado por el Comisionado del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, “durante las ponencias se dieron llamadas de atención y llamados a la calma por parte de los funcionarios de SETENA ya que los participantes lanzaban proclamas contra el proyecto, además de utilizar pitos y trompetas, lo que impedía continuar con la misma (…)”. Expresa que ante esa situación fue imposible evitar la suspensión de la audiencia en razón del abrupto ingreso por parte de un grupo de los presentes a la cancha del gimnasio, zona donde se ubicaban los miembros de esa Secretaría; en razón de ello, no fue posible realizar la fase de comentarios. Manifiesta que, sin embargo, las boletas correspondientes a comentarios se recibieron y constan en el legajo de la audiencia pública. Refiere que la boleta de comentarios que entregó la recurrente, al igual que las demás, se recibió sin ninguna distinción. Asegura que el quebrantamiento de las medidas de seguridad por parte de un grupo de los presentes, generó una evidente amenaza contra la integridad física de los funcionarios y demás personas presentes. Afirma que la SETENA hizo lo que estuvo a su alcance para fomentar la participación en la audiencia de los interesados en el proyecto. Sostiene que además de la audiencia pública ordenada en el cantón de Limón, se han aplicado otros espacios de participación, como la publicación de la presentación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental en SETENA en el periódico La Prensa Libre el día 11 de abril de 2013, para que las personas interesadas pudieran presentar las observaciones pertinentes al estudio; además, existe la posibilidad de apersonarse al expediente o hacer llegar las observaciones de tipo ambiental que correspondan, solicitar audiencias privadas con la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA, entre otros. Sostiene que las observaciones presentadas por la amparada serán valoradas, de manera que su derecho a la participación no ha sido limitado. Explica que la tutelada, en realidad, se encuentra disconforme con la manera particular en que se desarrolló la audiencia y el mecanismo utilizado para la participación, lo cual es materia de legalidad. Solicita a la Sala que declare sin lugar el recurso.

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

Redacta el Magistrado Rueda Leal; y,

Considerando:

I.- Cuestión preliminar. Antes de examinar el caso que nos ocupa, es pertinente indicar que a la luz de lo dispuesto en el artículo 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la jurisprudencia y los precedentes de esta jurisdicción son vinculantes erga omnes, salvo para sí misma. Ello implica que, ante nuevas situaciones de hecho que resulten similares, este Tribunal –previo estudio- podrá decidir en forma diversa, sin que ello implique lesión alguna al derecho que le asiste al recurrente de acudir a otras vías en auxilio de sus derechos. Así las cosas, pese a que en sentencia número 2013-015135 de las 10:30 horas del 15 de noviembre de 2013, esta Sala rechazó de plano un recurso de amparo interpuesto contra la SETENA, entre otras cuestiones, por el levantamiento repentino de la audiencia pública relacionada con el proyecto portuario denominado “Terminal de Contenedores de Moín”; sin embargo, en este amparo, se dio curso al recurso y, al contrario del caso antedicho, sí se entró a conocer el fondo del asunto, motivo por el que, con base en los nuevos elementos probatorios y normativos, resulta procedente replantearse lo dispuesto en el voto supra citado.

II.- Objeto del recurso. La recurrente alega que la SETENA lesionó su derecho de participación ciudadana durante la audiencia pública celebrada el 9 de noviembre de 2013, en el gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez, en Limón centro, correspondiente al expediente relacionado con el proyecto de la Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín, ya que a pesar de que solicitó el uso de la palabra no se le concedió.

III.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos: a) el 25 de mayo de 2012 fue recibido en la SETENA el documento de evaluación ambiental inicial del proyecto “Terminal de Contenedores de Moín” presentado a nombre de la empresa APM Terminals Moín S.A., al que se le asignó el expediente número D1-7968-2012-SETENA (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); b) mediante resolución número 2539-2013-SETENA del 10 de octubre de 2013, la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA acordó oficiosamente la realización de una audiencia pública, por efectuarse de las 8:00 a las 16:00 horas del 9 de noviembre de 2013 en el Gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez, de la localidad de Limón (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); c) mediante nota recibida el 4 de noviembre de 2013, la recurrente se apersonó en el hacer uso de la palabra durante la audiencia pública por realizarse (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); d) mediante oficio número SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, la SETENA le indicó a la amparada que “durante la realización se establecería un espacio de preguntas y comentarios, dentro del cual podrá ejercer su derecho uso de la palabra” (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); e) el 9 de noviembre de 2013 se realizó la audiencia pública de cita, la cual comenzó a las 8:06 horas aproximadamente; al inicio de la actividad, el Secretario General de la SETENA dio lectura al programa general de la actividad y a las reglas para su desarrollo, entre las cuales se consignó que: “(…) en razón del orden que debe imperar en la celebración de la audiencia, las conductas que representen un quebranto a dicho propósito generará en primera instancia un llamado al orden. En caso de no restablecerse el mismo se podrán tomar medidas tales como acordar una pausa prudencial, requerir la intervención de la seguridad o la suspensión de la audiencia” (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); f) la audiencia tuvo el siguiente programa: de las 7:00 a las 8:00 horas, registro de participantes; de las 8:00 a las 8:30 horas, primera y segunda convocatoria respectivamente; de las 8:30 a las 8:50 horas, inicio formal de la actividad – presentación formal de la SETENA – establecimientos de las reglas de la audiencia; de las 8:50 a las 9:20 horas, descripción del proyecto; de las 9:20 a las 11:00 horas, presentación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental; de las 11:00 a las 11:15 horas, recolección y clasificación de preguntas; de las 11:15 a las 12:00 horas, lectura de preguntas y respuestas a preguntas; de las 12:00 a las 13:00 horas, receso para el almuerzo; de las 13:00 a las 14:00 horas, continuación de la lectura de preguntas y respuestas; de las 14:00 a las 14:15 horas, recolección y clasificación de boletas con comentarios; de las 14:15 a las 16:00 horas, espacio para replica a comentarios; 16:00 horas, elaboración del acta, lectura y firmas – cierre de la actividad (informe de la parte recurrida); g) la diligencia en cuestión se dio por finalizada por parte del Secretario General de la SETENA aproximadamente a las 13:40 horas, debido a un conato de violencia generado por algunos de los asistentes, de manera que no se procedió con la última fase programada, correspondiente a “comentarios” (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada); h) la boleta de comentarios entregada por la recurrente se recibió e incorporó al expediente administrativo (ver manifestaciones dadas bajo juramento y prueba aportada).

