Outright Dismissal for Lack of Reasoning in Challenge to San Isidro de Heredia Regulatory PlanRechazo de plano por falta de argumentación en acción contra Plan Regulador de San Isidro de Heredia

*150164160007CO* *150164160007CO* Res. Nº 2015018944 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eleven o'clock on December second, two thousand fifteen.

Action of unconstitutionality filed by Didier Carranza Rodríguez, of legal age, married once, attorney and notary, resident of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, identity card No. 2-294-150, against the “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, pursuant to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005.

Resultando:

1.- By brief received in the Secretariat of the Constitutional Chamber at 11:32 hrs. on November 3, 2015, the petitioner files this action of unconstitutionality against the “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, pursuant to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005, and states that the Municipal Council of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, through agreement No. N-1256-2005, taken in ordinary session No. 69-2005 of November 14, 2005, ordered: “to formally approve the plan regulador of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia,” noting that the original texts and plans are available at the Municipality of the Canton of San Isidro and the Urban Planning Directorate of the INVU. In this way, the plan entered into operation without discussion in committee, and without the participation of the citizens and taxpayers of the Canton. Said Plan Regulador was never submitted for consideration by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, nor by MINAE, in order to assess the environmental variables, nor was it submitted to the knowledge of the residents of the Canton, as is proper. Both the American Convention on Human Rights and various International Instruments on Human Rights recognize the right of every person to seek and receive information. This Plan Regulador imposed severe restrictions on the property rights of the residents of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, without a prior hearing. The questioned situation injures the principles of objectification in environmental matters, the precautionary principle, the principle of non-regression, the right to information, the right to sustainable development, as well as the right protected in Article 45 of the Constitución Política. Based on the provisions of the Plan Regulador, several zones have been declared as protected, without having the authorization of MINAE. He bases his standing to bring this direct action of unconstitutionality on Article 75, paragraph 2 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, as this matter concerns the defense of diffuse interests and, specifically, in his condition as a resident of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. He requests that it be resolved accordingly.

2.- The Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber, by resolution at 15:58 hrs. on November 3, 2015, ordered: “The petitioner Didier Carranza Rodríguez, of legal age, married once, attorney and notary, resident of San Isidro de Heredia, identity card No. 2-294-150, is warned that within three days, counted from the day following the notification of this resolution and under warning of denying the processing of the action in case of non-compliance, must: 1.- Clearly, precisely and sufficiently substantiate the grounds for unconstitutionality of the challenged norm in accordance with Article 78 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. In the same manner and without prejudice to the foregoing, pursuant to Article 4 of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963, he is additionally warned that within the same period, he must add and cancel the Colegio de Abogados stamp for the sum of two hundred fifty colones, corresponding to the authentication of the initial brief, under warning –in this case– of not hearing the person in default while they do not comply with what is ordered, without retroaction of terms. Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 4 of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963. Notify.”- 3.- In a brief dated November 6, 2015, the petitioner attempts to comply with the warning. He requests that it be resolved accordingly.

4.- Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any claim presented for its knowledge that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a prior equal or similar claim that was rejected.

Drafted by Magistrate Jinesta Lobo; and,

Considerando:

I.- On the inadmissibility of the action, due to the omission of the petitioner to sustain or explain the reasons why they consider that the challenged norm is unconstitutional. The Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, in its Article 3, provides that “The Constitución Política shall be deemed infringed when this results from the confrontation of the text of the questioned norm or act, its effects, or its interpretation or application by public authorities, with the constitutional norms and principles.” Now, for this Court to deem the infringement configured and declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm or act, with the consequent annulment and expulsion from the legal system, whoever brings an action of unconstitutionality has the burden of demonstrating how that provision infringes the constitutional norm or principle and, in addition, must indicate why the action must be upheld. This is denominated by this Chamber as the burden of argumentation, that is, that “a norm that is facially contrary to the Constitution, shifts the burden of argumentation to those who maintain that in reality there is no conflict between that norm and the Constitución Política; the opposite occurs if an action is brought against a norm that upon first examination does not appear contrary to the Constitution, in which hypothesis it is the petitioner who must advance with the arguments that convince about the unconstitutionality ” (see judgment No. 0184-95 of 16:30 hrs. of January 10, 1995).

II.- In a subsequent judgment, this Chamber stated, regarding the lack of concreteness of the arguments of unconstitutionality in matters of actions of unconstitutionality, the following:

“The action of unconstitutionality is filed with the argument that the challenged Decreto Ejecutivo is harmful, injures and infringes the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the right to health and the international commitments entered into with the Kyoto Protocol. Despite the opportunity granted to the petitioners, what the Procuraduría General de la República indicates is confirmed, that there is no concrete analysis of the provisions of the challenged Decreto Ejecutivo that are considered unconstitutional, but rather it is limited to establishing discrepancies in a generic and abstract manner against the entirety of the Reglamento, even more so against all activity carried out by the Sugar Mills and Haciendas, since they maintain that they cause inconveniences in the quality of life and health of the neighboring inhabitants, without specifying what arguments of constitutionality must be taken into account against each one of the provisions or groups of norms of the challenged Reglamento. […] The first paragraph of Article 78 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the obligation to authenticate the briefs for filing actions of unconstitutionality, since it is deemed necessary for there to be arguments put forth by a legal professional, which does not rule out that this Tribunal responds to a serious study of the technical and scientific background of a specific matter, given the diversity and universality of the norms of the legal system. Unlike the processes of guarantees, that is, the remedies of habeas corpus and amparo, which can be directly filed by any interested party before the constitutional jurisdiction in defense of their fundamental rights, generally against acts or omissions that injure their particular sphere (although not always as in environmental cases), in the processes for defense of the Constitución Política (like the action of unconstitutionality), the legislator entrusted to the authenticating attorney a task whose demand is even greater, if one wishes, more elaborate and exhaustive, that must be reflected in the filing brief by reason of their professional duty, to demonstrate to the Court the injury to the constitutional norm by a lower-ranking norm, undermining the principle of constitutional supremacy contained in Article 10 of the Constitución Política. Precisely the material and formal elaboration of the Law, as well as of the other secondary provisions, presuppose an extremely costly process for the State, in which organized civil society has participated in many ways for or against its elaboration, and whose procedures of formation, approval and promulgation should not be analyzed lightly. In this sense, this Chamber must recognize that there is a reduced space for this Court to remedy the manifest absences of the legal professionals who authenticate briefs in this constitutional jurisdiction, without exposing the impartiality and analysis owed to each of the actions of unconstitutionality.” (Judgment No. 2012-05285 of 15:03 hrs. of April 25, 2012, reiterated in judgment No. 2014-04239 of 16:00 hrs. of March 26, 2014).

In this case, this Constitutional Court considers that the present action is inadmissible, precisely due to the omission of the petitioner to argue or explain, extensively, the reasons why they consider the “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, pursuant to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005, to be unconstitutional. In this regard, although in the initial brief of the action, as well as in the brief presented on the occasion of the warning made by the Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber in the resolution at 15:58 hrs. on November 3, 2015, the petitioner limits themselves to considering that the aforementioned Plan Regulador is unconstitutional because it was not consulted with the residents of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia nor with SETENA, it is clear that they have omitted to indicate, concretely and broadly, the reasons why they consider that said instrument is contrary to Constitutional Law, contrary to what Article 78 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional requires to that effect, in the sense of presenting their grounds in a clear and precise manner, with specific citation of the norms or principles they consider infringed. In this regard, it deeply draws the attention of the Chamber that the brief submitted by the petitioner on November 6, 2015 is a mere and simple reiteration of what was stated in the initial filing of the action, but not a clear argumentation of the reasons for unconstitutionality of the questioned norm, despite what was expressly warned by the Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber. Furthermore, although the petitioner relies on the existence of a diffuse interest to challenge the Plan Regulador in question, they have omitted to indicate what specifically the limitations that said normative instrument establishes with respect to the right to property in their particular case consist of, with which it is not possible to determine whether or not they share the collective interest that allows them to challenge, through the direct action of unconstitutionality provided for in Article 75 paragraph 2 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción, the Plan Regulador of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. There is no detailed analysis in the specific case of the instrument, comprised of multiple normative and graphic elements that is considered unconstitutional, but rather a brief and succinct relation of its provisions with the mentioned facts is established. In short, it is clear that in the present case an expression of the grievances and grounds of the injury to the Constitution that is considered violated due to the content of the challenged norm is not made. In this regard, Article 78, paragraph 2 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, provides the following: “Their grounds shall be set forth in a clear and precise manner, with specific citation of the norms or principles that are considered infringed.” For the reasons stated, what proceeds is the outright rejection of the action and it is so declared.

Por tanto:

The action is rejected outright. Magistrates Cruz Castro, Castillo Víquez and Rueda Leal dissent and order that the action be processed.- Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V. Paul Rueda L. Nancy Hernández L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A. José Paulino Hernández G.

DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATES CRUZ CASTRO, CASTILLO VÍQUEZ AND RUEDA LEAL: In the present case, we order that the action of unconstitutionality be processed for the following reasons. As can be observed, the petitioner's allegation, as deduced from the filing brief, is that “the plan regulador and its zoning regulation that the Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia approved, according to publication in the Official Newspaper La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005, was never submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (SETENA) and to MINAE so that the environmental variables could be assessed, nor was it duly submitted to the residents and taxpayers of the canton as is proper.” According to the provisions of Article 17 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, it is the responsibility of the local government “Prior to implementing a plan regulador or any of its parts, the municipality intending to do so must: 1) Convene a public hearing by means of the Official Gazette and additional necessary dissemination indicating the location, date and time to hear about the project and the verbal or written observations that the residents or interested parties may wish to make. The scheduling must be made no less than fifteen business days in advance...”.

In this regard, we consider that not submitting a Plan Regulador to consultation with the citizens of the canton and the competent bodies in the matter is contrary to the principle of citizen participation, a topic that is a matter of constitutional relevance not only because the democratic principle established in Article 9 of the Constitution is at stake, but also the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment regulated in Article 50 of the Carta Magna. By reason of the foregoing, we dissent and order that the action be processed upon verifying the violation of the principle of citizen participation.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

**Exp: 15-016416-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2015018944** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at eleven o'clock on December second, two thousand fifteen.** Action of unconstitutionality filed by Didier Carranza Rodríguez, of legal age, married once, attorney and notary, resident of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, identity card No. 2-294-150, against the “*Plan Regulador of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia*”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, pursuant to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005.

