Res. 09960-2017 Sala Constitucional — Inadmissibility of action against ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS

OutcomeResultado

InadmissibleInadmissible

The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismissed the constitutional challenge against articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, 37 of the Forestry Law, and articles 2 and 16 of Executive Decree No. 39833-MINAE, finding that the arguments concern the application or interpretation of the law in specific cases rather than a constitutional defect.La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano la acción de inconstitucionalidad contra los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 de la Ley Forestal y 2 y 16 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE, por considerar que los alegatos se refieren a la aplicación o interpretación de la ley en casos concretos y no a un vicio de constitucionalidad.

SummaryResumen

The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismissed a constitutional challenge filed by the President of the National Chamber of Pineapple Producers and Exporters against articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law, 37 of the Forestry Law, and articles 2 and 16 of Executive Decree No. 39833-MINAE. The petitioner argued that the contested norms granted ambiguous and uncertain powers to ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS, violating principles of measurability of public powers, legal certainty, and due process. He claimed that these figures, as auxiliaries of the public administration, could hinder pineapple production and that their actions could generate tainted evidence. The Chamber found that the normative framework does delineate the inspectors' scope of action, limiting them to assistance roles under SINAC's coordination and without enforcement authority. It concluded that the petitioner's argument concerned the application or interpretation of the law in specific cases, which is not a matter for a constitutional challenge but should be resolved through amparo or in the corresponding administrative or judicial proceedings.La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano una acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el Presidente de la Cámara Nacional de Productores y Exportadores de Piña contra los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 de la Ley Forestal y 2 y 16 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE. El accionante alegaba que las normas impugnadas otorgaban competencias ambiguas e inciertas a los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y a los COVIRENAS, violando los principios de mensurabilidad de las potestades públicas, seguridad jurídica y debido proceso. Sostenía que estas figuras, como auxiliares de la función pública, podrían entorpecer la actividad piñera y que sus actos podrían generar prueba espuria. La Sala consideró que la normativa sí acota el campo de acción de estos inspectores, limitándolos a funciones de coadyuvancia bajo la coordinación del SINAC y sin potestades de imperio. Concluyó que el alegato del accionante se refería a la aplicación o interpretación de la ley en casos concretos, lo que no es materia de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, sino que debe ventilarse en la vía de amparo o en el procedimiento administrativo o judicial correspondiente.

Key excerptExtracto clave

I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT ACTION. As can be inferred from the full reading of the filing, the petitioner does not question, per se, the existence of the figure of the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the COVIRENA; instead, the petitioner's substantive argument is that the challenged regulations do not adequately specify the powers or functions corresponding to such environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS, which could eventually lead them to assume the exercise of prevention, protection and control powers that legally belong to MINAE officials. However, it follows from the provisions of the cited articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law and 37 of the Forestry Law, in relation to article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE, that both the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the aforementioned vigilance committees are provided solely to assist the competent authorities in their functions and under their coordination and direction. Moreover, the mere contingency that, in an eventual specific case, it could be considered that any inspector has exceeded that regulatory framework, according to its correct interpretation and application – which is essentially what seems to motivate the filing of this action – constitutes a conflict that should not be resolved through a constitutionality action. In accordance with the above, this Chamber has stated that “the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in the specific case” is not a matter to be heard through a constitutionality action.I.- SOBRE LA INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA PRESENTE ACCIÓN. Según se deriva de la lectura integral del escrito de interposición, el accionante no cuestiona, per se, la existencia de la figura de los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y las COVIRENA; en su lugar, el alegato de fondo del accionante es que la normativa impugnada no precisa, de forma debida, las competencias o funciones que corresponden a tales inspectores ambientales y a las COVIRENAS, lo que puede provocar, eventualmente, que estos asuman el ejercicio de competencias de prevención, protección y control que, legalmente, corresponden a los funcionarios del MINAE. Sin embargo, se desprende de lo dispuesto en los citados artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y 37 de la Ley Forestal, en relación con el artículo 2 del Decreto No. 39833-MINAE, que tanto los inspectores ambientales ad honorem como los mencionados comités de vigilancia están previstos, únicamente, para coadyuvar a las autoridades competentes en sus funciones y bajo su coordinación y dirección. Por lo demás, la mera contingencia que, en un eventual caso concreto, pudiese estimarse que algún inspector ha excedido dicho marco normativo, conforme a su correcta interpretación y aplicación –que es el fondo, lo que parece motivar la interposición de esta acción-, supone un conflicto que no procede ser dilucidado mediante una acción de inconstitucionalidad. En concordancia con lo anterior, esta Sala ha señalado que “la aplicación indebida de la ley o su errónea interpretación en el caso concreto” no es materia propia de conocerse mediante la acción de inconstitucionalidad.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"Se constata, de esta forma, que el referido marco normativa acota o delimita el campo de acción de los citados inspectores ad honorem, al establecer que su actuación se centra, esencialmente, en brindar asistencia a las autoridades públicas competentes en el cumplimiento de sus funciones y bajo la coordinación del SINAC."

"It is thus verified that the referred regulatory framework sets out or delimits the scope of action of the aforementioned ad honorem inspectors, establishing that their action is essentially focused on providing assistance to the competent public authorities in the fulfillment of their functions and under the coordination of SINAC."

Considerando I

"Se constata, de esta forma, que el referido marco normativa acota o delimita el campo de acción de los citados inspectores ad honorem, al establecer que su actuación se centra, esencialmente, en brindar asistencia a las autoridades públicas competentes en el cumplimiento de sus funciones y bajo la coordinación del SINAC."

Considerando I

"Por lo demás, la mera contingencia que, en un eventual caso concreto, pudiese estimarse que algún inspector ha excedido dicho marco normativo, conforme a su correcta interpretación y aplicación –que es el fondo, lo que parece motivar la interposición de esta acción-, supone un conflicto que no procede ser dilucidado mediante una acción de inconstitucionalidad."

"Moreover, the mere contingency that, in an eventual specific case, it could be considered that any inspector has exceeded that regulatory framework, according to its correct interpretation and application – which is essentially what seems to motivate the filing of this action – constitutes a conflict that should not be resolved through a constitutionality action."

Considerando I

"Por lo demás, la mera contingencia que, en un eventual caso concreto, pudiese estimarse que algún inspector ha excedido dicho marco normativo, conforme a su correcta interpretación y aplicación –que es el fondo, lo que parece motivar la interposición de esta acción-, supone un conflicto que no procede ser dilucidado mediante una acción de inconstitucionalidad."

Considerando I

Full documentDocumento completo

*170092080007CO* Res. Nº 2017009960 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on June twenty-eighth, two thousand seventeen.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by ABEL CHAVES TRIGUEROS, of legal age, married, business administrator, identity card No. 0202590468, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, in his capacity as President of the ASOCIACIÓN CÁMARA NACIONAL DE PRODUCTORES Y EXPORTADORES DE PIÑA, against articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal and 2 and 16 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE.