IV.- Sobre el control de constitucionalidad y su extensión. Conforme al artículo 10 de la Constitución Política, corresponderá a una Sala especializada de la Corte Suprema de Justicia declarar, por mayoría absoluta de sus miembros, la inconstitucionalidad de las normas de cualquier naturaleza y de los actos sujetos al Derecho Público. No serán impugnables en esta vía los actos jurisdiccionales del Poder Judicial, la declaratoria de elección que haga el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y los demás que determine la ley.

Acudiendo a la ley, el artículo 1 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional determina que la ratio iuris de la jurisdicción constitucional es garantizar la supremacía de las normas y principios constitucionales y del Derecho Internacional o Comunitario vigente en la República, su uniforme interpretación y aplicación, así como los derechos y libertades fundamentales consagrados en la Constitución o en los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos vigentes en Costa Rica.

De esta forma, el parámetro de control de constitucionalidad comprende un espectro normativo que va más allá del texto constitucional, porque incorpora el derecho convencional así como los principios y valores constitucionales.

En materia de amparo, literalmente, el ordinal 29 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional determina que el amparo procede contra toda disposición, acuerdo o resolución y, en general, contra toda acción, omisión o simple actuación material no fundada en un acto administrativo eficaz, de los servidores y órganos públicos, que haya violado, viole o amenace violar cualquiera de aquellos derechos. El amparo procederá no solo contra los actos arbitrarios, sino también contra las actuaciones u omisiones fundadas en normas erróneamente interpretadas o indebidamente aplicadas. (El destacado no corresponde al original).

Por consiguiente, al momento de ejercer el control de constitucionalidad por la vía del amparo, la Sala Constitucional debe determinar, entre otros aspectos, qué derechos constitucionales o convencionales están siendo lesionados, cuál resolución, acto u omisión ha venido a provocar la lesión de relevancia constitucional, y si de por medio se ha dado una indebida aplicación o errónea interpretación de normas a contrapelo de una correcta protección a los derechos fundamentales.

Al respecto se deben subrayar las características tan particulares de las normas constitucionales: su contenido muchas veces es abstracto, enuncia disposiciones genéricas, y su aplicación es con frecuencia elástica (salvo algunas normas con un mandato muy puntual y preciso).

Esta situación se explica porque la normativa constitucional se encuentra en la cúspide de la jerarquía normativa interna, de manera que su función fundamental consiste en dictar las pautas fundamentales que sirven de orientación al resto del engranaje normativo, a la hora que desarrollan las potestades legislativas y reglamentarias.

Lo que queremos decir es que el contenido normativo de los derechos fundamentales no está restringido al núcleo duro contemplado en el texto constitucional, sino que inexorablemente abarca el ulterior desarrollo que de él se haga a través de leyes y reglamentos. Volver operativo un derecho fundamental demanda su concreción en el ordenamiento infraconstitucional. Ergo, pretender ejercer el control de constitucionalidad únicamente en el ámbito de la norma genérica y abstracta de la Constitución Política deviene una quimera; el verdadero control de constitucionalidad solo se puede ejercer mediante una interacción entre los ámbitos constitucional e infraconstitucional.

Verbigracia, el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, cantidad de instrumentos internacionales vigentes en Costa Rica, resulta imposible de tutelar por la mera referencia a la Ley Fundamental. El control de constitucionalidad correspondiente a dicho derecho solo puede desarrollarse si se acude a la normativa infraconstitucional a fin de velar porque los requerimientos fundamentales establecidos precisamente para resguardar el mandato constitucional del artículo 50 de la Ley Fundamental, efectivamente se cumplan.

Así, un proyecto de gran impacto ambiental requerirá inexcusablemente de un estudio de impacto ambiental, el cual solo es exigido de modo directo por el artículo 17 (siguientes y concordantes) de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, no por la Constitución Política; empero, lo que hace dicho numeral no es sino desarrollar la pauta normativa previamente estatuida en el ordinal 50 de la Ley Fundamental.

La distinción, entonces, de cuándo un asunto es de constitucionalidad y cuándo de legalidad en materia de amparo, no depende del tipo de norma usado en el análisis, sino de otros factores, tales como la intensidad de la lesión al orden constitucional y la complejidad técnica de la averiguación de la verdad real.

Respecto del primer elemento, el control de constitucionalidad está hecho para actuar contra aquellas violaciones groseras y evidentes al orden constitucional, aquellas lesiones que por su grado de intensidad, se nos manifiestan de manera axiomática y vulneran el núcleo o contenido esencial de un derecho constitucional, lo que en doctrina alemana se denomina “Kern des Grundrechtes”. En cuanto al segundo punto, el amparo aspira a una célere protección de los derechos fundamentales, de manera que un asunto cuya averiguación de la verdad real demande una intensa y compleja evacuación de prueba técnica, resulta incompatible con esa naturaleza sumaria del amparo.

De este modo, cuestiones en que violaciones al orden constitucional no sean de intensidad relevante, o asuntos en que el diligenciamiento de la prueba sea harto complejo, no pueden ser conocidos por la vía de amparo. En este último caso, al accionante le queda el camino de la legalidad, o, eventualmente, la de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, cuando esta última vía resulte admisible según la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, pues dicho proceso de constitucionalidad no es sumario sino que le resulta consustancial un examen más profundo tanto de criterios constitucionales como de elementos fácticos.

V.- Sobre el derecho constitucional al gobierno participativo. El derecho a la participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones se ha convertido en uno de los pilares fundamentales sobre los que descansa el sistema democrático. En nuestro país, el legislador constitucional recogió este derecho en el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política al disponer que el Gobierno de la República sea popular, representativo, participativo, alternativo y responsable. Este mandato de la Ley Fundamental ha orientado un posterior desarrollo normativo constitucional e infraconstitucional. Así, se ha establecido una serie de mecanismos que buscan que el derecho al gobierno participativo pueda ser aplicado en forma efectiva, y no quede únicamente en el papel, tales como el referéndum para la aprobación o derogación de leyes y reformas parciales a la Constitución, o la iniciativa popular en la formación de leyes (véase, entre otras, la sentencia número 2005-05649 de las 14:39 horas del 11 de mayo del 2005).