**Resultando**:

**1.-** By written brief received in the Secretariat of the Constitutional Chamber at 11:32 hrs. on November 3, 2015, the petitioner files the present action of unconstitutionality against the “*Plan Regulador of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia*”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, pursuant to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005, and states that the Municipal Council of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, through agreement No. N-1256-2005, taken in ordinary session No. 69-2005 of November 14, 2005, ordered: “*formally approve the plan regulador of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia*”, noting that the original texts and plans are available at the Municipality of the Canton of San Isidro and at the Urban Planning Directorate of the INVU. In this way, the plan began operation without a committee discussion, and without the participation of the citizens and taxpayers of the Canton. Said Plan Regulador was never submitted for consideration by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), nor by MINAE, in order to assess the environmental variables, nor was it brought to the attention of the Canton's residents, as is proper. Both the American Convention on Human Rights and various International Instruments on Human Rights recognize the right of every person to seek and receive information. This Plan Regulador imposed severe restrictions on the property rights of the residents of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, without a prior hearing. The questioned situation injures the principles of objectification in environmental matters, the precautionary principle, the principle of non-regression, the right to information, the right to sustainable development, as well as the right protected in Article 45 of the Political Constitution. Based on the provisions of the Plan Regulador, several zones have been declared as protected, without the authorization of MINAE. He bases his standing to bring this direct action of unconstitutionality on Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), as this matter concerns the defense of diffuse interests and, specifically, in his capacity as a resident of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. He requests that it be resolved accordingly.

**2.-** The Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber, by resolution at 15:58 hrs. on November 3, 2015, ordered: “*The petitioner Didier Carranza Rodríguez, of legal age, married once, attorney and notary, resident of San Isidro de Heredia, identity card No. 2-294-150, is forewarned that within the third day, counted from the day following the notification of this resolution and under warning of denying the processing of the action in case of non-compliance, he must: 1.- Clearly, precisely, and sufficiently substantiate the grounds for the unconstitutionality of the contested norm in accordance with Article 78 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Likewise and without prejudice to the foregoing, in accordance with Article 4 of Law No. 3245 of December 3, 1963, he is additionally forewarned that within the same period, he must attach and cancel the Bar Association stamp for the amount of two hundred fifty colones, corresponding to the authentication of the initial brief, under the warning –in this case– of not hearing the person in default while he does not comply with the order, without retroaction of terms. Articles 78, 79, and 80 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional); 4 of Law No. 3245 of December 3, 1963. Notify*”.- **3.-** In a brief dated November 6, 2015, the petitioner attempts to comply with the prevention.

Requests that it be resolved accordingly.

**4.-** Article 9 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber (Sala) to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition brought before it that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of an earlier equal or similar petition that was rejected.

Drafted by Magistrate Jinesta Lobo; and, **Considering:** **I.- On the inadmissibility of the action, due to the omission of the plaintiff party to support or explain the reasons why it considers the challenged norm to be unconstitutional.** The Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), in its article 3, provides that *“It shall be deemed that the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) has been infringed when this results from the confrontation of the text of the questioned norm or act, its effects, or its interpretation or application by public authorities, with the constitutional norms and principles.”* Now, for this Tribunal to consider the infringement established and declare the unconstitutionality of the impugned norm or act, with the consequent annulment and expulsion from the legal system, whoever promotes an action of unconstitutionality bears the burden of demonstrating how said provision infringes the constitutional norm or principle and, furthermore, must indicate why the claim should be upheld. This is referred to by this Chamber as the burden of argumentation, meaning that *“a norm that facially contradicts the Constitution shifts the burden of argumentation to those who maintain that there is actually no conflict between that norm and the Political Constitution; the opposite occurs when an action is filed against a norm that upon first examination does not appear to contradict the Constitution, in which case the plaintiff must advance the arguments that convince regarding its unconstitutionality”* (see judgment No. 0184-95 of 16:30 hrs. of January 10, 1995).

**II.-** In a subsequent judgment, this Chamber stated, regarding the lack of concreteness of the unconstitutionality arguments in matters of unconstitutionality actions, the following:

*“The unconstitutionality action is filed with the argument that the challenged Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) is harmful, damages and infringes the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the right to health, and the international commitments signed under the Kyoto Protocol. Despite the opportunity granted to the plaintiffs, it is confirmed, as the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) indicates, that there is no concrete analysis of the provisions of the challenged Executive Decree that are considered unconstitutional; rather, it merely establishes discrepancies in a generic and abstract manner against the entirety of the Regulation, furthermore against all activity carried out by the Sugar Mills and Estates, as they claim they cause inconveniences in the quality of life and health of neighboring inhabitants, without specifying which constitutionality arguments should be taken into account against each of the provisions or groups of norms of the challenged Regulation. […] The first paragraph of article 78 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the obligation to authenticate the writs of filing for unconstitutionality actions, inasmuch as it is deemed necessary that there are arguments put forth by a legal professional, which this Tribunal does not rule out corresponds to a serious study of the technical and scientific background of a specific matter, given the diversity and universality of the norms of the legal system. Unlike the proceedings for guarantees, that is, the writs of habeas corpus and amparo, which any interested party can directly file before the constitutional jurisdiction in defense of their fundamental rights, generally against acts or omissions that harm them in their private sphere (though not always, as in environmental cases), in the proceedings for the defense of the Political Constitution (such as the unconstitutionality action), the legislator entrusted the authenticating attorney with a task whose demand is even greater, one might say more elaborate and exhaustive, which must be embodied in the writ of filing by reason of their professional duty, to demonstrate to the Tribunal the injury to the constitutional norm by a lower-ranking norm, undermining the principle of constitutional supremacy contained in article 10 of the Political Constitution. Precisely, the material and formal drafting of the Law, as well as other secondary provisions, entails an extremely costly process for the State, in which organized civil society has participated in many ways, for or against, and whose procedures of formation, approval, and promulgation should not be analyzed lightly. In this sense, this Chamber must recognize that there is limited space for this Tribunal to remedy the manifest shortcomings of the legal professionals who authenticate the writs in this constitutional jurisdiction, without compromising the impartiality and analysis owed to each unconstitutionality action.”* (Judgment No. 2012-05285 of 15:03 hrs. of April 25, 2012, reiterated in judgment No. 2014-04239 of 16:00 hrs. of March 26, 2014).