Resultando:

1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:05 hrs. on June 14, 2017, the claimant requests that the unconstitutionality be declared of articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal and 2 and 16 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE, deeming them contrary to the constitutional principles of measurability of public powers and legal certainty, as well as the guarantee of due process. He points out that article 15 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre provides that “[t]o contribute to the application and enforcement of this Law, the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall appoint wildlife inspectors; ad honorem wildlife inspectors and natural resource vigilance committees (COVIRENAS)”. For its part, ordinal 37 of the Ley Forestal provides that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) to ensure the protection and conservation of forests and forest lands and “[t]o contribute to the fulfillment of the foregoing, the Ministry shall give participation to civil society, appointing ad honorem natural resource inspectors and integrating forest vigilance committees”. He adds that in subsection a) of article 2 of Decreto No. 39833-MINAE, the “Ad honorem Environmental Inspector” is defined as the “[n]atural person appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to contribute to the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources, which allows the guarantee and exercise of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, environmental conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources”. Said provision adds that the categories of ad honorem inspectors established in articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal shall be called “ad honorem environmental inspector”. This numeral also indicates that their function will be to “contribute to the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”. Meanwhile, subsection b) of that same numeral 2 defines the “Natural Resource Vigilance Committee (COVIRENA)”, as the “civil society organization made up of Ad Honorem Environmental Inspectors, who voluntarily contribute, aid, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources” and, in addition, it is clarified that the term “Natural Resource Vigilance Committees” integrates the categories of committees established in articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal. He adds that numeral 16 of Decreto No. 39833-MINAE includes, among the responsibilities and duties of ad honorem environmental inspectors, the following: “Contribute to the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities”; “Comply with the legal system, the established procedures, and the applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to the administrative authorities, including these regulations and the legal framework on which the operation of the Ad honorem Environmental Inspectors and the COVIRENA is based”; “Use the resources of MINAE in an effective, efficient, and economical manner, making diligent use of them”; “Observe the provisions and recommendations issued by the officials of the Public Administration”; “Fulfill the duties pertaining to their competence, as communicated by the respective Conservation Area (Área de Conservación) or the Department of Prevention, Protection and Control of the Executive Secretariat of SINAC”; “Participate as a witness in administrative or judicial proceedings when summoned”; “Others that the Administrative Authorities determine in writing and communicate in a timely manner”. He states that the functions granted, by law and regulation, to the aforementioned ad honorem inspectors and COVIRENAS, are those of an auxiliary of the public function, inasmuch as these contribute to the Public Administration in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources; however, the powers of such ad honorem inspectors and COVIRENAS are uncertain, given that they are granted powers to contribute to the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources in collaboration with the competent authorities, but the powers they have to fulfill these purposes are not delimited in a concrete and precise manner. He maintains that the contested regulations grant ambiguous competence to the ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS and, furthermore, do not establish the concrete mechanisms to exercise it; that is, their functions are stated generically, but the legal or material means to carry them out are not specified. He indicates that Decreto No. 39833-MINAE seems to exclude the possibility that such inspectors and COVIRENAS may exercise powers of authority, by stating that the “non-delegable powers of prevention, protection and control and the police authority determined by law fall upon the officials of SINAC, the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) and the Reserve of the Public Force (Reserva de la Fuerza Pública)”; however, it is also not specified what those non-delegable powers are. He argues that from the principle of legality enshrined in Article 11 of the Constitution derives the constitutional principle of the measurability of administrative powers, which implies, first, that every administrative power must be conferred by law, which must precisely set both its scope and its limits, and, second, the direct origin of every administrative power is the law and not specific legal acts. He points out that, according to the contested regulations, the ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS exercise public powers, albeit in an auxiliary manner. Therefore, their conduct would have to be conceptualized as public activities that affect, in some way, the legal sphere of private individuals. In application of the aforementioned constitutional principle, it is necessary to enumerate clearly not only the powers of such auxiliary bodies, but also the legal mechanisms and material conduct suitable to satisfy those tasks. He insists that none of the contested norms concretely defines the powers they have to “contribute to the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources”. He considers that the contested regulations also infringe the principle of legal certainty, given that uncertain competence is assigned to the aforementioned inspectors and COVIRENAS, since it is not known specifically what public purposes are entrusted to them, nor what conduct they may carry out to fulfill their tasks. He argues that as ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENAS are vested as auxiliaries of the public function, their conduct could violate fundamental rights of the administered and abusively invade the exercise of public powers granted by the legal system to specific public officials. He points out that the contested regulations encourage situations in which uncertainty or lack of clarity is generated in the relations between the auxiliaries of the public function and the administered, given that the latter have no certainty whatsoever about what the powers of the former are or what the legal and material means to satisfy them are. He alleges, finally, that the guarantee of due process is infringed. He maintains that, within the principle of inviolability of evidence, the requirement that the evidence for the prosecution must not be spurious is included, that is, that it has been collected or obtained legally; in which case, evidence obtained by means of the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the COVIRENAS could become spurious, as it comes from an auxiliary authority whose competence and the legal and material means to exercise it are imprecise, especially because Article 16, subsection k), of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE itself establishes the obligation to “participate as a witness in administrative and judicial proceedings when summoned”. He indicates that, consequently, the eventual prosecution evidence obtained by the cited auxiliaries of the public function could be considered spurious and, therefore, violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process, because their competence and the suitable material and legal conduct to fulfill that task are not specified. He requests that, consequently, this action be granted and a period be given to the Legislative Assembly and MINAE so that they proceed to specify the competence of such auxiliaries of the public function, as well as the material or legal conduct they may carry out to fulfill their tasks.

2.- To substantiate the legitimacy he holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, the claimant cites Article 75, second paragraph, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, as he acts in defense of the corporate and collective interests of the members of the entity he represents, that is, in safeguarding the interests of the businesspersons engaged in the activity of pineapple production and export in Costa Rica. He alleges, to that effect, that said businesspersons see it as a threat to their business interests that the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the COVIRENAS can be used by recalcitrant ecological groups as instruments to hinder and, eventually, paralyze the pineapple activity in the country. He indicates that said ad honorem environmental inspectors and the COVIRENAS can assume the exercise of powers of prevention, protection and control that legally belong to the officials of MINAE.

3.- 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 petition presented to its knowledge that proves to be manifestly inappropriate, 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 previous, equal or similar, rejected petition.