El derecho al gobierno participativo, elevado a rango constitucional mediante la reforma propiciada por Ley N° 8364 de 01 de julio de 2003, publicada en La Gaceta N° 146 de 31 de julio de 2003, no solo significa un reconocimiento del más alto rango normativo a la función del control político, sino que, además, constituye una revalorización del papel del ciudadano en los procesos de toma de decisión. Por voluntad del legislador constituyente, que esta Sala no debe ni puede desconocer, el derecho al gobierno participativo se erige como pilar fundamental de nuestro régimen democrático -cuestión erróneamente desconocida por el voto de minoría, que le baja la categoría a la participación ciudadana de derecho a principio general, en clara contraposición a la línea jurisprudencial de esta Sala como más adelante se demuestra-, lo que resulta conteste con un sistema político basado en la tolerancia, el pluralismo y el respeto a la libertad.

Este derecho al gobierno participativo, también denominado derecho a la participación ciudadana, se encuentre cobijado en varios instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos.

De este modo, el artículo 21 de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos de 1948 dispone que "toda persona tiene derecho a participar en el gobierno de su país, directamente o por medio de representantes libremente escogidos".

Concordante con lo anterior, el numeral 25 del Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos reconoce expresamente el derecho de los ciudadanos: “(…) de participar en la dirección de los asuntos públicos, directamente o por medio de representantes libremente elegidos.” En igual sentido, la Carta Democrática Interamericana señala en su artículo 5° que: “La democracia representativa se refuerza y profundiza con la participación permanente, ética y responsable de la ciudadanía en un marco de legalidad conforme al respectivo orden constitucional.” De manera más vehemente, el numeral 6 de dicha Carta estatuye que: “La participación de la ciudadanía en las decisiones relativas a su propio desarrollo es un derecho y una responsabilidad. Es también una condición necesaria para el pleno y efectivo ejercicio de la democracia. Promover y fomentar diversas formas de participación fortalece la democracia.” Este reconocimiento convencional y constitucional al mencionado derecho representa un aspecto fundamental del modelo democrático de este siglo, en el que el control ciudadano, la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas destacan como factores inherentes al sistema republicano, lo que a su vez dota la toma de decisiones políticas de mucha mayor legitimidad, aspecto clave cuando de verdadera gobernabilidad se trata.

Precisamente, uno de los mecanismos ideados para cumplir lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 constitucional es la audiencia pública, que constituye en un medio a través del cual las personas interesadas pueden hacer valer sus derechos, participando activamente en temas de relevancia nacional o local, y poniendo en conocimiento de la Administración todas aquellas anomalías o disconformidades en relación con el proyecto que se pretenda desarrollar. Así las cosas, la audiencia pública es un instrumento típico de una democracia madura, mediante el cual se fomente la participación activa del ciudadano en la toma de decisiones públicas. Por su significado, la audiencia debe efectuarse de tal forma que garantice la mayor participación de las personas que puedan verse afectadas, de ahí que cualquier acción u omisión que evite lo anterior, implica una abierta vulneración a los derechos fundamentales de los participantes (véase, entre otras, la sentencia número 2009-018223). En cuanto al carácter participativo de la audiencia pública, la propia Constitución Política obliga a ello, pues con la reforma vigente desde el 31 de julio de 2003 al numeral 9 de la Ley Fundamental quedó estatuido que el Gobierno de la República tiene que ser, entre otros aspectos, participativo, lo que implica que el gobierno de turno es un articulador de lo establecido por deliberación popular. En otras palabras, en la democracia actual, los ciudadanos gozan, por mandato constitucional, ya no solo del derecho al voto para ejercer su derecho al gobierno participativo, sino de cantidad de instrumentos de diversa naturaleza para coadyuvar en la toma de decisiones políticas, lo que propicia que puedan ejercer influencia directa en las grandes decisiones públicas. Este derecho fundamental de participación ciudadana establece que el pueblo debe estar habilitado para manifestarse por igual en puntos de vista tanto mayoritarios como minoritarios. Así, serán importantes tanto los mecanismos de participación nacionales como el referéndum o plebiscito, como los locales. Durante la audiencia pública se les deben otorgar a los participantes todas las facilidades para que se encuentren informados y puedan hacerse escuchar, todo dentro de lo razonable, pues tampoco puede convertirse la audiencia en un obstáculo o un recurso para impedir que se dé oportuna resolución a determinada gestión.

De interés para el sub examine, cabe recordar que el artículo 6 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente garantiza el derecho a la audiencia en aquellos asuntos donde esté de por medio el ambiente. Literalmente, dicha norma reza así: “Participación de los habitantes. El Estado y las municipalidades, fomentarán la participación activa y organizada de los habitantes de la República, en la toma de decisiones y acciones tendientes a proteger y mejorar el ambiente”. En igual sentido, el numeral 22 de ese cuerpo normativo indica lo siguiente: “Expediente de la evaluación. Las personas, físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, tendrán el derecho a ser escuchadas por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, en cualquier etapa del proceso de evaluación y en la fase operativa de la obra o el proyecto. Las observaciones de los interesados serán incluidas en el original)”. El Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 31849-MINAE-S-MOPT-MAG-MEIC, reúne una serie de reglas para la celebración de las audiencias públicas en los procedimientos que tramita SETENA a efectos de otorgar la viabilidad ambiental a determinado proyecto. Propiamente, el ordinal 3 define a la audiencia pública de este modo: “Artículo 3º—Definiciones y abreviaciones. Para los efectos del presente reglamento se utilizan las siguientes definiciones y abreviaciones:

(…)

12. Audiencia Pública: Es la presentación que la SETENA le ordena llevar a cabo, al desarrollador y al equipo de consultores ambientales, de una actividad, obra o proyecto de Categoría A, cuando lo estime necesario, a fin de informar a la sociedad civil, sobre el mismo y sus impactos, conforme la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la de Biodiversidad y este reglamento, y demás normativa concordante, así como escuchar las opiniones de los presentes en la audiencia para que sean analizadas en el proceso de EIA y se decida sobre su inclusión o no.”(Lo destacado no corresponde al original).