In this case, this Constitutional Tribunal considers that the present action is inadmissible, precisely due to the omission of the plaintiff party to argue or explain, extensively, the reasons why it considers the *“Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia”*, which came into effect on December 15, 2005, according to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005, to be unconstitutional. In this vein, although in the writ of filing of the action, as well as in the writing submitted on occasion of the warning made by the Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber (Presidencia de la Sala Constitucional) in the resolution of 15:58 hrs. of November 3, 2015, the plaintiff merely considers the referenced Regulatory Plan to be unconstitutional because it was not consulted with the neighbors of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia nor with the SETENA, it is clear that they have omitted to indicate, concretely and amply, the reasons why they consider said instrument contrary to the Law of the Constitution, contrary to what is required for this purpose by article 78 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction, in the sense of setting forth their grounds in a clear and precise manner, with a concrete citation of the norms or principles they consider infringed. In this vein, the Chamber’s attention is deeply drawn to the fact that the writing submitted by the plaintiff on November 6, 2015 is a mere and simple reiteration of what was stated in the initial brief of the action, but not a clear argumentation of the grounds of unconstitutionality of the questioned norm, despite what was expressly warned by the Presidency of the Constitutional Chamber. Moreover, although the plaintiff bases their claim on the existence of a diffuse interest to challenge the Regulatory Plan in question, the plaintiff has omitted to point out what the limitations regarding the right to property specifically consist of in their particular case as established by said normative instrument, making it impossible to certify whether or not they share the collective interest that allows them to challenge, by way of the direct action of unconstitutionality provided for in article 75, paragraph 2 of the Law of the Jurisdiction, the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. In the instant case, there is no detailed analysis of the instrument, composed of multiple normative and graphic elements that are considered unconstitutional; instead, a brief and succinct relationship of its provisions with the mentioned facts is established. In short, it is clear that in the present case, no expression of the grievances and grounds of the injury to the Constitution that is considered violated due to the content of the challenged norm is made. On this matter, article 78, paragraph 2 of the Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction provides the following: *“Its grounds shall be set forth in a clear and precise manner, with a concrete citation of the norms or principles that are considered infringed”*. For the reasons stated, the procedure is the outright rejection of the action and it is so declared.

**Therefore:** The action is rejected outright. Magistrates Cruz Castro, Castillo Víquez, and Rueda Leal dissent from the vote and order that the action be given course.- Ernesto Jinesta L. President Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

José Paulino Hernández G.

--- **Expediente 15-016416-0007-CO** **DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATES CRUZ CASTRO, CASTILLO VÍQUEZ, AND RUEDA LEAL:** In the present case, we order that the unconstitutionality action be given course for the following reasons. As observed, the claimant's allegation, as evident from the writ of filing, is that *“the regulatory plan and its zoning regulation approved by the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia, according to publication in the Official Newspaper La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005, was never submitted to the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA) and MINAE so that the environmental variables could be assessed, nor was it properly submitted to the neighbors and taxpayers of the canton as appropriate”*.

According to the provisions of article 17 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the local government is responsible for *“Before implementing a regulatory plan or any of its parts, the municipality intending it must: 1) Convene a public hearing through the Official Gazette and additional necessary dissemination, indicating the location, date, and time to become acquainted with the project and any verbal or written observations that the neighbors or interested parties may wish to formulate.”* The notice shall be made no less than fifteen business days in advance…”</span></i><span lang=ES style='font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;\r\nfont-family:\"Arial\",\"sans-serif\";color:black'>.</span> In this regard, we consider that failing to submit a Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) to consultation with the citizens of the canton and the competent bodies in the matter is contrary to the principle of citizen participation (principio de participación ciudadana), a topic that is a matter of constitutional relevance not only because the democratic principle established in Article 9 of the Constitution is at stake, but also because of the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment regulated in Article 50 of the Magna Carta. For the reasons stated, we dissent (salvamos el voto) and order that the action be given course upon finding a violation of the principle of citizen participation.

**Fernando Cruz C.** **Fernando Castillo V.** **Paul Rueda L.** That Regulatory Plan was never submitted for consideration to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental), nor to MINAE, in order to assess the environmental variables, nor was it submitted to the knowledge of the Canton's residents, as corresponds. Both the American Convention on Human Rights (Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos) and various International Instruments on Human Rights recognize the right of every person to seek and receive information. This Regulatory Plan imposed severe restrictions on the property rights of the residents of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia, without a prior hearing. The situation challenged injures the principles of objectification in environmental matters, the precautionary principle (principio precautorio), the principle of non-regression (principio de no regresión), the right to information, the right to sustainable development, as well as the right protected in article 45 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Based on the provisions of the Regulatory Plan, several zones have been declared protected, without having the authorization of MINAE. He bases his standing to bring this direct action of unconstitutionality on article 75, paragraph 2 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), as this matter concerns the defense of diffuse interests and, specifically, in his capacity as a resident of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. He requests that it be resolved accordingly.