Judge Cruz Castro writes; and,

Considerando:

I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THIS ACTION. As derived from a comprehensive reading of the filing brief, the claimant does not question, per se, the existence of the figure of the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the COVIRENA; instead, the claimant's substantive argument is that the contested regulations do not properly specify the powers or functions corresponding to such environmental inspectors and the COVIRENAS, which could eventually cause these to assume the exercise of powers of prevention, protection and control that legally belong to the officials of MINAE. However, it follows from the provisions of the cited articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal, in relation to article 2 of Decreto No. 39833-MINAE, that both the ad honorem environmental inspectors and the aforementioned vigilance committees are provided for solely to contribute to the competent authorities in their functions and under their coordination and direction. The cited article 2 of Decreto No. 39833-MINAE clearly specifies that the function of the ad honorem environmental inspectors will be “to contribute to the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”, while the Natural Resource Vigilance Committees (COVIRENA) are civil society organizations made up of the referred inspectors that “voluntarily contribute, aid, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources”. That same numeral clarifies that the “non-delegable powers of prevention, protection and control and the police authority determined by law fall upon the officials of SINAC, the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) and the Reserve of the Public Force (Reserva de la Fuerza Pública)”. In line with the foregoing, Article 13 of the cited Decreto No. 39833-MINAE establishes that the appointment card for an ad honorem environmental inspector must contain the following legend: “The bearer of this card acts under the coordination of SINAC, must be accompanied by officials of SINAC, the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) or its Reservists”. Finally, Article 16 of the cited Decreto No. 39833-MINAE states that such inspectors must “[c]ontribute to the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities”, as well as “[c]omply with the legal system, the established procedures, and the applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to the administrative authorities”. It is verified, in this way, that the referred regulatory framework delimits or bounds the field of action of the cited ad honorem inspectors, by establishing that their action is essentially centered on providing assistance to the competent public authorities in the fulfillment of their functions and under the coordination of SINAC. Moreover, the mere contingency that, in a possible specific case, it might be deemed that some inspector has exceeded said regulatory framework, according to its correct interpretation and application – which is, at heart, what seems to motivate the filing of this action –, implies a conflict that is not appropriate to be elucidated through an action of unconstitutionality. This Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that:

“(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions, or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is ventilated in this jurisdictional venue, through the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Sentence number 1319-97, of fourteen hours fifty-one minutes of March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, sentence number 2008-14193, of ten hours three minutes of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is to say that in these proceedings the individual injury that the plaintiff may exhibit is not preferentially addressed, as what is sought is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that the acts subject to public law… and the norms conform to the constitutional order”. (sentence No. 2012-010986 of 15:05 hrs. of August 14, 2012) In concordance with the foregoing, this Chamber has indicated that “the undue application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in the specific case” is not a matter to be properly heard through the action of unconstitutionality (sentence No. 5966-94 of 15:54 hrs. of October 11, 1994). In a similar sense, in sentence No. 2007-007137 of 16:47 hrs. of May 23, 2007, this Chamber resolved the following:

“IV.- On the application of the Law. In the brief filing the action, the claimant also argues that articles 54 of the Ley Forestal, 15 and 16 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre are unconstitutional, since it is not possible for the police authority to apply them within the properties of private individuals that are not voluntarily subject to the Forest Regime (Régimen Forestal) without violating Article 45 of the Political Constitution. In the same way, he alleges that the principle of proportionality is violated by entering private property with a motor vehicle. The first allegation may be elucidated with the precedents that will be transcribed below regarding these articles; for the second, the representative of the claimant must take into account that it is not possible to discuss the application of the Law or a norm through the action of unconstitutionality, as this must be reserved for the process that serves as the basis for the lawsuit. The action of unconstitutionality is reserved to ensure and declare constitutional supremacy against incompatible norms. If what is intended is the discussion of its application or interpretation by the administrative authorities, this must be resolved in the main matter or in an amparo recourse when the infringement of constitutional rights and principles occurs. The same occurs when the claimant intends for the Chamber to declare that entry onto a private farm must be recorded in a valid and effective administrative act (see also sentence 1997-0284).” II.- IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject outright the action under study, as is hereby ordered.

III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE. The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is rejected outright.

Fernando Cruz C. Presidente a.i Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Aracelly Pacheco S.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- *QJPD5OK9AP061* Receipt of documents: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6", **Exp: 17-009208-0007-CO** **Res. Nº 2017009960** **SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on June twenty-eighth, two thousand seventeen.** An action of unconstitutionality brought by **ABEL CHAVES TRIGUEROS**, of legal age, married, business administrator, identity card No. 0202590468, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, in his capacity as President of the **ASOCIACIÓN CÁMARA NACIONAL DE PRODUCTORES Y EXPORTADORES DE PIÑA**, against articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal, and 2 and 16 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE.

**Resultando:** **1.-** By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:05 a.m. on June 14, 2017, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal, and 2 and 16 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE be declared, considering them contrary to the constitutional principles of measurability of public powers and legal certainty, as well as the guarantee of due process. He indicates that article 15 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre provides that “[t]o contribute to the application and enforcement of this Law, the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía shall appoint wildlife inspectors; ad honorem wildlife inspectors and natural resources monitoring committees (comités de vigilancia de los recursos naturales, COVIRENAS).” In turn, section 37 of the Ley Forestal provides that it is the responsibility of the Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) to ensure the protection and conservation of forests and forest lands and “[t]o contribute to the fulfillment of the foregoing, the Ministry shall provide for the participation of civil society, appointing ad honorem natural resource inspectors and forming forest monitoring committees.” He adds that in subsection a) of article 2 of Decree No.