En conclusión, la audiencia pública dentro de los procedimientos tramitados por SETENA a efectos de otorgar o no viabilidad ambiental a determinado proyecto, se convierte en una manifestación clara del derecho constitucional al gobierno participativo, entronizado en el artículo 9 de nuestra Constitución Política, el cual ha sido potenciado por este Tribunal Constitucional en su jurisprudencia; de ahí que la Sala esté llamada a garantizarlo en el sub judice, con todas las prerrogativas y derechos para ambas partes. Ejemplo del impulso que le ha dado esta Sala a la participación ciudadana en materia ambiental, son las siguientes sentencias:

• 1)Sentencia número 2008-12583 de las 15:02 horas del 19 de agosto de 2008: "El artículo 50 de nuestra Constitución Política consagra el derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, entendiendo a éste como el derecho de las presente y futuras generaciones de habitar en un ambiente que garantice su salud tanto física, como mental Para cumplir con lo anterior, el constituyente otorgó a toda persona la legitimación para denunciar cualquier vulneración al medio ambiente, como forma de garantizar la participación ciudadana en la tutela del medio ambiente, y cumplir así no sólo con lo dispuesto por el artículo 50 constitucional, sino además con el principio democrático, que se deriva del artículo primero de la Constitución Política. Sobre este tema en particular, conviene mencionar lo dispuesto en la sentencia número 2002-10693 de las dieciocho horas con veinte minutos del siete de noviembre de dos mil dos, en la que se indicó en lo que interesa:

“i.– El derecho de acceso a la información ambiental. Este derecho tiene a su vez dos vertientes, por un lado –en su aspecto activo– conlleva el derecho de todas las personas a recibir información concerniente al ambiente, en virtud de haberse realizado una petición en ese sentido, sin que por ello tenga que ser demostrado previamente algún interés específico –bastando para ello alegar la presencia de un interés difuso, lo cual de por sí ha sido de amplia aceptación por esta Sala–, y debiendo dicha información ser puesta a disposición del petente tan pronto como sea posible. A este respecto, podría exceptuarse el acceso, únicamente bajo fundados argumentos de que la información a publicitar adversa la confidencialidad propia de procesos judiciales, los secretos de Estado y los derechos de propiedad intelectual. En cuanto a la vertiente pasiva, este derecho del ciudadano implica que correlativamente, la Administración se encuentra en el deber de facilitar a quien lo solicite la información relativa al ambiente, tanto dentro de los procedimientos como fuera de éstos; ello incluiría la obligación de informar sobre la actividad propuesta, la estructura del procedimiento, la indicación de cuáles serían los órganos para recibir las opiniones o cuestionamientos, entre otros.

ii.– El derecho a la participación pública. Implica esta vertiente, la posibilidad para aquellas personas que puedan verse afectadas o que tengan interés sobre una decisión referente al ambiente, a manifestar desde temprano sus criterios, opiniones, puntos de vista o cuestionamientos sobre la misma, sin tener estas que encontrarse sometidas a formalidades específicas para llegar a ser tomadas en cuenta. Consecuentemente, la información que se dé al administrado debe contener resúmenes no técnicos, que permita a las personas comprender la magnitud de la discusión. Asimismo, conlleva a la existencia de adecuados plazos para, de previo a la participación, se lleve a cabo una etapa para que los ciudadanos se informen.

iii.– El derecho de acceso a la justicia en materia ambiental. Esta dimensión refiere al derecho de los ciudadanos a tener una amplia legitimación activa para proceder a solicitar la revisión de las medidas tomadas en relación con el ambiente, en especial cuando consideren que se ha violentado dentro del procedimiento alguno de los dos aspectos antes citados.” Precisamente, una de las formas de participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones en materia ambiental, se concretiza en la posibilidad que tienen las personas de conocer y brindar su opinión con respecto a los distintos estudios de impacto ambiental que se presenten ante la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, esto conforme lo dispuesto por el artículo 6 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, y el artículo 95 de la Ley de Biodiversidad. Sobre este tema en concreto, la Sala señaló en el voto antes mencionado, lo siguiente:

“El procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental, se caracteriza por ser un procedimiento administrativo con una nota diferenciadora, pues lo que busca es eludir o minimizar la eventual configuración de un daño ambiental, dentro de la ejecución de actividades sobre las que existe certeza acerca del efecto perjudicial que éstas producirían sobre el ambiente, de llevarse a cabo sin mediar contención alguna. En otras palabras, este instrumento corresponde a la materialización del principio de prevención, por cuanto ante una actividad que se sabe de antemano que es dañosa para el ambiente, el interesado propone una serie de medidas tendientes a evitar o mitigar el detrimento ecológico, al órgano o ente público –en este caso la SETENA– que se encarga de determinar si las mismas son las más adecuadas para tal fin. Por consiguiente, dado que este procedimiento lo que persigue en todo momento es el prever cualquier consecuencia negativa, a través de un amplio flujo de información, resulta natural entender que una de sus características es que las personas que puedan verse afectadas por el desarrollo del proyecto puedan aportar datos o puntos de vista fundamentales, que las autoridades competentes a raíz de una conducta omisiva o arbitraria podrían ignorar o dejar de lado, desprotegiendo consecuentemente al ambiente. Es así como el principio o derecho de participación implica dentro del procedimiento de evaluación de impacto ambiental, un alto grado de publicidad, al punto de que cualquier acto o solicitud que tenga un efecto significativo sobre el resultado final del mismo, debe ser de alcance general para todos los interesados, de modo que estos puedan ejercer sus opiniones en cualquier momento y no ser encasillados a un momento procesal determinado. El papel de la población como defensor de un ambiente sano, va desde “la cuna hasta la tumba”, es decir, desde el inicio de la actividad productiva como proyecto, hasta el fin de su vida útil, por lo que no sería admisible que en una décadas –como es el caso de los proyectos hidroeléctricos–, y de consecuencias irreversibles, se limite la participación de aquellos sectores sociales que puedan verse afectados, a una etapa procesal, que como una audiencia, puede durar sólo unas cuantas horas. Así, en razón de su naturaleza preventiva, es exigible que desde el mismo momento de su inicio, un proyecto sometido a evaluación de impacto ambiental deba ser puesto en conocimiento de la población a efectos de iniciar un fenómeno abierto de participación”. (lo destacado no es del original) 2) Sentencia número 2010-017488 de las 14:34 horas del 19 de octubre de 2010: “Sobre la audiencia pública a la comunidad. Otro punto que reclama el recurrente es la falta de una audiencia pública a la comunidad para comunicar las diferentes consecuencias del relleno sanitario de Limón. Al respecto, la Secretaria General de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental acepta, bajo fe de juramento, que efectivamente no se ha realizado la audiencia pública en la comunidad relacionada con este proyecto. Así, tomando en cuenta lo estipulado en el considerando V, se comprueba que el recurrente lleva razón en su alegato y, por consiguiente, este recurso debe ser declarado con lugar en cuanto a este punto. En efecto, la negativa de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, a juicio de esta Sala, es arbitraria e injustificada, pues el presente asunto se trata de la construcción de un relleno sanitario, lo que sin duda incide en la vida de los vecinos del lugar y en el medio ambiente. Así, considera este Tribunal que una audiencia pública en donde se diera una adecuada comunicación, información y diálogo con la población sobre el proyecto de relleno sanitario resultaba de trascendencia para que los vecinos tuvieran un panorama más amplio sobre los beneficios y perjuicios que puede conllevar un proyecto como el antes mencionado. En ese sentido, a criterio de este Tribunal, el derecho a la participación ciudadana no fue garantizado, pues al no haberse realizado audiencia alguna en la comunidad, los interesados vieron limitadas sus posibilidades de conocer más a fondo el tema en discusión. Así, en razón de lo expuesto anteriormente, se estima que el presente recurso debe ser acogido en cuanto a este punto” (lo subrayado no es del original) 3) Sentencia número 2013-009795 de las 10:00 horas del 19 de julio de 2013: “IV.- Por otro lado, este Tribunal ha potenciado el derecho que tiene la población de participar en aquellos asuntos que sean de su interés y que involucren la afectación al ambiente. Sobre el particular se ha indicado, que la participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales abarca dos puntos esenciales: el derecho a la información relativa a los proyectos ambientales, o que puedan causar una lesión a los recursos naturales y al medio ambiente, y la garantía de una efectiva participación en la toma de decisiones en estos asuntos. Por ello, el Estado costarricense no solo debe invitar a la participación ciudadana, sino que debe promoverla y respetarla cuando se produzca (ver sentencias número 2001-10466, 2003-6322 y 2010-6922). Así, resulta de gran importancia que sea puesta a disposición de los interesados la información que en la materia tengan en las oficinas públicas, relativa a los estudios de impacto ambiental a cargo de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, pro ejemplo. Fue la Convención de Río la que en el principio 10 elevó esta participación a rango de principio en materia ambiental, al señalar:

"El mejor modo de tratar las cuestiones ambientales es con la participación de todos los ciudadanos interesados, en el nivel que corresponda. En el plano nacional, toda persona debe tener adecuada formación sobre el medio ambiente que dispongan las autoridades públicas, incluida la información sobre los materiales y las actividades que encierran peligro en sus comunidades, así como la oportunidad de participar en los procesos de adopción de decisiones. Los Estados deberán facilitar y fomentar la sensibilización y la participación de la población poniendo la información a disposición de todos. Deberá proporcionarse acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos, entre éstos el resarcimiento de daños y los recursos pertinentes." De este principio, se evidencia claramente la importancia que a nivel internacional se da a las cuestiones ambientales, y en general, sobre todo, a la participación de la sociedad civil en decisiones de gran trascendencia para la comunidad. Precisamente, por Ley No. 7412 del 03 de junio de 1994, la Asamblea Legislativa reformó el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, garantizando a toda persona el derecho al ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. Lo anterior ha traído como consecuencia, además, que se admita una legitimación muy amplia para denunciar actos que infrinjan ese derecho y para reclamar la reparación del daño causado, a través del acceso efectivo a los procedimientos judiciales y administrativos. Asimismo, cuando la Constitución Política hace mención en el artículo 9, que el Gobierno de la República es popular, representativo, participativo, alternativo y responsable, hemos de tener claro que la participación ciudadana no se limitaría al mero ejercicio del derecho al voto, o a la aspiración de alcanzar un cargo público de elección popular, sino, además y en esta nueva visión, a la de que a las personas se les ofrezca la oportunidad real de contribuir a la toma de las decisiones políticas del Estado, especialmente cuando éstas tengan trascendencia nacional, o eventualmente pudieren afectar los derechos fundamentales de ciertos sectores de la población. De los artículos 1, 9 y 50 Constitucionales se rescata pues, la consideración que los ciudadanos merecen en un Estado democrático, en el cual puedan al menos tener acceso a la información sobre el medio ambiente de que dispongan las autoridades públicas. El precepto comentado, entonces, recoge el principio citado a través del acceso a la información de que se dispone y a la divulgación de ella, para que la toma de decisiones no se circunscriba a un limitado grupo de intereses. En la materia que ahora analizamos, nuestro ordenamiento jurídico ya prevé que los particulares pueden solicitar incluso a SETENA llevar a cabo audiencias públicas, para efecto de que se tomen en cuenta las posiciones formuladas por las comunidades interesadas en la toma de decisiones que afectan el ambiente, lo que ha sido recogido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y de su Reglamento, como informó la autoridad recurrida. Lo anterior, claro está, en aquellos asuntos que su trascendencia lo amerite, lo cual puede ser solicitado por cualquier interesado y valorado así por la Comisión Plenaria (…)” VI.- Jurisprudencia constitucional, nacional e internacional, en la que se reconoce el derecho al gobierno participativo o la participación ciudadana como derecho fundamental. Ahora bien, esta Sala ha establecido criterios dentro de su jurisprudencia sobre la participación pública en la toma de decisiones que afectan a la colectividad, en temas tan variados como el ambiente, la planificación urbana y la modificación de tarifas en los servicios públicos, entre otros. Asimismo, ha reconocido el gobierno participativo como derecho fundamental tutelable en la vía del amparo. Tal decisión se ha tomado con independencia del nombre que se le asignado al mismo, puesto también se le puede denominar derecho a la participación pública o al gobierno participativo. En todos estos casos se establece, con asidero en el ordinal 9 de la Constitución Política, el derecho al gobierno participativo de modo expreso. Además de los precedentes citados en el considerando anterior, resulta de relevancia recordar estos otros:

• i)Sentencia número 2007-011266 de las 14:35 horas del 08 de agosto de 2007: “Con fundamento en lo dicho en el considerando anterior, este Tribunal estima que en el caso de estudio existe una violación a lo dispuesto por el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, pues la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Público no incorporó en la resolución RRG-4771-2005, un mecanismo que garantice la participación de los ciudadanos en la resolución de las solicitudes de aumento extraordinario en los combustibles, presentadas por la Refinadora Costarricense de Petróleo. En ese sentido, considera esta Sala que resulta a todas luces arbitrario que la ARESEP apruebe un modelo extraordinario de fijación de precios de los combustibles que expende RECOPE sin publicitar la información para cada caso concreto, pues ello implica que las personas no puedan ejercer su derecho de participación en la toma de dicha decisión, incumpliendo así con lo dispuesto por el legislador constitucional. Si bien esta Sala entiende que en el caso del ajuste extraordinario de precios a los combustibles vendidos por RECOPE lo que se pretende es el restablecimiento urgente del equilibrio financiero de la relación entre prestatario y usuario que ha resultado afectado por circunstancias diferentes de las previstas para las fijaciones ordinarias, lo cierto es que dicho reajuste no puede lograrse en detrimento de los derechos de los habitantes del país, quienes tienen la potestad de expresar su opinión con respecto a los aumentos en los precios de los hidrocarburos, tal y como se indicó” (lo destacado no es del original) ii) Sentencia número 2012-017749 de las 09:30 horas del 14 de diciembre de 2012: “Bajo ese contexto, la autoridad recurrida lesionó el derecho de participación ciudadana en los asuntos ambientales, dado que una audiencia se realiza con el fin de dar oportunidad a los interesados de manifestarse, en contra o a favor de una decisión que tiene, indubitablemente, repercusiones en su esfera jurídica.” iii) Sentencia número 2011-005516 de las 12:31 horas del 29 de abril de 2011: “Si bien es cierto esta Sala ha reconocido la existencia del derecho de participación ciudadana en asuntos de índole ambiental, este derecho debe ser comprendido, al menos para ser de conocimiento de esta jurisdicción, para aquellos proyectos que por su índole especial y de gran trascendencia o afectación pueda afectar sensiblemente a una comunidad.” iv) Sentencia número 2011-007962 de las 10:53 horas del 17 de junio de 2011: “De igual forma, este Tribunal Constitucional, en la Sentencia No. 8125-2008 de las 18:22 hrs. de 13 de mayo de 2008 -con respecto a las audiencias públicas que debe de organizar la ARESEP para la ciudadanía interesada en aquellos casos en los que se tramita un estudio de fijación tarifaria de servicios públicos-, estimó lo siguiente: “(…) La participación de los ciudadanos en la toma de decisiones públicas se encuentra prevista en el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, por lo que adquiere el rango y la fuerza de un derecho constitucional de carácter fundamental. No se trata de una desconstitucionalización del principio de legalidad de la Administración Pública, aunque sí por supuesto, de una forma de gobierno más democrático, que amplía los foros de debate sobre diferentes temas que le afectan a la colectividad, y que por virtud de ello, quedan abiertos a la intervención y opinión ciudadana. Estamos, pues, ante una opción ya muy aceptada en la evolución del concepto de democracia y este amparo ofrece una magnífica oportunidad de darle clara y efectiva vigencia, para que no se quede en el mero discurso.” (lo destacado no es del original).

Este reconocimiento del gobierno democrático como derecho fundamental también se ha dado en otras latitudes. Verbigracia, la jurisprudencia de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia ha destacado su importancia en reiteradas oportunidades. Por ejemplo, en la sentencia número C-180 de 1994, se precisó lo siguiente: “El principio de participación democrática expresa no sólo un sistema de toma de decisiones, sino un modelo de comportamiento social y político, fundamentado en los principios del pluralismo, la tolerancia, la protección de los derechos y libertades así como en una gran responsabilidad de los ciudadanos en la definición del destino colectivo”.

“El concepto de democracia participativa lleva ínsita la aplicación de los principios democráticos que informan la práctica política a esferas diferentes de la electoral. Comporta una revaloración y un dimensionamiento vigoroso del concepto de ciudadano y un replanteamiento de su papel en la vida nacional”.

“No comprende simplemente la consagración de mecanismos para que los ciudadanos tomen decisiones en referendos o en consultas populares, o para que revoquen el mandato de quienes han sido elegidos, sino que implica adicionalmente que el ciudadano puede participar permanentemente en los procesos decisorios no electorales que incidirán significativamente en el rumbo de su vida. Se busca así fortalecer los canales de representación, democratizarlos y promover un pluralismo más equilibrado y menos desigual”.

“La participación ciudadana en escenarios distintos del electoral alimenta la preocupación y el interés de la ciudadanía por los problemas colectivos; contribuye a la formación de unos ciudadanos capaces de interesarse de manera sostenida en los procesos gubernamentales y, adicionalmente, hace más viable la realización del ideal de que cada ciudadano tenga iguales oportunidades para lograr el desarrollo personal al cual aspira y tiene derecho”.

“En la democracia participativa el pueblo no sólo elige sus representantes, por medio del voto, sino que tiene la posibilidad de intervenir directamente en la toma de ciertas decisiones, así como la de dejar sin efecto o modificar las que sus representantes en las corporaciones públicas hayan adoptado, ya sea por convocatoria o por su propia iniciativa, y la de revocarle el mandato a quienes ha elegido”.

“En síntesis: la participación concebida dentro del sistema democrático a que se ha hecho referencia, inspira el nuevo marco sobre el cual se estructura el sistema constitucional del Estado colombiano. Esta implica la ampliación cuantitativa de oportunidades reales de participación ciudadana, así como su recomposición cualitativa en forma que, además del aspecto político electoral, su espectro se proyecte a los planos de lo individual, familiar, económico y social”.