**2.-** The Presidency (Presidencia) of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), by resolution at 15:58 hrs. on November 3, 2015, ordered: “*The petitioner Didier Carranza Rodríguez, of legal age, married once, attorney and notary, resident of San Isidro de Heredia, identity card No. 2-294-150, is forewarned that within three days, counted from the day following the notification of this resolution and under warning of denying processing of the action in case of non-compliance, must: 1.- Set forth in a clear, precise and sufficient manner the grounds of unconstitutionality of the challenged norm in accordance with article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Likewise and without prejudice to the foregoing, pursuant to article 4 of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963, he is additionally forewarned that within the same period, he must affix and cancel the Bar Association stamp for the sum of two hundred fifty colones, corresponding to the authentication of the initial brief, under warning –in this case– of not hearing the defaulting party until he complies with what was ordered, without retroaction of terms. Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional); 4 of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963. Notify*”.- **3.-** In a brief dated November 6, 2015, the petitioner attempts to comply with the forewarning. He requests that it be resolved accordingly.

**4.-** Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber (Sala) to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of an earlier equal or similar petition that has been rejected.

Drafted by **Magistrate Jinesta Lobo**; and, **Considering:** **I.- On the inadmissibility of the action, due to the petitioner's omission to sustain or explain the reasons why he considers the challenged norm to be unconstitutional.** The Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), in its article 3, provides that *“The Political Constitution (Constitución Política) shall be deemed infringed when this results from the comparison of the text of the challenged norm or act, its effects, or its interpretation or application by public authorities, with the constitutional norms and principles.”* However, for this Tribunal to deem the infringement configured and declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm or act, with the consequent annulment and expulsion from the legal system, whoever brings an action of unconstitutionality has the burden of demonstrating how that provision infringes the constitutional norm or principle and, furthermore, must indicate why the claim should be upheld. This is termed by this Chamber as the burden of argumentation, that is, that *“a norm that is facially contrary to the Constitution (Constitución), shifts the burden of argumentation to those who maintain that there is actually no conflict between that norm and the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); the opposite occurs if one brings an action against a norm that upon a first examination does not appear contrary to the Constitution (Constitución), in which hypothesis it is the petitioner who must advance with the arguments that convince about the unconstitutionality*” (see judgment No. 0184-95 at 16:30 hrs. on January 10, 1995).

**II.-** In a later judgment, this Chamber stated, regarding the lack of concreteness of unconstitutionality arguments in matters of actions of unconstitutionality, the following:

*“The action of unconstitutionality is filed with the argument that the challenged Executive Decree is harmful, injures and infringes the fundamental rights to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, the right to health and the international commitments entered into with the Kyoto Protocol. Despite the opportunity granted to the petitioners, it is confirmed what the Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General) of the Republic (República) indicates, that there is no specific analysis of the provisions of the challenged Executive Decree that are considered unconstitutional, but rather it limits itself to establishing discrepancies in a generic and abstract manner against the entirety of the Regulation, even more against all activity carried out by the Sugar Mills and Haciendas, since they maintain that they cause inconveniences in the quality of life and health of the surrounding inhabitants, without specifying what unconstitutionality arguments must be considered against each of the provisions or groups of norms of the challenged Regulation. […] The first paragraph of article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) establishes the obligation to authenticate the briefs filing actions of unconstitutionality, since it is deemed necessary that there be arguments put forth by a legal professional, which this Tribunal does not rule out responds to a serious study of the technical and scientific background of a given matter, given the diversity and universality of the norms of the legal system. Unlike the processes of guarantees, that is, the remedies of habeas corpus and amparo, which any interested party can file directly before the constitutional jurisdiction in defense of their fundamental rights, generally against acts or omissions that injure them in their private sphere (although not always as in environmental cases), in the processes of defense of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) (such as the action of unconstitutionality), the legislator entrusted the authenticating attorney a task whose requirement is even greater, if you will more elaborate and exhaustive that must be captured in the filing brief by reason of his professional duty, to demonstrate to the Tribunal the injury to the constitutional norm by a norm of lower rank, undermining the principle of constitutional supremacy contained in article 10 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Precisely the material and formal preparation of the Law, as well as of the other secondary provisions, entail an extremely costly process for the State, in which in many ways organized civil society participated for or against its preparation, and whose formation, approval and promulgation procedures should not be analyzed lightly. In this sense, this Chamber must recognize that there is a reduced space for this Tribunal to remedy the manifest absences of the legal professionals who authenticate the briefs in this constitutional jurisdiction, without exposing the impartiality and analysis owed to each of the unconstitutionality actions.”* (Judgment No. 2012-05285 at 15:03 hrs. on April 25, 2012, reiterated in judgment No. 2014-04239 at 16:00 hrs. on March 26, 2014).