39833-MINAE, defines the “ Honorary Environmental Inspector (Inspector Ambiental Ad honorem)” as the “[p] natural person appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources, which allows the guarantee and exercise of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, environmental conservation, and the sustainable use of natural resources”. Said provision adds that they shall be called “ honorary environmental inspector (inspector ambiental ad honorem)” for the categories of ad honorem inspectors established in articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal. Said numeral indicates, furthermore, that their function shall be “to assist the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”. While subsection b) of that same numeral 2 defines the “ Natural Resources Vigilance Committee (Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales, COVIRENA)”, as the “ civil society organization made up of Honorary Environmental Inspectors, who voluntarily assist, contribute, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources ” and, in addition, it clarifies that the term “Natural Resources Vigilance Committees (Comités de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales)” integrates the categories of committees established in articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal. It adds that numeral 16 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE includes, among the responsibilities and duties of honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem), the following: “Assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities ”; “Comply with the legal system, the established procedures, and the applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to administrative authorities, including this regulation and the legal framework on which the operation of Honorary Environmental Inspectors and COVIRENAs is based”; “ Use MINAE’s resources effectively, efficiently, and economically, making diligent use of them”; “ Comply with the provisions and recommendations issued by the officials of the Public Administration”; “Fulfill the duties pertinent to their competence, as communicated by the respective Conservation Area (Área de Conservación) or the Prevention, Protection, and Control Department of the SINAC Executive Secretariat ”; “Participate as a witness in administrative or judicial proceedings when summoned”; “ Others that the Administrative Authorities determine in writing and communicate in a timely manner”. It states that the functions granted, by law and regulation, to the aforementioned ad honorem inspectors and COVIRENAs, are those typical of an auxiliary of the public function, since they assist the Public Administration in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources; however, the powers of such ad honorem inspectors and COVIRENAs are uncertain, given that they are granted powers to assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources in collaboration with the competent authorities, but the specific powers they have to fulfill those purposes are not delimited in a concrete and precise manner. It maintains that the challenged regulations grant an ambiguous competence to the honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and COVIRENAs and, furthermore, do not establish the concrete mechanisms to exercise it; that is, their functions are stated generically, but the legal or material means to carry them out are not specified. It indicates that Decree No. 39833-MINAE appears to exclude such inspectors and COVIRENAs from being able to exercise public authority powers, by indicating that the “ non-delegable powers of prevention, protection, and control and the police authority determined by law fall upon the officials of SINAC, the Fuerza Pública, and the Reserve of the Fuerza Pública”; however, it is also not specified what these non-delegable powers are. It argues that from the principle of legality enshrined in Article 11 of the Constitution derives the constitutional principle of the mensurability of administrative powers, which implies, firstly, that every administrative power must be conferred by law, which must precisely set both its scope and its limits, and, secondly, the direct origin of every administrative power is the law and not specific legal acts. It points out that, according to the challenged regulations, honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and COVIRENAs exercise public powers, albeit in an auxiliary manner. Therefore, their actions would have to be conceptualized as public activities that impact, in some way, the legal sphere of private individuals. In application of the aforementioned constitutional principle, it is necessary that not only the powers of such auxiliary bodies are clearly listed, but also the legal mechanisms and material actions suitable to satisfy those purposes. It insists that none of the challenged norms delimits, in a concrete manner, the powers they have to “assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources” . It considers that the challenged regulations also violate the principle of legal certainty, since the referred inspectors and COVIRENAs are assigned an uncertain competence, given that it is not specifically known what public purposes are entrusted to them, nor what actions they can carry out to satisfy their duties. It argues that by being invested, honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and COVIRENAs, as auxiliaries of the public function, their actions could harm the fundamental rights of the administered and abusively invade the exercise of public powers granted by the legal system to certain public officials. It points out that the challenged regulations stimulate situations in which insecurity or uncertainty is generated in the relations between the auxiliaries of the public function and the administered, since the latter have no certainty whatsoever of what the powers of the former are or what the legal and material means to satisfy them are. Finally, it alleges that the guarantee of due process is violated. It maintains that, within the principle of the inviolability of the evidence, the requirement that incriminating evidence not be spurious is included, that is, that it has been collected or obtained legally; in which case, the evidence obtained by means of the honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and the COVIRENAs could become spurious, for coming from an auxiliary authority whose competence and legal and material means to exercise it are imprecise, especially because Article 16, subsection k), of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE itself establishes their obligation to “participate as a witness in administrative and judicial proceedings when summoned ”. It indicates that, consequently, the eventual incriminating evidence obtained by the aforementioned auxiliaries of the public function could be considered spurious and, therefore, violative of the constitutional guarantee of due process, for not having their competence nor the material and legal actions suitable to fulfill that task specified. It requests that, consequently, this action be accepted and a period be granted to the Legislative Assembly and MINAE to proceed to specify the competence of such auxiliaries of the public function, as well as the material or legal actions they can carry out to fulfill their duties. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div> 2.- In order to substantiate the standing it holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, the plaintiff cites article 75, second paragraph, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, as it acts in defense of the corporate and collective interests of the members of the entity it represents, that is, in protection of the interests of the businesspersons engaged in the activity of pineapple production and export in Costa Rica. It argues, to this effect, that said businesspersons see as a threat to their business interests that honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and COVIRENAs can be used by recalcitrant environmentalist groups as instruments to hinder and, eventually, paralyze the pineapple activity in the country. It indicates that said honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and COVIRENAs can assume the exercise of prevention, protection, and control powers that, legally, correspond to the officials of MINAE. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>                 3.- 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 petition brought to its knowledge that turns out to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it involves the simple reiteration or reproduction of a similar or identical previous petition that was rejected.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>                 Drafted by Judge Cruz Castro; and,<o:p></o:p> </div> Considering:<o:p></o:p> <div> I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT ACTION. As can be derived from a comprehensive reading of the filing brief, the plaintiff does not question, per se , the existence of the figure of honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and the COVIRENAs; instead, the plaintiff's substantive argument is that the challenged regulations do not properly specify the competences or functions that correspond to such environmental inspectors and the COVIRENAs, which could, eventually, cause them to assume the exercise of prevention, protection, and control powers that, legally, correspond to the officials of MINAE. However, it is evident from the provisions of the cited articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre and 37 of the Ley Forestal, in relation to article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE, that both the honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) and the aforementioned vigilance committees are provided solely to assist the competent authorities in their functions and under their coordination and direction. The cited article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE specifies, clearly, that the function of honorary environmental inspectors (ad honorem) shall be “of assistance to the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”, while the Natural Resources Vigilance Committees (COVIRENA) (Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales) are organizations of the civil society made up of the referred inspectors who “ voluntarily assist, contribute, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources”. That same numeral clarifies                 that the “ non-delegable powers of prevention, protection, and control and the police authority determined by law fall upon the officials of SINAC, the Fuerza Pública, and the Reserve of the Fuerza Pública”. In line with the above, article 13 of the cited Decree No. 39833-MINAE establishes that the honorary environmental inspector (ad honorem) appointment card must contain the following legend: “The holder of this card acts under the coordination of SINAC, and must be accompanied by SINAC, Fuerza Pública, or their Reserve officials”. Finally, article 16 of the cited Decree No. 39833-MINAE indicates that such inspectors must “[c] assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities ”, as well as “[c]omply with the legal system, the established procedures, and the applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to administrative authorities”. It is thus verified that the aforementioned regulatory framework limits or delimits the field of action of the cited ad honorem inspectors , by establishing that their action is centered, essentially, on providing assistance to the competent public authorities in fulfilling their functions and under SINAC's coordination. Furthermore, the mere contingency that, in an eventual specific case, it could be deemed that some inspector has exceeded said regulatory framework, according to its correct interpretation and application –which is essentially what appears to motivate the filing of this action-, involves a conflict that is not appropriate to be elucidated by means of an action of unconstitutionality. This Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that: <o:p></o:p> </div> “(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaring unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the challenged laws, provisions, or acts, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is aired in this jurisdictional venue, through the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Judgment number 1319-97, of fourteen fifty-one hours on March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, judgment number 2008-14193, of ten hours three minutes on September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is, in these processes the individual harm that the plaintiff may exhibit is not preferentially addressed, because what is pursued is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that the acts subject to public law… and the norms conform to the constitutional order ”. (judgment No. 2012-010986 of 15:05 hrs. of August 14, 2012)<o:p></o:p> In accordance with the foregoing, this Chamber has indicated that “ the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in the specific case” is not a matter proper to be heard through the action of unconstitutionality (judgment No. 5966-94 of 15:54 hrs. of October 11, 1994). In a similar sense, in judgment No. 2007-007137 of 16:47 hrs. of May 23, 2007, this Chamber resolved the following: <o:p></o:p> “IV.- On the application of the Law.   In the filing brief of the action, the plaintiff also argues that articles 54 of the Ley Forestal, 15 and 16 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre are unconstitutional, because it is not possible for the police authority to apply them within the properties of private individuals that are not subject voluntarily to the Régimen Forestal without violating article 45 of the Constitución Política.  Similarly, it alleges that the principle of proportionality is violated by entering private property with a motor vehicle.  The first argument may be elucidated with the precedents that will be transcribed below on these articles, for the second, the legal representative of the plaintiff must take into account that it is not possible to discuss the application of the Law or a norm in the venue of the action of unconstitutionality, since this must be reserved for the underlying process of the lawsuit.  The venue of the action of unconstitutionality is reserved to ensure and declare constitutional supremacy against incompatible norms.  If what is intended is the discussion of its application or interpretation by the administrative authorities, this must be resolved in the main matter or in an amparo appeal when the infringement of constitutional rights and principles occurs.  The same occurs when the plaintiff seeks the Chamber to declare that entry to a private farm must be recorded in a valid and effective administrative act  (see also judgment 1997-0284).”<o:p></o:p> <div> II.- IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject outright the action under study, as is hereby ordered.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>                 III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE . The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be collected from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment.