En el mismo sentido, en la sentencia número C-522 de 2002, la Corte Constitucional de Colombia destacó la proyección del principio democrático y de la participación ciudadana en otros escenarios en virtud de su carácter universal y expansivo. Dijo entonces: “De otra parte, es necesario puntualizar que la Constitución Política de 1991 no restringe el principio democrático al ámbito político sino que lo extiende a múltiples esferas sociales. El proceso de ampliación de la democracia supera la reflexión sobre los mecanismos de participación directa y especialmente hace énfasis en la extensión de la participación de las personas interesadas en las deliberaciones de los cuerpos colectivos diferentes a los políticos. El desarrollo de la democracia se extiende de la esfera de lo político en la que el individuo es considerado como ciudadano, a la esfera social donde la persona es tomada en cuenta en su multiplicidad de roles, por ejemplo, como trabajador, estudiante, miembro de una familia, afiliado a una empresa prestadora de salud, consumidor etc. Ante la extensión de la democracia la Corte Constitucional ha señalado que el principio democrático que la Carta prohija es a la vez universal y expansivo. Universal porque compromete varios escenarios, procesos y lugares tanto públicos como privados y también porque la noción de política que lo sustenta se nutre de todo lo que válidamente puede interesar a la persona, a la comunidad y al Estado y sea por lo tanto susceptible de afectar la distribución, control y asignación del poder. Es expansivo pues porque ha de ampliarse progresivamente conquistando nuevos ámbitos y profundizando permanentemente su vigencia, lo que demanda por parte de los principales actores públicos y privados un denodado esfuerzo para su efectiva construcción”.

VII.- Sobre el caso concreto. La recurrente alega que la SETENA lesionó su derecho de participación ciudadana durante la audiencia pública realizada el 9 de noviembre de 2013, en el gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez de Limón, correspondiente al expediente del proyecto de la Nueva Terminal de Contenedores de Moín, ya que a pesar de que solicitó el uso de la palabra, no se le concedió.

Al respecto, la Sala tiene por demostrado que el 25 de mayo de 2012, en la SETENA fue recibido el documento de evaluación ambiental inicial del proyecto “Terminal de Contenedores de Moín” presentado a nombre de la empresa APM Terminals Moín S.A., al cual se le asignó el expediente número D1-7968-2012-SETENA. Asimismo, se observa que mediante resolución número 2539-2013-SETENA del 10 de octubre de 2013, la Comisión Plenaria de SETENA acordó la celebración de una audiencia pública de las 8:00 a las 16:00 horas del 9 de noviembre de 2013 en el Gimnasio Eddy Bermúdez de Limón. Por otra parte, a través de nota recibida en la SETENA el 4 de noviembre de 2013, la recurrente se apersonó en el audiencia pública por efectuarse. Mediante oficio número SG-UE-DEA-146-2013, la SETENA le indicó que “durante la realización se establecería un espacio de preguntas y comentarios, dentro del cual podrá ejercer su derecho uso de la palabra”. Observa la Sala que, efectivamente, el 9 de noviembre de 2013 se celebró la audiencia pública de cita con el siguiente programa: de las 7:00 a las 8:00 horas, registro de participantes; de las 8:00 a las 8:30 horas, primera y segunda convocatoria respectivamente; de las 8:30 a las 8:50 horas, inicio formal de la actividad – presentación formal de la SETENA – establecimientos de las reglas de la audiencia; de las 8:50 a las 9:20 horas, descripción del proyecto; de las 9:20 a las 11:00 horas, presentación del Estudio de Impacto Ambiental; de las 11:00 a las 11:15 horas, recolección y clasificación de preguntas; de las 11:15 a las 12:00 horas, lectura de preguntas y respuestas a preguntas; de las 12:00 a las 13:00 horas, receso para el almuerzo; de las 13:00 a las 14:00 horas, continuación de la lectura de preguntas y respuestas; de las 14:00 a las 14:15 horas, recolección y clasificación de boletas con comentarios; de las 14:15 a las 16:00 horas, espacio para replica a comentarios; 16:00 horas, elaboración del acta, lectura y firmas – cierre de la actividad. Ahora bien, como correspondía, al inicio de la actividad, el Secretario General de SETENA dio lectura al programa general y del orden que debe imperar en la celebración de la audiencia, las conductas que representen un quebranto a dicho propósito generará en primera instancia un llamado al orden. En caso de no restablecerse el mismo se podrán tomar medidas tales como acordar una pausa prudencial, requerir la intervención de la seguridad o la suspensión de la audiencia”. Ahora bien, debido a un conato de violencia generado por algunos de los presentes, la mencionada audiencia, en vez de suspenderse como se había indicado en las reglas del programa general, se dio por finalizada por parte del Secretario General de la SETENA aproximadamente a las 13:40 horas, de manera que no se procedió con el resto de las fases de la audiencia: recolección y clasificación de boletas con comentarios, espacio para replica a comentarios, y, finalmente, elaboración del acta, lectura y firmas, junto con el cierre de la actividad. Tal finalización de la audiencia ha quedado plenamente acreditada, tanto con fundamento en el video aportado como prueba por el Secretario General de la SETENA, como con base en la trascripción literal de la audiencia, donde se consignó: “14. Suspensión de la audiencia. Uriel Juárez:… par (sic) realizando esta audiencia pública, en este momento la damos por finalizada. Muchas gracias!”.