In this case, this Constitutional Tribunal considers that the present action is inadmissible, precisely due to the petitioner's omission to argue or explain, amply, the reasons why he considers the “*Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia (Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia)*”, which entered into force on December 15, 2005, according to publication made in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 242 of December 15, 2005, unconstitutional. In this regard, although in the brief filing the action, as well as in the brief presented on the occasion of the forewarning issued by the Presidency (Presidencia) of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in the resolution at 15:58 hrs. on November 3, 2015, the petitioner merely considers that the aforementioned Regulatory Plan is unconstitutional because it was not consulted with the residents of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia nor with SETENA, it is clear that he has omitted to indicate, concretely and amply, the reasons why he considers that said instrument is contrary to the Law of the Constitution (Derecho de la Constitución), contrary to what is required for this purpose by article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), in the sense of setting forth his foundations in a clear and precise form, with specific citation of the norms or principles he considers infringed. In this regard, it deeply draws the attention of the Chamber (Sala) that the brief presented by the petitioner on November 6, 2015, is a mere and simple reiteration of what was stated in the initial file of the action, but not a clear argumentation of the grounds of unconstitutionality of the questioned norm, despite what was expressly forewarned by the Presidency (Presidencia) of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional). Furthermore, although the petitioner relies on the existence of a diffuse interest to challenge the Regulatory Plan in question, the petitioner has omitted to indicate what the limitations regarding the right to property established by said normative instrument consist of, concretely, in his particular case, whereby it is not possible to ascertain whether or not he shares the collective interest that allows him to challenge, through the direct action of unconstitutionality provided for in article 75, paragraph 2 of the Law of Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción), the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of San Isidro de Heredia. There does not exist in the specific case a detailed analysis of the instrument, comprised of multiple normative and graphic elements that is considered unconstitutional, but instead a brief and concise relation of its provisions with the mentioned facts is established. In sum, it is clear that in the present case there is no expression of the grievances and foundations of the injury to the Constitution (Constitución) that he considers violated due to the content of the challenged norm. On this matter, article 78, paragraph 2 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), provides the following: *“The foundations shall be set forth in a clear and precise form, with specific citation of the norms or principles considered infringed.”* For the reasons stated, what proceeds is the outright rejection of the action and it is so declared.

**Por tanto:** The action is rejected outright. Magistrates Cruz Castro, Castillo Víquez and Rueda Leal dissent and order that the action be given course.- Ernesto Jinesta L.

President

**Expediente 15-016416-0007-CO** **DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATES CRUZ CASTRO, CASTILLO VÍQUEZ AND RUEDA LEAL:** In the present case, we order that the action of unconstitutionality be given course for the following reasons.

As can be seen, the appellant's argument, according to the filing brief, is that "the regulatory plan and its zoning regulation (reglamento de zonificación) that the Municipality of San Isidro de Heredia approved, as published in the Official Newspaper La Gaceta 242 of December 15, 2005, was never submitted to the Technical Environmental Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA) and MINAE so that the environmental variables could be assessed, nor was it duly submitted to the residents and taxpayers of the canton as required." Pursuant to the provisions of Article 17 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), the local government is responsible for the following: "Prior to implementing a regulatory plan or any of its parts, the municipality intending to do so shall: 1) Call a public hearing through the Official Newspaper and any additional necessary dissemination, indicating the location, date, and time for review of the project and any verbal or written observations that residents or interested parties may wish to make. The notice shall be given no less than fifteen business days in advance…".

In this regard, we consider that failing to submit a Regulatory Plan for consultation with the citizens of the canton and the competent bodies in the matter is contrary to the principle of citizen participation (principio de participación ciudadana), an issue of constitutional relevance not only because the democratic principle established in Article 9 of the Constitution is at stake, but also because of the protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment regulated in Article 50 of the Magna Carta. Based on the foregoing, we dissent (salvamos el voto) and order that the action (acción) be processed because we find a violation of the principle of citizen participation.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

*150164160007CO* *150164160007CO* Res. Nº 2015018944 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las once horas del dos de diciembre del dos mil quince.

Acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por Didier Carranza Rodríguez, mayor, casado una vez, abogado y notario, vecino del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia, cédula de identidad No. 2-294-150, contra el “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, que entró en vigencia el 15 de diciembre de 2005, según publicación efectuada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 242 de 15 de diciembre de 2005.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala Constitucional a las 11:32 hrs. de 3 de noviembre de 2015, el actor interpone la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad contra el “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, que entró en vigencia el 15 de diciembre de 2005, según publicación efectuada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 242 de 15 de diciembre de 2005, y manifiesta que el Concejo Municipal del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia, por medio del acuerdo No. N-1256-2005, tomado en la sesión ordinaria No. 69-2005 de 14 de noviembre de 2005, dispuso: “aprobar formalmente el plan regulador del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia”, señalándose que los textos y planos originales se encuentran a disposición de la Municipalidad del Cantón de San Isidro y de la Dirección de Urbanismo del INVU. De esta forma, entró en funcionamiento el plan sin una discusión en comisión, y sin la participación de los ciudadanos y contribuyentes del Cantón. Dicho Plan Regulador nunca fue sometido a consideración de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, ni del MINAE, a fin de valorar las variables ambientales, ni fue sometido a conocimiento de los vecinos del Cantón, como corresponde. Tanto la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, como diversos Instrumentos Internacionales en materia de Derechos Humanos, reconocen el derecho de toda persona a buscar y recibir información. Este Plan Regulador impuso severas restricciones sobre el derecho de propiedad de los vecinos del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia, sin una audiencia previa. La situación cuestionada lesiona los principios de objetivación en materia ambiental, el principio precautorio, el principio de no regresión, el derecho de información, al derecho sostenible, así como al derecho protegido en el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política. Con fundamento en las disposiciones del Plan Regulador se han declarado varias zonas como protegidas, sin contar con la autorización del MINAE. Fundamenta su legitimación para promover esta acción directa de inconstitucionalidad, en el artículo 75 párrafo 2º de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, al tratarse este asunto de la defensa de intereses difusos y, en concreto, en su condición de vecino del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia. Pide que se resuelva conforme.

2.- La Presidencia de la Sala Constitucional, por resolución de las 15:58 hrs. de 3 de noviembre de 2015, dispuso: “Se previene al accionante Didier Carranza Rodríguez, mayor, casado una vez, abogado y notario, vecino de San Isidro de Heredia, cédula de identidad No. 2-294-150, que dentro de tercero día, contado a partir del siguiente a la notificación de esta resolución y bajo apercibimiento de denegarle el trámite a la acción en caso de incumplimiento, deberá: 1.- Fundamentar en forma clara, precisa y suficiente los motivos de inconstitucionalidad de la norma impugnada de conformidad con el artículo 78 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Del mismo modo y sin perjuicio de lo anterior, conforme al artículo 4 de la Ley número 3245 del 3 de diciembre de 1963, se le previene adicionalmente que dentro del mismo plazo, agregue y cancele el timbre del Colegio de Abogados por la suma de doscientos cincuenta colones, correspondiente a la autenticación del escrito inicial, bajo el apercibimiento –en este caso- de no oír al omiso mientras no cumpla lo ordenado, sin retroacción de términos. Artículos 78, 79 y 80 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional; 4 de la ley número 3245 del 3 de diciembre de 1963. Notifíquese”.- 3.- En escrito de 6 de noviembre de 2015, el actor intenta cumplir la prevención. Pide que se resuelva de conformidad.

4.- El artículo 9º de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.

Redacta Magistrado Jinesta Lobo; y,

Considerando:

I.- Sobre la improcedencia de la acción, por la omisión de la parte accionante de sustentar o explicar los motivos por los cuales considera que la norma impugnada es inconstitucional. La Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en su artículo 3, dispone que “Se tendrá por infringida la Constitución Política cuando ello resulte de la confrontación del texto de la norma o acto cuestionado, de sus efectos, o de su interpretación o aplicación por las autoridades públicas, con las normas y principios constitucionales”. Ahora bien, para que este Tribunal tenga por configurada la infracción y declarar la inconstitucionalidad de la norma o acto impugnado, con la consecuente anulación y expulsión del ordenamiento jurídico, quien promueva una acción de inconstitucionalidad tiene la carga de demostrar cómo esa disposición infringe la norma o principio constitucional y, además, debe indicar por qué debe estimarse la demanda. Esto es denominado por esta Sala como la carga de la argumentación, es decir, que “una norma que facialmente sea contraria a la Constitución, vuelca la carga de la argumentación a quienes sostengan que en realidad no hay conflicto entre esa norma y la Constitución Política; lo contrario sucede si se acciona contra una norma que en primer examen no parece contraria a la Constitución, en cuya hipótesis es el accionante el que debe avanzar con los argumentos que convenzan acerca de la inconstitucionalidad ” (véase la sentencia No. 0184-95 de las 16:30 hrs. del 10 de enero de 1995).

II.- En una sentencia posterior, esta Sala expuso, en cuanto a la falta de concreción de los argumentos de inconstitucionalidad en materia de acciones de inconstitucionalidad, lo siguiente:

“La acción de inconstitucionalidad se interpone con el argumento de que el Decreto Ejecutivo impugnado es nocivo, lesiona e infringe los derechos fundamentales a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, el derecho a la salud y a los compromisos internacionales suscritos con el Protocolo de Kyoto. Pese a la oportunidad otorgada a los accionantes, se confirma lo que indica la Procuraduría General de la República, de que no existe un análisis concreto de las disposiciones del Decreto Ejecutivo impugnado que se consideran inconstitucionales, sino que el mismo se limita a establecer discrepancias de forma genérica y en abstracto contra la totalidad del Reglamento, más aún contra toda actividad que desempeñan los ingenios Azucareros y Haciendas, pues sostienen que causan inconvenientes en la calidad de vida y en la salud de los habitantes circunvecinos, sin concretar qué argumentos de constitucionalidad se deben tomar en cuenta en contra de cada una de las disposiciones o grupos del normas del Reglamento impugnado. […] El párrafo primero del artículo 78 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece la obligación de autenticar los escritos de interposición de acciones de inconstitucionalidad, toda vez que se estima necesario que existan argumentos esgrimidos por un profesional en Derecho, que no descarta este Tribunal responda a un serio estudio del fondo técnico y científico de una determinada materia, dada la diversidad y universalidad de las normas del ordenamiento jurídico. A diferencia de los procesos de garantías, es decir, los recursos de hábeas corpus y de amparo, que los puede interponer directamente cualquier interesado ante la jurisdicción constitucional en defensa de sus derechos fundamentales, generalmente contra actos u omisiones que le lesionan en su esfera particular (aunque no siempre como en los casos ambientales), en los procesos de defensa de la Constitución Política (como la acción de inconstitucionalidad), el legislador confió al abogado autenticante una labor cuya exigencia es aún mayor, si se quiere más elaborada y exhaustiva que debe plasmar en el libelo de interposición en razón de su oficio profesional, para demostrar al Tribunal la lesión a la norma constitucional por parte de una norma de menor rango, socavando el principio de supremacía constitucional contenida en el artículo 10 de la Constitución Política. Precisamente la elaboración material y formal de la Ley, así como de las demás disposiciones secundarias, suponen un proceso sumamente costoso para el Estado, en la que de muchas maneras para su elaboración ha participado la sociedad civil organizada a favor o en contra, y cuyos procedimientos de formación, aprobación y promulgación no debe analizarse a la ligera. En este sentido, debe reconocer esta Sala que existe un reducido espacio para este Tribunal para socorrer las ausencias manifiestas de los profesionales en derecho que autentican los escritos en esta jurisdicción constitucional, sin exponer la imparcialidad y análisis que se debe a cada una de las acciones de inconstitucionalidad.” (Sentencia No. 2012-05285 de 15:03 hrs. de 25 de abril de 2012, reiterada en la sentencia No. 2014-04239 de las 16:00 hrs. de 26 de marzo de 2014).

En este caso, considera este Tribunal Constitucional que la presente acción es inadmisible, justamente ante la omisión de la parte actora de argumentar o explicar, ampliamente, las razones por las cuales considera inconstitucional el “Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia”, que entró en vigencia el 15 de diciembre de 2005, según publicación efectuada en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta No. 242 de 15 de diciembre de 2005. En este orden, aunque en el memorial de interposición de la acción, así como en el escrito presentado con motivo de la prevención efectuada por la Presidencia de la Sala Constitucional en la resolución de las 15:58 hrs. de 3 de noviembre de 2015, la parte actora se limita a considerar que el Plan Regulador aludido es inconstitucional porque no fue consultado a los vecinos del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia ni a la SETENA, es claro que ha omitido indicar, concretamente y de manera amplia, las razones por las cuales considera que dicho instrumento es contrario al Derecho de la Constitución, a contrapelo de lo que al efecto exige el artículo 78 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en el sentido de exponer sus fundamentos en forma clara y precisa, con cita concreta de las normas o principios que considera infringidos. En este orden, llama profundamente la atención de la Sala que el escrito presentado por el actor el 6 de noviembre de 2015 es una mera y simple reiteración de lo dicho en el legajo inicial de la acción, pero no una clara argumentación de los motivos de inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, pese a lo prevenido Presidencia de la Sala Constitucional. Además, si bien el actor se sustenta en la existencia de un interés difuso para impugnar el Plan Regulador en cuestión, ha omitido señalar el accionante en qué consisten, concretamente, las limitaciones que con respecto al derecho de propiedad establece dicho instrumento normativo en su caso particular, con lo cual no es posible acreditar si comparte o no el interés colectivo que le permite impugnar, por la vía de la acción directa de inconstitucionalidad prevista en el artículo 75 párrafo 2º de la Ley de la Jurisdicción, el Plan Regulador del Cantón de San Isidro de Heredia. No existe en el caso concreto un análisis detallado del instrumento, conformado por múltiples elementos normativos y gráficos que se considera inconstitucional, sino que se establece una breve y escueta relación de sus disposiciones con los hechos mencionados. En suma, es claro que en el presente caso no se realiza una expresión de los agravios y fundamentos de la lesión de la Constitución que considera vulnerada a causa del contenido de la norma impugnada. Sobre el particular, el artículo 78, párrafo 2º de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, dispone lo siguiente: “Se expondrán sus fundamentos en forma clara y precisa, con cita concreta de las normas o principios que se consideren infringidos”. Por las razones

Por tanto:

Se rechaza de plano la acción. Los Magistrados Cruz Castro, Castillo Víquez y Rueda Leal salvan el voto y ordenan dar curso a la acción.- Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

José Paulino Hernández G.

VOTO SALVADO DE LOS MAGISTRADOS CRUZ CASTRO, CASTILLO VÍQUEZ Y RUEDA LEAL: En el presente caso, ordenamos darle curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad por las siguientes razones. Tal y como se observa, el alegato del recurrente, según se desprende del escrito de interposición, es que “el plan regulador y su reglamento de zonificación que aprobó la Municipalidad de San Isidro de Heredia, según publicación del Periódico Oficial La Gaceta 242 del 15 de diciembre de 2005, nunca fue sometido a la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (SETENA) y al MINAE para que se valoraran las variables ambientales y tampoco fue debidamente sometidos a los vecinos y contribuyentes del cantón según corresponde”.

Según lo dispuesto en el artículo 17 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, le corresponde al gobierno local “Previamente a implantar un plan regulador o alguna de sus partes, deberá la municipalidad que lo intenta: 1) Convocar a una audiencia pública por medio del Diario Oficial y divulgación adicional necesaria con la indicación de local, fecha y hora para conocer del proyecto y de las observaciones verbales o escritas que tengan a bien formular los vecinos o interesados. El señalamiento deberá hacerse con antelación no menor de quince días hábiles…”.

Al respecto consideramos que no someter un Plan Regulador a consulta de los ciudadanos del cantón y de los órganos competentes en la materia, resulta contrario al principio de participación ciudadana, tema que es un asunto de relevancia constitucional no sólo por estar de por medio el principio democrático establecido en el artículo 9 constitucional, sino también la tutela del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado regulado en el artículo 50 de la Carta Magna.En razón de lo expuesto, salvamos el voto y ordenamos darle curso a la acción por constatar la violación al principio de participación ciudadana.

Fernando Cruz C. Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.