Otherwise, any material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, in accordance with the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is summarily dismissed (Se rechaza de plano la acción).


	![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_1.PNG) Fernando Cruz C. Presidente a.i
![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_2.JPG) Fernando Castillo V.		![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_3.JPG) Paul Rueda L.
![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_4.JPG) Nancy Hernández L.		![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_5.JPG) Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_6.PNG) Aracelly Pacheco S.		![graphic](file:///C:/Users/VGRANA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/HTMF52B_7.JPG) Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *QJPD5OK9AP061*  QJPD5OK9AP061 **EXPEDIENTE N° 17-009208-0007-CO** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the twenty-eighth of June two thousand seventeen.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by **ABEL CHAVES TRIGUEROS**, of legal age, married, business administrator, identity card No. 0202590468, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, in his capacity as President of the **ASOCIACIÓN CÁMARA NACIONAL DE PRODUCTORES Y EXPORTADORES DE PIÑA**, against articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal and 2 and 16 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE.

**Resultando:**                  **1.-** By brief received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:05 a.m. on 14 June 2017, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of articles 15 of the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 of the Ley Forestal and 2 and 16 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE be declared, deeming them contrary to the constitutional principles of mensurability of public powers and legal certainty, as well as the guarantee of due process. He points out that article 15 of the Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre provides that “[i]n order to contribute to the application and enforcement of this Law, the Ministry of Environment and Energy shall appoint wildlife inspectors; ad honorem wildlife inspectors and natural resource vigilance committees (COVIRENAS)”.

For its part, section 37 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) provides that the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) is responsible for ensuring the protection and conservation of forests and forest lands and “[t]o contribute to the fulfillment of the foregoing, the Ministry shall engage civil society, appointing volunteer natural resource inspectors (inspectores de recursos naturales ad honórem) and integrating forest surveillance committees (comités de vigilancia de los bosques)”. It adds that paragraph a) of article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE defines the “Volunteer Environmental Inspector (Inspector Ambiental Ad honorem)” as the “[n]atural person appointed by the Ministry of Environment and Energy, to assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources, enabling the guarantee and exercise of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, environmental conservation, and the sustainable use of natural resources”. Said provision adds that the categories of volunteer (ad honorem) inspectors established in articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) and 37 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) shall be called “volunteer environmental inspector (inspector ambiental ad honorem)”. That section also indicates that their function shall be of “assistance to the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”. Meanwhile, paragraph b) of that same section 2 defines the “Natural Resource Surveillance Committee (Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales, COVIRENA)”, as the “civil society organization formed by Volunteer Environmental Inspectors that voluntarily assist, contribute to, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources” and, in addition, it is clarified that the term “Natural Resource Surveillance Committees” encompasses the categories of committees established in articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) and 37 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal). It adds that section 16 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE includes, among the responsibilities and duties of volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem), the following: “Assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities”; “Comply with the legal system, established procedures, and applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to administrative authorities, including these regulations and the legal framework on which the operation of Volunteer Environmental Inspectors and COVIRENAs is based”; “[U]se MINAE’s resources effectively, efficiently, and economically, making diligent use of the same”; “[A]bide by the provisions and recommendations issued by Public Administration officials”; “[F]ulfill the duties pertaining to their competence, as communicated by the respective Conservation Area (Área de Conservación) or the Department of Prevention, Protection and Control of the Executive Secretariat of SINAC”; “[P]articipate as a witness in administrative or judicial proceedings when summoned”; “Others as determined in writing and timely communicated by the Administrative Authorities”. It asserts that the functions granted, by law and regulation, to the mentioned volunteer (ad honorem) inspectors and COVIRENAs, are those of an assistant to the public function, since they assist the Public Administration in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources; however, the powers of such volunteer (ad honorem) inspectors and COVIRENAs are uncertain, given that they are granted powers to assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources in collaboration with the competent authorities, but the powers they have to fulfill those purposes are not delimited in a concrete and precise manner. It maintains that the challenged regulations grant an ambiguous competence to volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs and, furthermore, do not establish the concrete mechanisms to exercise it; that is, their functions are stated generically, but the legal or material means to carry them out are not specified. It indicates that Decree No. 39833-MINAE appears to exclude the possibility that such inspectors and COVIRENAs may exercise sovereign powers, by indicating that the “non-delegable powers of prevention, protection and control and the police authority determined by law rest with the officials of SINAC, the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) and the Public Force Reserve”; however, it also does not specify which are those non-delegable powers. It argues that from the principle of legality enshrined in article 11 of the Constitution derives the constitutional principle of the measurability of administrative powers, which implies, first, that every administrative power must be conferred by law, which must precisely fix both its scope and its limits, and second, that the direct origin of every administrative power is the law and not specific legal acts. It points out that, according to the challenged regulations, volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs exercise public powers, albeit in an auxiliary form. Therefore, their conduct would have to be conceptualized as public activities that impact, in some way, the legal sphere of private individuals. In application of the aforementioned constitutional principle, it is necessary that not only the powers of such auxiliary bodies be clearly enumerated, but also the legal mechanisms and the material conduct suitable for satisfying such tasks. It insists that none of the challenged rules delimits, in a concrete manner, the powers they have to “assist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the safeguarding of natural resources”. It considers that the challenged regulations also infringe upon the principle of legal certainty, since the referred inspectors and COVIRENAs are assigned an uncertain competence, given that it is not specifically known what public purposes are entrusted to them, nor what conduct they may perform to satisfy their tasks. It argues that since volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs are invested as auxiliaries of the public function, their conduct could injure the fundamental rights of the administered and abusively invade the exercise of public powers granted by the legal system to certain public officials. It points out that the challenged regulations stimulate situations in which insecurity or uncertainty is generated in the relations between the auxiliaries of the public function and the administered, given that the latter have no certainty whatsoever regarding the powers of the former nor the legal and material means for satisfying them. It alleges, finally, that the guarantee of due process is infringed. It maintains that, within the principle of the inviolability of evidence, the requirement that incriminating evidence not be spurious is included, that is, that it has been gathered or obtained legally; in which case, evidence obtained by volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs could become spurious, as it comes from an auxiliary authority whose competence and legal and material means for exercising it are imprecise, especially because article 16, paragraph k), of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 39833-MINAE itself establishes their obligation to “participate as a witness in administrative and judicial proceedings when summoned”. It indicates that, consequently, any incriminating evidence obtained by the cited auxiliaries of the public function could be considered spurious and, therefore, a violation of the constitutional guarantee of due process, as their competence and the suitable material and legal conduct for fulfilling that task are not specified. It requests that, consequently, the present action be admitted and that a period be granted to the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa) and MINAE to proceed to specify the competence of such auxiliaries of the public function, as well as the material or legal conduct they may perform to fulfill their tasks.