De este modo, en vez de suspender la audiencia, esta se dio por finalizada, lo que implicó excluir aspectos fundamentales de dicha jornada, como la recolección de comentarios y sus réplicas. Adviértase que el derecho al gobierno participativo, estatuido en el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, constituye, como se constitucional que irradia sobre el desarrollo legislativo y reglamentario, así como sobre el accionar de la Administración. Precisamente, en atención a ese mandato constitucional, los numerales 6 y 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y 3 del Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental obligan a la realización de la citada audiencia. Para que esta se considere celebrada de manera correcta, la misma debió haber concluido de modo completa, lo que en la especie no se dio y, además, resulta de particular gravedad, porque ni los comentarios ni sus réplicas vendrían a ser tomados en cuenta al momento de emisión del acto final respectivo. Así las cosas, en el sub examine, la protección al derecho constitucional al gobierno participativo, que también puede ser visto como principio, solo puede volverse operativa si se vela por su correcto resguardo a la hora de aplicar e interpretar la normativa infra constitucional que obliga a la celebración de una audiencia completa, toda vez que se está ante una grosera y evidente violación al núcleo duro del referido derecho pues, como se señaló, aspectos esenciales (recolección de los comentarios de los participantes y sus réplicas) han venido a quedar por fuera, pese a que las reglas de la audiencia, expuestas al inicio de la actividad, solo hacían referencia a la suspensión de la actividad como medida más drástica en caso del algún disturbio. Como se advierte con facilidad, esta lesión al gobierno participativo no requiere para su demostración de diligencia alguna de prueba compleja, dada la claridad con que se fijaron las reglas de la audiencia. Además, pretender que el control de constitucionalidad está limitado al mero hecho de si hubo o no audiencia, sin analizar aspectos elementales de la forma en que esta se desarrolla (como lo ha venido efectuando la Sala Constitucional), implica desfigurar el derecho constitucional al gobierno participativo y dejarlo como un cascarón vacío, ayuno de una efectiva tutela constitucional.

En el sub judice, la propia SETENA incumplió las reglas que ella misma instauró para el adecuado desarrollo de la diligencia. Recuérdese que dentro de las pautas acordadas previo al inicio de la audiencia se encontraba que, en caso de evidenciarse conductas que representaran un quebranto al orden, primero se haría un llamado al orden y si este no surtía los efectos deseados, se acordaría una pausa prudencial, se requeriría la intervención de la seguridad, o bien, se suspendería la audiencia. La suspensión de una diligencia no es lo mismo que su finalización. La primera conlleva una reprogramación con el fin de concluir satisfactoriamente lo omitido. En la segunda, se da por terminada de manera definitiva la audiencia, de manera que debe ser usada cuando ya se hayan agotado todas las fases programadas sin que se omita ninguna relevante. Sin embargo, en el caso concreto, se eliminó un elemento esencial de la audiencia pública: la etapa destinada a que las personas interesadas se manifestarán, a viva voz, para la réplica de los comentarios. Si por las circunstancias verificadas el 9 de noviembre de 2013 no fue posible concluir la diligencia pública, lo propio hubiese sido que SETENA reprogramara la audiencia para días posteriores y esta fuera concluida como correspondía.

Sin demérito de lo señalado, la Sala es consciente de que los disturbios acaecidos durante el desenlace final de la audiencia no son imputables a la SETENA. Asimismo, este Tribunal reconoce que la autoridad recurrida tenía programada la intervención activa de las personas presentes. Empero, en atención al derecho constitucional al gobierno participativo, estipulado en el ordinal 9 de la Constitución Política, la Sala estima necesario ordenar en este amparo la finalización de la audiencia pública efectuada, con el propósito de que las personas que oportunamente habían solicitado el uso de la palabra durante la fase de comentarios, puedan exponer a viva voz sus opiniones, para lo cual se deberán tomar las medidas de organización, seguridad y tecnológicas pertinentes a fin de concluir la audiencia pública con normalidad.

VIII.- Voto salvado del Magistrado Jinesta Lobo, la Magistrada Hernández López y el Magistrado Salazar Alvarado, con redacción de la segunda. Estimamos que este amparo debe ser rechazo de plano. Al modificar el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, el órgano constituyente reformador quiso dar positividad al Principio de Participación y así acercar a los administrados al proceso de toma de decisiones estatales, como parte de lo que la doctrina llama “mecanismos de corrección” de la democracia representativa. Así, el Constituyente reformador dejó los medios, alcance y oportunidad de la participación ciudadana a la normativa infra-constitucional, salvo en casos excepcionales. En ese sentido, la sede natural para vigilar su cumplimiento, es la justicia ordinaria y no la jurisdicción constitucional. Por esa razón, son ajenas y lejanas a la competencia de este Tribunal, las cuestiones que se plantean en el caso, a saber, si la estructura de la audiencia permitía la intervención de todos o solo algunos; si la Constitución garantiza que la recurrente deba exponer de viva voz su criterio aún cuando hizo llegar sus comentarios por escrito; si la audiencia fue bien o mal terminada, al haberse concluido dos horas veinte minutos antes de lo programado, o si debió solamente suspenderse; o las consecuencias jurídicas del proceder de los grupos de asistentes que iniciaron -sin saberse si adrede o no- los brotes de violencia que dieron al traste con lo programado.- En el caso específico, precisamente el artículo 22 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, no define si esa participación es a viva voz, por escrito o de qué manera se satisface la exigencia de la participación, lo cual requiere ser analizado en un proceso que permita la amplitud de prueba y contradictorio que, desde nuestro punto de vista, no encuadra en el amparo como proceso rápido, sencillo, sumario y especial de protección de derechos humanos fundamentales. Le corresponde entonces, al control de legalidad y no a este Tribunal Constitucional, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas desplegadas (activas u omisas), por la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, se ajustan o no, al ordenamiento jurídico infra constitucional. Por las razones indicadas, estimamos que el tema planteado está lejos de las competencias específicas, que la Sala Constitucional está llamada a proteger, sin que ello signifique que no merezca análisis en la jurisdicción ordinaria o de mera legalidad contenciosa administrativa, conforme al artículo 49 constitucional.

Por tanto:

Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a Miguel Marín Cantarero, en su condición de Secretario General ad hoc de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, o a quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo, que de inmediato proceda a concluir la audiencia pública del expediente número D1-7968-2012-SETENA, la cual deberá ser efectuada dentro de los 15 días hábiles siguientes a la notificación de esta sentencia, con el propósito de concluir solo las fases omitidas según las reglas de la audiencia expuestas al comienzo de la misma. Se advierte a la autoridad recurrida que, de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa, a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso de amparo y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena al Estado al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios ocasionados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. Notifíquese esta sentencia a Miguel Marín Cantarero, en su condición de Secretario General ad hoc de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, o a quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo, en forma personal. Los Magistrados Jinesta Lobo, Hernández López y Salazar Alvarado salvan el voto y rechazan de plano el recurso.- Gilbert Armijo S.

Presidente a.i.

Ernesto Jinesta L. Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fernando Salazar A. Rosa M. Abdelnour G.

Oloria 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6