2.- In order to substantiate the standing he holds to bring this action of unconstitutionality, the plaintiff cites article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), insofar as he acts in defense of the corporate and collective interests of the members of the entity he represents, that is, in safeguarding the interests of the businessmen engaged in the activity of pineapple production and export in Costa Rica. He alleges, to this effect, that said businessmen see it as a threat to their business interests that volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs may be used by recalcitrant ecologist groups as instruments to hinder and, eventually, paralyze pineapple activity in the country. He indicates that said volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs may assume the exercise of prevention, protection, and control powers that legally correspond to MINAE officials.

3.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber 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 constitutes a mere reiteration or reproduction of a previous, equal or similar petition that was rejected.

Drafted by Judge Cruz Castro; and,

Considering:

I.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT ACTION. As derived from a comprehensive reading of the filing brief, the plaintiff does not question, per se, the existence of the figure of volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and COVIRENAs; instead, the plaintiff’s substantive argument is that the challenged regulations do not properly specify the competencies or functions corresponding to such environmental inspectors and COVIRENAs, which may eventually cause them to assume the exercise of prevention, protection, and control powers that legally correspond to MINAE officials. However, it is inferred from the provisions of the cited articles 15 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) and 37 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), in relation to article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE, that both the volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) and the mentioned surveillance committees are foreseen only to assist the competent authorities in their functions and under their coordination and direction. The cited article 2 of Decree No. 39833-MINAE clearly specifies that the function of volunteer environmental inspectors (inspectores ambientales ad honorem) shall be “of assistance to the competent authorities in the application and enforcement of environmental regulations”, while the Natural Resource Surveillance Committees (COVIRENA) are civil society organizations formed by the referred inspectors that “voluntarily assist, contribute to, and collaborate with public officials in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation and the protection of natural resources”. That same section clarifies that the “non-delegable powers of prevention, protection and control and the police authority determined by law rest with the officials of SINAC, the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) and the Public Force Reserve”. In line with the foregoing, article 13 of the cited Decree No. 39833-MINAE establishes that the appointment card for a volunteer environmental inspector (inspector ambiental ad honorem) must contain the following legend: “The bearer of this card acts under the coordination of SINAC, must be accompanied by officials of SINAC, the Public Force or their Reservists”. Finally, article 16 of the cited Decree No. 39833-MINAE indicates that such inspectors must “[a]ssist in the application and enforcement of environmental legislation, in collaboration with the corresponding public authorities”, as well as “[c]omply with the legal system, established procedures, and applicable technical standards, when providing collaboration to administrative authorities”. It is thus verified that the referred regulatory framework circumscribes or delimits the field of action of the cited volunteer (ad honorem) inspectors, by establishing that their action is essentially centered on providing assistance to the competent public authorities in the fulfillment of their functions and under the coordination of SINAC. Furthermore, the mere contingency that, in a potential specific case, it might be considered that some inspector has exceeded said regulatory framework, in accordance with its correct interpretation and application –which is, at heart, what seems to motivate the filing of this action–, supposes a conflict that is not appropriate to be elucidated through an action of unconstitutionality. This Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that:

“(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or disconformity with it of the challenged laws, provisions, or acts, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is aired in this jurisdictional venue, through the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Judgment number 1319-97, of fourteen hours fifty-one minutes of March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, judgment number 2008-14193, of ten hours three minutes of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is to say, in these proceedings, the individual harm that the plaintiff may exhibit is not preferentially addressed, because what is pursued is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that the acts subject to public law… and the norms conform to the constitutional order”. (judgment No. 2012-010986 of 15:05 hrs. of August 14, 2012) In accordance with the foregoing, this Chamber has indicated that “the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in a specific case” is not a matter subject to being heard through the action of unconstitutionality (judgment No. 5966-94 of 15:54 hrs. of October 11, 1994). In a similar sense, in judgment No. 2007-007137 of 16:47 hrs. of May 23, 2007, this Chamber resolved the following:

“IV.- On the application of the Law. In the brief filing the action, the plaintiff also argues that articles 54 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), 15 and 16 of the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre) are unconstitutional, because it is not possible for the police authority to apply them within the properties of private individuals that are not voluntarily subject to the Forest Regime (Régimen Forestal) without violating article 45 of the Political Constitution. Similarly, it is alleged that the principle of proportionality is violated by entering private property with a motor vehicle. The first claim may be elucidated with the precedents on these articles that will be transcribed below; for the second, the representative of the plaintiff must take into account that it is not possible to discuss the application of the Law or a norm through the action of unconstitutionality, as this must be reserved for the proceeding that serves as the basis for the suit. The avenue of the action of unconstitutionality is reserved to ensure and declare constitutional supremacy in the face of incompatible norms. If what is sought is the discussion of its application or interpretation by administrative authorities, this must be resolved in the principal matter or in an amparo appeal when the infringement of constitutional rights and principles occurs. The same applies when the plaintiff intends for the Chamber to declare that entry to a private farm must be recorded in a valid and effective administrative act (see also judgment 1997-0284).” II.- IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary to the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject the action under study outright, as so ordered.

III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE. The parties are warned that if any paper document has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days from the notification of this judgment.

Otherwise, any material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is rejected outright.


	Fernando Cruz C. Presidente a.i
Fernando Castillo V.		Paul Rueda L.
Nancy Hernández L.		Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Aracelly Pacheco S.		Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *QJPD5OK9AP061*  QJPD5OK9AP061

*170092080007CO* Res. Nº 2017009960 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del veintiocho de junio de dos mil diecisiete .

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por ABEL CHAVES TRIGUEROS, mayor, casado, administrador de empresas, cédula de identidad No. 0202590468, vecino de San Rafael de Escazú, en su condición de Presidente de la ASOCIACIÓN CÁMARA NACIONAL DE PRODUCTORES Y EXPORTADORES DE PIÑA , contra los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 de la Ley Forestal y 2 y 16 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:05 hrs. del 14 de junio de 2017, el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, 37 de la Ley Forestal y 2 y 16 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE, por estimarlos contrarios a los principios constitucionales de mensurabilidad de las potestades públicas y seguridad jurídica, así como de la garantía del debido proceso. Señala que el artículo 15 de la Ley de Conservación de Vida Silvestre prevé que “[p]ara coadyuvar a la aplicación y cumplimiento de esta Ley, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía nombrará inspectores de vida silvestre; inspectores ad honorem de vida silvestre y comités de vigilancia de los recursos naturales (COVIRENAS)”. Por su parte, el ordinal 37 de la Ley Forestal dispone que corresponde al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE) velar por la protección y conservación de los bosques y terrenos forestales y “[p] ara coadyuvar al cumplimiento de lo anterior, el Ministerio dará participación a la sociedad civil, nombrando inspectores de recursos naturales ad honórem e integrando comités de vigilancia de los bosques”. Añade que en el inciso a) del artículo 2 del Decreto No. 39833-MINAE, se define al “ Inspector Ambiental Ad honorem” como la “[p] ersona física nombrada por el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, para coadyuvar en la aplicación y el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y el resguardo de los recursos naturales, que permita la garantía y ejercicio del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, la conservación ambiental y el uso sostenible de los recursos naturales”. Dicha disposición añade que se denominará “ inspector ambiental ad honorem” a las categorías de inspectores ad honorem establecidos en los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y 37 de la Ley Forestal. Tal numeral indica, además, que su función será de “coadyuvancia a las autoridades competentes en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental”. Mientras que en el inciso b) de ese mismo numeral 2 se define al “ Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales (COVIRENA)”, como la “ organización de la sociedad civil conformada por Inspectores Ambientales Ad Honorem, que en forma voluntaria coadyuvan, contribuyen y colaboran con los funcionarios públicos en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y la protección de los recursos naturales ” y, además, se aclara que el término “Comités de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales” integra las categorías de comités establecidos en los artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y 37 de la Ley Forestal. Agrega que el numeral 16 del Decreto No. 39833-MINAE incluye, entre las responsabilidades y deberes de los inspectores ambientales ad honorem, las siguientes: “Coadyuvar en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental, en colaboración con las autoridades públicas correspondientes ”; “Cumplir el ordenamiento jurídico, los procedimientos establecidos y las normas técnicas aplicables, cuando presta colaboración a las autoridades administrativas, incluido el presente reglamento y el marco legal en que se fundamenta la operación los Inspectores Ambientales Ad honorem y los COVIRENA”; “ Usar de manera eficaz, eficiente y económica, los recursos del MINAE, haciendo un uso diligente de los mismos”; “ Acatar las disposiciones y recomendaciones emanadas por los funcionarios de la Administración Pública”; “Cumplir con los deberes atinentes a su competencia, según le comunique la respectiva Área de Conservación o el Departamento de Prevención, Protección y Control de la Secretaría Ejecutiva del SINAC ”; “Participar como testigo en los procedimientos administrativos o judiciales cuando fuera citado”; “ Otras que las Autoridades Administrativas determinen por escrito y comuniquen oportunamente”. Afirma que las funciones otorgadas, por vía legal y reglamentaria, a los mencionados inspectores ad honorem y COVIRENAS, son las propias de un auxiliar de la función pública, por cuanto, estos coadyuvan con la Administración Pública en la aplicación y el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y el resguardo de los recursos naturales; sin embargo, las atribuciones de tales inspectores ad honorem y COVIRENAS son inciertas, dado que, se les otorga potestades para coadyuvar en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y el resguardo de los recursos naturales en colaboración con las autoridades competentes, pero no se delimitan, de manera concreta y precisa, las atribuciones que tienen para cumplir esas finalidades. Sostiene que la normativa impugnada otorga una competencia ambigua a los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y COVIRENAS y, además, no establecen los mecanismos concretos para ejercerla; esto es, se dicen, genéricamente, sus funciones, pero no se especifican los medios jurídicos ni materiales para llevarlas a cabo. Indica que el Decreto No. 39833-MINAE pareciera excluir que tales inspectores y COVIRENAS puedan ejercer potestades de imperio, al indicar que las “ competencias indelegables de prevención, protección y control y la autoridad de policía determinadas por ley recaen en los funcionarios del SINAC, la Fuerza Pública y la Reserva de la Fuerza Pública”; sin embargo, tampoco se especifican cuáles son esas competencias indelegables. Argumenta que del principio de legalidad consagrado en el artículo 11 constitucional se deriva el principio constitucional de mensurabilidad de las potestades administrativas, que implica, en primer lugar, que toda potestad administrativa debe ser conferida por ley, la cual debe fijar, precisamente, tanto sus alcances como sus límites y, en segundo lugar, el origen directo de toda potestad administrativa es la ley y no actos jurídicos determinados. Señala que, según la normativa impugnada, los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y COVIRENAS ejercen potestades públicas, aunque en forma auxiliar. Por tanto, sus conductas tendrían que conceptuarse como actividades pública que inciden, de alguna forma, sobre la esfera jurídica de los particulares. En aplicación del citado principio constitucional, es necesario que se enumeren, claramente, no solo las atribuciones de tales órganos auxiliares, sino que, también, los mecanismos jurídicos y las conductas materiales idóneas para satisfacer tales cometidos. Insiste que ninguna de las normas impugnadas delimita, de manera concreta, las atribuciones que tienen para “coadyuvar en la aplicación y el cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y el resguardo de los recursos naturales” . Considera que la normativa impugnada infringe, también, el principio de seguridad jurídica, por cuanto, a los referidos inspectores y COVIRENAS se les asigna una competencia incierta, dado que, no se sabe, específicamente, cuáles son los fines públicos encomendados a estos, ni tampoco cuáles conductas pueden realizar para satisfacer sus cometidos. Argumenta que al ser investidos los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y COVIRENAS como auxiliares de la función pública, sus conductas podrían lesionar derechos fundamentales de los administrados e invadir, abusivamente, el ejercicio de competencias públicas otorgadas por el ordenamiento jurídico a determinados funcionarios públicos. Señala que la normativa impugnada estimula situaciones en las que se genera inseguridad o incerteza en las relaciones entre los auxiliares de la función pública y los administrados, dado que estos últimos no tienen certeza alguna de cuáles son las competencias de aquellos ni cuáles son los medios jurídicos y materiales para satisfacerlas. Alega, finalmente, que se infringe la garantía del debido proceso. Sostiene que, dentro del principio de inviolabilidad de la prueba, está incluida la exigencia que la prueba de cargo no sea espuria, es decir, que haya sido recabada u obtenida de manera legal; en cuyo caso, la prueba obtenida por medio de los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y las COVIRENAS podría devenir espuria, por provenir de una autoridad auxiliar cuya competencia y medios jurídicos y materiales para ejercerla son imprecisos, sobre todo, porque el propio artículo 16, inciso k), del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 39833-MINAE, les establece la obligación de “participar como testigo en los procedimientos administrativos y judiciales cuando fuere citado ”. Indica que, en consecuencia, la eventual prueba de cargo obtenida por los citados auxiliares de la función pública podría ser considerada espuria y, por tanto, violatoria de la garantía constitucional del debido proceso, por no estar precisada su competencia ni las conductas materiales y jurídicas idóneas para cumplir ese cometido. Solicita que, en consecuencia, se acoja la presente acción y se otorgue un plazo a la Asamblea Legislativa y al MINAE para que procedan a precisar la competencia de tales auxiliares de la función pública, así como las conductas materiales o jurídicas que pueden realizar para cumplir sus cometidos.

2.- A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, el accionante cita el artículo 75, párrafo segundo, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, en tanto actúa en defensa de intereses corporativos y colectivos de los miembros de su representada, esto es, en resguardo de los intereses de los empresarios que se dedican a la actividad de la producción y la exportación de piña en Costa Rica. Alega, al efecto, que dichos empresarios ven como una amenaza a sus intereses empresariales que los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y los COVIRENAS pueden ser utilizados por los grupos ecologistas recalcitrantes como instrumentos para entorpecer y, eventualmente, paralizar la actividad piñera en el país. Indica que dichos inspectores ambientales ad honorem y las COVIRENAS pueden asumir el ejercicio de competencias de prevención, protección y control que, legalmente, corresponden a los funcionarios del MINAE.

3.- El artículo 9 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 el Magistrado Cruz Castro; y,

Considerando:

I.- SOBRE LA INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA PRESENTE ACCIÓN. Según se deriva de la lectura integral del escrito de interposición, el accionante no cuestiona, per se , la existencia de la figura de los inspectores ambientales ad honorem y las COVIRENA; en su lugar, el alegato de fondo del accionante es que la normativa impugnada no precisa, de forma debida, las competencias o funciones que corresponden a tales inspectores ambientales y a las COVIRENAS, lo que puede provocar, eventualmente, que estos asuman el ejercicio de competencias de prevención, protección y control que, legalmente, corresponden a los funcionarios del MINAE. Sin embargo, se desprende de lo dispuesto en los citados artículos 15 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre y 37 de la Ley Forestal, en relación con el artículo 2 del Decreto No. 39833-MINAE, que tanto los inspectores ambientales ad honorem como los mencionados comités de vigilancia están previstos, únicamente, para coadyuvar a las autoridades competentes en sus funciones y bajo su coordinación y dirección. El citado artículo 2 del Decreto No. 39833-MINAE especifica, claramente, que la función de los inspectores ambientales ad honorem será “de coadyuvancia a las autoridades competentes en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la normativa ambiental”, mientras que los Comité de Vigilancia de los Recursos Naturales (COVIRENA) son organizaciones de la sociedad civil conformadas por los referidos inspectores que “ en forma voluntaria coadyuvan, contribuyen y colaboran con los funcionarios públicos en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental y la protección de los recursos naturales”. Ese mismo numeral aclara que las “ competencias indelegables de prevención, protección y control y la autoridad de policía determinadas por ley recaen en los funcionarios del SINAC, la Fuerza Pública y la Reserva de la Fuerza Pública”. En consonancia con lo anterior, el artículo 13 del citado Decreto No. 39833-MINAE establece que el carné de nombramiento de inspector ambiental ad honorem debe contener la siguiente leyenda: “El portador de este carné actúa bajo la coordinación del SINAC, debe estar acompañado por funcionarios del SINAC, Fuerza Pública o sus Reservistas”. Finalmente, el artículo 16 del citado Decreto No. 39833-MINAE señala que tales inspectores deberán “[c] oadyuvar en la aplicación y cumplimiento de la legislación ambiental, en colaboración con las autoridades públicas correspondientes ”, así como “[c]umplir el ordenamiento jurídico, los procedimientos establecidos y las normas técnicas aplicables, cuando presta colaboración a las autoridades administrativas”. Se constata, de esta forma, que el referido marco normativa acota o delimita el campo de acción de los citados inspectores ad honorem , al establecer que su actuación se centra, esencialmente, en brindar asistencia a las autoridades públicas competentes en el cumplimiento de sus funciones y bajo la coordinación del SINAC. Por lo demás, la mera contingencia que, en un eventual caso concreto, pudiese estimarse que algún inspector ha excedido dicho marco normativo, conforme a su correcta interpretación y aplicación –que es el fondo, lo que parece motivar la interposición de esta acción-, supone un conflicto que no procede ser dilucidado mediante una acción de inconstitucionalidad. Esta Sala ha precisado, en lo referente a la naturaleza y propósito del control de constitucionalidad, que:

“(…) la jurisdicción constitucional, ejercida en una de sus modalidades a través de los procedimientos de declaración de inconstitucionalidad, garantiza la primicia de la Constitución y enjuicia la conformidad o disconformidad con ella de las leyes, disposiciones o actos impugnados, como su concordancia con las normas y principios del derecho internacional, o comunitario vigentes en la República. Es la pureza misma del ordenamiento jurídico la que se ventila en esta sede jurisdiccional, con la comparación entre la norma fundamental y las leyes que la desarrollan. (Sentencia número 1319-97, de las catorce horas cincuenta y un minutos del cuatro de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y siete. En el mismo sentido, sentencia número 2008-14193, de las diez horas con tres minutos del veinticuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho). Es decir que en estos procesos no se atiende la lesión individual que pueda exhibir la actora, de manera preferente, pues lo que se persigue es la supremacía constitucional; es decir la satisfacción de un interés general de que los actos sujetos al derechos público… y las normas se conformen con el ordenamiento constitucional ”. (sentencia No. 2012-010986 de las 15:05 hrs. del 14 de agosto de 2012) En concordancia con lo anterior, esta Sala ha señalado que “ la aplicación indebida de la ley o su errónea interpretación en el caso concreto” no es materia propia de conocerse mediante la acción de inconstitucionalidad (sentencia No. 5966-94 de las 15:54 hrs. del 11 de octubre de 1994). En similar sentido, en sentencia No. 2007-007137 de las 16:47 hrs. del 23 de mayo de 2007, esta Sala resolvió lo siguiente:

“IV.- Sobre la aplicación de la Ley. En el escrito de interposición de la acción, el accionante argumenta también que los artículos 54 de la Ley Forestal, 15 y 16 de la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre son inconstitucionales, por cuanto no es posible a la autoridad de policía aplicarlos dentro de las propiedades de los particulares que no están sometidas voluntariamente al Régimen Forestal sin vulnerar el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política. De igual manera alega que se violenta el principio de proporcionalidad para ingresar con un vehículo automotor a la propiedad privada. El primer alegato podrá dilucidarse con los precedentes que se transcribirán abajo sobre estos artículos, para el segundo, el personero de la accionante debe tomar en cuenta que no es posible discutir la aplicación de la Ley o de una norma en la vía de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, pues esto debe quedar reservado para el proceso que le sirve de base a la demanda. La vía de la acción de inconstitucionalidad está reservada para asegurar y declarar la supremacía constitucional frente a las normas incompatibles. Si lo que se pretende es la discusión de su aplicación o interpretación por parte de las autoridades administrativas, esto debe resolverse en el asunto principal o en un recurso de amparo cuando ocurra la infracción los derechos y principios constitucionales. Lo mismo ocurre cuando el demandante pretende que la Sala declare que el ingreso a una finca particular debe hacerse constar en un acto administrativo válido y eficaz (véase también la sentencia 1997-0284).” II.- EN CONCLUSIÓN. Como corolario de lo anterior, procede rechazar de plano la acción en estudio, como así se dispone.

III.- DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE . Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.

Por tanto:

Se rechaza de plano la acción.

Fernando Cruz C.

a.i Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Aracelly Pacheco S.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *QJPD5OK9AP061* 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts.Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro). Recepción de documentos: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 y 21, avenidas 8 y 6

Inadmissibility of action against ad honorem environmental inspectors and COVIRENASInadmisibilidad de acción contra inspectores ambientales ad honorem y COVIRENAS

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp