Dismissal of amparo against Tibás road reorganization as an ordinary legality disputeRechazo de amparo contra reordenamiento vial en Tibás por conflicto de legalidad ordinaria

*170187450007CO* PROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO RESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on the ninth of January, two thousand eighteen.

Recurso de amparo filed by MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, identity card 0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, identity card 501400355, CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS, identity card 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ, identity card 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO, identity card 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, identity card 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ , identity card 0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, identity card 0103850849, JORGE VINCENTI , identity card 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ , identity card 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, identity card 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ, identity card 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO, residence card 148400031633, RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA, identity card 040082183, OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO, identity card 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ, identity card 0602130894, against the MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE and the MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.

Resultando:

1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on the 28th of November, 2017, the petitioners file a recurso de amparo against the Municipalidad de Tibás. They allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot plan for road reorganization (plan piloto de reordenamiento vial) of the Tibás canton, without following or complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the necessary authorizations established by the legal system. They explain that, according to the record of extraordinary session N°31-2017 of the 13th of July, 2017, the “Proposal for the Road Reorganization Plan of the Tibás Canton” (Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás) presented by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes was made known. They maintain that the municipality does not have the Five-Year Road Conservation and Development Plan (Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo—Quinquenal), duly approved by the Municipal Council, as required by Article 2 of Law 9239, on Transfer of Competencies, which would provide support for any plan for cantonal road reorganization. They state that at session N°31 of the 31st of July 2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however, non-compliance with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council is evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as serious violations against the residents. They detail that the “Order of the day” of that session was to receive in ‘AUDIENCE THE MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE-MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENG. MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT’, and not the consideration of the Road Reorganization Proposal for the Tibás Canton, and much less to approve it, as the Council did. They assert that there is no signed motion showing that the agreement was the initiative of any of the council members or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion from the Commission regarding said plan; nor is there evidence of the existence of technical or legal criteria issued by the Junta Vial Cantonal or Legal Advisory. They relate that the document “Road Reorganization Plan in the Tibás Canton” was not received by the Mayor until the 17th of August, 2017, that is, one month and four days after it was approved by the Council, since it is not included in the record of the aforementioned session N° 31. They assert that such document is a preparatory act of the MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality. They mention that there is no record that the Municipal Council approved any request from the MOPT, requesting its intervention as sectorial rector, to structure a Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved said plan. They stress that the routes intervened correspond to the cantonal road network and not the national one, so the direct intervention of the MOPT is not possible. They affirm that there are no environmental or road impact studies. They state that neither was a public hearing convened for the canton's residents, so they could express how the road reorganization affects the municipal land use (uso de suelo) and, in turn, is the basis of regulation for the Urban Regulating Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the canton. They explain that it was not until the 31st of October, 2017, that the hearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that the MOPT stripped the municipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them as exclusive lanes for buses, without authorization from the Council. They add that the MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior hearing, the conditions under which they granted licenses (patentes) by preventing parking and access to homes and commercial premises. For loading and unloading, which has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments. They add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in the cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the existence of the bus lane, or others; furthermore, the bus stops are not adapted with urban furniture or lighting. They accuse that there is also no control regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series of traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones or pedestrian crossings have not been marked, despite students from the Mauro Fernández High School, the Miguel Obregón School and Kindergarten, and the nursing homes and senior day centers circulating there. They complain that there is also no budget forecast to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that the possibility of taking the deceased out through the main door of the church during funerals was also eliminated, having to do so through the side doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, through agreement V11-1, of the Ordinary Session N°80, of the 7th of November, 2017, considered the extraordinary motion for review against agreement II of Extraordinary Session N°31 of the 13th of July, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which was referred to the Commission on Legal Affairs for its study, analysis, and presentation of the corresponding opinion. They point out that, to date, the matter is under study by the Legal Commission. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights injured and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Record of Extraordinary Session N° 31 of the 31st of July, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and to MOPT that the road system of the Tibás canton be restored to its original state.

2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its filing, any action presented to its consideration that is manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is the simple reiteration or reproduction of a prior, equal, or similar action that was rejected.

The Magistrate Rueda Leal writes; and,

Considerando:

I.- OBJECT OF THE RECURSO. The petitioners accuse that, on the 31st of July, 2017, the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Tibás approved a pilot plan for road reorganization without complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the authorizations required by the legal system. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights injured and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Record of Extraordinary Session N° 31 of the 31st of July, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and to MOPT to restore the road system of the Tibás canton to its original state.

II.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. In the sub lite, it is noted that what is raised by the petitioners is no more than an ordinary legality dispute, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, which is why it exceeds the scope of competence of this Chamber. In fact, this Tribunal is not a comptroller of legality nor one more instance of the Administration, such that it is not for it to review whether the pilot plan for road reorganization approved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional norms. Those extremes must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the recurso is declared inadmissible.

III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPEDIENTE. The parties are warned that, if any paper document has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional device of electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic nature or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 working days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, according to the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre 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 recurso is rejected outright.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Mauricio Chacón J.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Ileana Sanchez N.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *47VBQZYQINVU61* Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts.Sur of the Perpetuo Socorro church).

Document reception: Supreme Court Building, San José, Catedral District, González Lahmann Neighborhood, 19th and 21st Streets, 8th and 6th Avenues.

CASE FILE No. 17-018745-0007-CO PROCEEDING: AMPARO PETITION RESOLUTION No. 2018000023 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January ninth, two thousand eighteen.

Amparo petition filed by MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, identity card 0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, identity card 501400355, CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS, identity card 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ, identity card 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO, identity card 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, identity card 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ, identity card 0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, identity card 0103850849, JORGE VINCENTI, identity card 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ, identity card 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, identity card 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ, identity card 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO, residency card 148400031633, RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA, identity card 040082183, OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO, identity card 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ, identity card 0602130894, against the MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE and the MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.

Considering:

1.- By document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on November 28, 2017, the petitioners file an amparo petition against the Municipalidad de Tibás.

They allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot road reorganization plan (plan piloto de reordenamiento vial) for the canton of Tibás, without following or complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the necessary authorizations established by the legal system. They explain that, according to the minutes of extraordinary session No. 31-2017 of July 13, 2017, the "Road Reorganization Plan Proposal for the Canton of Tibás" presented by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT) was made known. They maintain that the municipality does not have the Road Conservation and Development Plan (Quinquennial), duly approved by the Municipal Council, as required by Article 2 of Law 9239, on the Transfer of Competencies, to support any cantonal road reorganization plan. They state that in session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however, non-compliance with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council is evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as serious violations against the residents. They detail that the "Agenda" for that session was to receive in 'AUDIENCE WITH MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE-MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENG. MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL UNIT', and not the consideration of the Road Reorganization Proposal for the Canton of Tibás, much less its approval, as the Council did. They assert that there is no signed motion showing that the agreement was an initiative of any of the council members or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion from the Committee regarding said plan; neither is there evidence of technical or legal criteria issued by the Cantonal Road Board or the Legal Advisory Office. They relate that the document "Road Reorganization Plan in the Canton of Tibás" was not received by the Mayor until August 17, 2017, that is, one month and four days after it was approved by the Council, since it is not recorded in the minutes of the aforementioned session No. 31. They claim that this document is a preparatory act of MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality. They mention that there is no record that the Municipal Council approved any request from MOPT, asking for its intervention as sectoral authority, to structure a Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved it. They emphasize that the routes intervened belong to the cantonal road network and not the national one, therefore direct intervention by MOPT is not possible. They state that there are no environmental impact studies or traffic impact studies (estudios de impacto vial). They refer that a public hearing was not convened for the residents of the canton, so that they could express themselves on how the road reorganization affects municipal land use (uso de suelo municipal) and, in turn, is the basis of regulation for the Canton's Urban Regulatory Plan. They explain that it was not until October 31, 2017, that the hearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that MOPT dispossessed the municipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them as exclusive lanes for buses, without authorization from the Council. They add that MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior hearing, the conditions under which they granted business licenses (patentes) by preventing parking and access to homes and commercial premises for loading and unloading, which has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments.

They add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in the cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the existence of the bus lane, among others, in addition, the bus stops are not equipped with street furniture or lighting. They accuse that there is also no control regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series of traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones or pedestrian crossings have not been demarcated either, despite the fact that students from the Mauro Fernández High School, the Miguel Obregón School and Kindergarten, and from nursing homes and adult day centers circulate there. They complain that there is also no budget provision to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that the possibility was also canceled of taking the deceased out through the main door of the church during funerals, having to do so through the side doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, through agreement V11-1, of Ordinary Session No. 80, of November 7, 2017, acknowledged the extraordinary motion for review against agreement II of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 13, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which was referred to the Legal Affairs Committee for its study, analysis, and presentation of the corresponding opinion. They point out that, to date, the matter is under study by the Legal Committee. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights harmed and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipality of Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and MOPT to restore the roadways of the canton of Tibás to their original state.

2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its filing, 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 mere reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar previous petition that was rejected.

Drafted by Magistrate **Rueda Leal**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- OBJECT OF THE APPEAL**. The petitioners allege that, on July 31, 2017, the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Tibás approved a pilot road reorganization plan without complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the authorizations required by the legal system. For the foregoing, they consider their fundamental rights harmed and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipality of Tibás to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and MOPT to restore the roadways of the canton of Tibás to their original state.

**II.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** In the case *sub lite*, it is noted that what is raised by the appellants is nothing more than a conflict of ordinary legality, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, a reason for which it exceeds the scope of jurisdiction of this Chamber. In effect, this Court is not a controller of legality nor another instance of the Administration, such that it is not its place to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional regulations. Those extremes must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is declared inadmissible.

**III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE**. The parties are warned that if any document on paper has been provided, 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, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Electronic Files before the Judiciary," approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The appeal is rejected outright.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verifier code -- *47VBQZYQINVU61* **EXPEDIENTE N° 17-018745-0007-CO** Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church).

*170187450007CO* PROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO RESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023   SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.

San José, at nine hours fifteen minutes on January ninth, two thousand eighteen.

Amparo action filed by **MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ**, identity card 0108410383, **IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ**, identity card 501400355, **CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS**, identity card 0102800884, **JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ**, identity card 0900420859, **SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO**, identity card 0108470215, **WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA**, identity card 018600612, **ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ**, identity card 0800760257, **EDGAR MORALES ARIAS**, identity card 0103850849, **JORGE VINCENTI**, identity card 0109370027, **OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ**, identity card 0601150185, **MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO**, identity card 0103020745, **ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ**, identity card 0303430115, **JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO,** residency card 148400031633, **RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA,** identity card 040082183, **OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO,** identity card 02002811229, **LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ**, identity card 0602130894, against the **MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE** and the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.** **Resultando:** **1.-** By a writing received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 14:31 hours on November 28, 2017, the petitioners file an amparo action against the Municipalidad de Tibás. They allege that the respondent municipality ordered a pilot plan for road reorganization (reordenamiento vial) of the canton of Tibás, without following or complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the necessary authorizations established by the legal system. They explain that, according to the minutes of extraordinary session No. 31-2017 of July 13, 2017, the "Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás" presented by the Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes was made known. They argue that the municipality does not have a Road Conservation and Development Plan (Five-Year Plan) (Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo (Quinquenal)), duly approved by the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal), as required by Article 2 of Law 9239, on Transfer of Competencies (Ley de Transferencia de Competencias), to support any cantonal road reorganization plan. They state that in session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, the aforementioned reorganization proposal was approved; however, the failure to comply with a series of requirements by the Municipal Council is evident, which causes the absolute nullity of that agreement, as well as serious violations to the residents. They detail that the "Agenda" (Orden del día) of said session was to receive in 'AUDIENCE WITH MRS. LIZA CASTILLO VICE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT, MR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND ENGINEER MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR OF THE TECHNICAL UNIT FOR MUNICIPAL ROAD MANAGEMENT (UNIDAD TECNICA DE GESTION VIAL MUNICIPAL)', and not the discussion of the Road Reorganization Proposal of the Canton of Tibás, much less to approve it, as the Council did. They assert that there is no signed motion showing that the agreement was an initiative of any of the councilors (regidores) or the Mayor, nor is there any opinion (dictamen) from the Committee regarding said plan; nor is there evidence of the existence of technical or legal criteria issued by the Cantonal Road Board (Junta Vial Cantonal) or the Legal Advisory Office. They relate that the document "Plan de Reordenamiento Vial en el Cantón de Tibás" was not received by the Mayor until August 17, 2017, that is, one month and four days after it was approved by the Council, since it does not appear in the minutes of the aforementioned session No. 31. They assert that such document is a preparatory act of the MOPT, which issues non-binding recommendations for the municipality. They mention that there is no evidence that the Municipal Council approved any request from the MOPT, asking for its intervention as sectorial rector (rector sectorial), to structure a Road Reorganization Plan project, nor that this ministry approved it. They emphasize that the routes intervened correspond to the cantonal road network (red vial cantonal) and not the national one, so direct intervention by the MOPT is not possible. They affirm that there are no environmental impact studies or traffic impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental o vial). They state that a public hearing was not even called for the residents of the canton, so they could express themselves on how the road reorganization affects municipal land use (uso de suelo municipal) and, in turn, is the basis for regulating the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the canton. They explain that it was not until October 31, 2017, that the hearing was held, at the request of the residents. They indicate that the MOPT stripped the municipality of two roads belonging to the cantonal road network, designating them as exclusive bus lanes, without the Council's authorization. They add that the MOPT and the municipality varied, without opportunity for defense and prior hearing, the conditions under which they granted business licenses (patentes) by preventing parking and access to homes and commercial premises for loading and unloading, which has caused the closure of more than 22 commercial establishments. They add that after the execution of the plan, there is no intervention whatsoever in the cantonal road network, such as road signage indicating the existence of the bus lane, or others; furthermore, the bus stops are not equipped with street furniture (mobiliario urbano) or lighting. They assert that there is also no control regarding speed limits, all of which has caused a series of traffic accidents. They explain that safety zones or pedestrian crossings have also not been demarcated (demarcado zonas de seguridad o pasos peatonales), despite the fact that students from the Liceo Mauro Fernández, the Escuela y Kinder Miguel Obregón, and from nursing homes and adult day centers circulate there. They complain that there is also no budget provision to finance the infrastructure works. They mention that the possibility of taking the deceased out through the main door of the church during funerals was also nullified, having to do so through the side doors. They argue that the Municipal Council, by means of agreement V11-1, of the Ordinary Session No. 80, of November 7, 2017, heard the extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) against agreement II of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 13, 2017, filed by Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, which was referred to the Legal Affairs Committee (Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos) for its study, analysis, and presentation of the corresponding opinion (dictamen). They point out that, to date, the matter is under study by the Legal Committee. For the foregoing reasons, they consider their fundamental rights violated and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibas to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and the MOPT to restore the road system (vialidad) of the canton of Tibás to its original state.

**2.-** 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 filing, any action 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 mere reiteration or reproduction of a previous identical or similar rejected action.

Drafted by Judge (Magistrado) **Rueda Leal**; and, **Considerando:** **I.- OBJECT OF THE ACTION (OBJETO DEL RECURSO).** The petitioners claim that, on July 31, 2017, the Municipal Council of the Municipalidad de Tibás approved a pilot road reorganization plan without complying with the formal and material procedures and requirements, nor having the authorizations required by the legal system. For the foregoing reasons, they consider their fundamental rights violated and request the intervention of the Chamber to order the Municipalidad de Tibas to annul Agreement II of the Minutes of Extraordinary Session No. 31 of July 31, 2017, of the Municipal Council, and the MOPT to restore the road system of the canton of Tibás to its original state.

**II.- REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE (SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO).** In the case at hand (sub lite), it is noted that what is raised by the appellants is nothing more than a conflict of ordinary legality, which does not involve, at least directly, any fundamental right, which is why it exceeds the scope of this Chamber's competence. Indeed, this Court is not a comptroller (contralor) of legality nor another instance of the Administration, so it is not its responsibility to review whether the pilot road reorganization plan approved by the respondent municipality conforms to infra-constitutional regulations. Those points must be resolved by the Administration or, where appropriate, by the ordinary jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the action is declared inadmissible.

**III.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE (DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE).** The parties are warned that if they have provided any document on paper, 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 removed from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material that is not removed 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 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.

</span></sub><span lang=EN style='mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <div> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> </div> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'>&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <div style='margin-left:-5.65pt'> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=624 style='width:468.0pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-yfti-tbllook:1184; mso-padding-alt:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <colgroup><col width="209"></col><col width="208"></col><col width="208"></col></colgroup> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes'> <td width=195 valign=top style='width:146.25pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'>&nbsp;</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1031\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_1.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Ernesto Jinesta L.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>President</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-left:none;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'>&nbsp;</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:1'> <td width=195 valign=top style='width:146.25pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=163 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1030\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_2.PNG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Fernando Cruz C.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'>&nbsp;</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1029\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_3.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Fernando Castillo V.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:2'> <td width=195 valign=top style='width:146.25pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1028\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_4.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Paul Rueda L.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'>&nbsp;</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1027\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_5.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Mauricio Chacón J.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style='mso-yfti-irow:3;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes'> <td width=195 valign=top style='width:146.25pt;border:solid #010101 1.0pt; border-top:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1026\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_6.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Jose Paulino Hernández G.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'>&nbsp;</span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td width=194 valign=top style='width:145.5pt;border-top:none;border-left: none;border-bottom:solid #010101 1.0pt;border-right:solid #010101 1.0pt; mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;mso-border-left-alt:solid #010101 .25pt; mso-border-alt:solid #010101 .25pt;padding:5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt 5.25pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-no-proof:yes'><img width=162 height=73 id=\"_x0000_i1025\" src=\"file:///C:\\Users\\VGRANA~1\\AppData\\Local\\Temp\\HTMD89B_7.JPG\" alt=graphic></span><span style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'>_{<span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101'>Ileana Sanchez N.</span>}<span style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\"'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center;line-height:150%'><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>Digitally Signed Document</span>}<span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>-- Verification code --</span>}<span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:\"WASP 39 L\";mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>*47VBQZYQINVU61*</span>}<span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:150%'>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:\"Tahoma\",\"sans-serif\"; mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:#010101;mso-ansi-language:EN'>&nbsp;47VBQZYQINVU61 </span>}<span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal align=right style='text-align:right'><b>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:#010101; mso-ansi-language:EN'>EXPEDIENTE N° </span>}</b><b>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'>17-018745-0007-CO </span>}</b><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family: \"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\"; mso-ansi-language:EN'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <div style='border:none;border-top:solid #010101 1.0pt;mso-border-top-alt:solid #010101 .75pt; padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm'> <div style='margin-top:1.0pt'> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>_{<span lang=EN style='font-size:8.0pt;mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";color:#010101; mso-ansi-language:EN'>Teléfonos: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 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</span>}<span lang=EN style='mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";mso-ansi-language: EN'><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>

*170187450007CO* PROCESO: RECURSO DE AMPARO RESOLUCIÓN Nº 2018000023 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas quince minutos del nueve de enero de dos mil dieciocho .

Recurso de amparo interpuesto por MAURICIO OCAMPO JIMÉNEZ, cédula de identidad 0108410383, IDALI LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ, cédula de identidad 501400355, CARLOS LUIS GONZALEZ CAMPOS, cédula de identidad 0102800884, JOSE FABIO ALVARADO SANCHEZ, cédula de identidad 0900420859, SILVIA ARAYA CAMBRONERO, cédula de identidad 0108470215, WILLIAM ZARATE GUEVARA, cédula de identidad 018600612, ALCIDES TELLOS SAMANEZ , cédula de identidad 0800760257, EDGAR MORALES ARIAS, cédula de identidad 0103850849, JORGE VINCENTI , cédula de identidad 0109370027, OLMAN RODRIGUEZ GONZÁLEZ , cédula de identidad 0601150185, MARCO CASTILLO ZUMBADO, cédula de identidad 0103020745, ALEXANDER CALDERÓN MUÑOZ, cédula de identidad 0303430115, JOSE MANUEL JUAREZ MONTEJANO, cédula de residencia 148400031633, RODRIGO JUMENEZ HERRERA, cédula de identidad 040082183, OFELIA RAMIREZ CUBERO, cédula de identidad 02002811229, LILIAM GRICEL BADILLA LÓPEZ, cédula de identidad 0602130894, contra el MINISTERIO DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS Y TRANSPORTE y la MUNICIPALIDAD DE TIBÁS.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 14:31 horas del 28 de noviembre de 2017, los promoventes interponen recurso de amparo con la Municipalidad de Tibás. Alegan que el municipio accionado dispuso un plan piloto de reordenamiento vial del cantón de Tibás, sin seguir ni dar cumplimiento a los procedimientos y requisitos formales y materiales, ni contar con las autorizaciones necesarias que establece el ordenamiento jurídico. 2017, se conoció la “Propuesta Plan de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás” presentada por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes. Sostienen que el municipio no cuenta con el Plan Vial de Conservación y Desarrollo (Quinquenal), debidamente aprobado por el Concejo Municipal, que exige el artículo 2 de la Ley 9239, de Transferencia de Competencias, que dé sustento a algún plan de reordenamiento vial cantonal. Manifiestan que en la sesión N°31 del 31 de julio de 2017 se aprobó la propuesta de reordenamiento aludida; sin embargo, se evidencia el incumplimiento de una serie de requisitos por parte del Concejo Municipal, lo que ocasiona la nulidad absoluta de ese acuerdo, así como violaciones graves a los munícipes. Detallan que el “Orden del día” de dicha sesión fue recibir en ‘AUDIENCIA DE LA SRA. LIZA CASTILLO VICEMINISTRA DE TRANSPORTES, EL SR. JUNIOR ARAYA DIRECTOR DE INGENIERÍA DE TRANSITO Y EL ING. MADRIGAL MORALES DIRECTOR DE LA UNIDAD TECNICA DE GESTION VIAL MUNICIPAL’, y no el conocimiento de la Propuesta de Reordenamiento Vial del Cantón de Tibás, y mucho menos aprobarlo, como así lo hizo el Concejo. Aseguran que no consta moción firmada donde se observe que el acuerdo fue iniciativa de alguno de los regidores o del Alcalde, ni consta algún dictamen de la Comisión respecto a dicho plan; tampoco consta la existencia de criterios técnicos o jurídicos emitidos por la Junta Vial Cantonal como la Asesoría Legal. Relatan que el documento “Plan de Reordenamiento Vial en el Cantón de Tibás”, no fue recibido por el Alcalde sino hasta el 17 de agosto de 2017, es decir, un mes y cuatro días después de que lo aprobara el Concejo, pues no consta en el acta de la sesión N° 31 supracitada. Aseveran que tal documento es un acto preparatorio del MOPT, que emite recomendaciones no vinculantes para la municipalidad. Mencionan que no consta que el Concejo Municipal haya aprobado alguna solicitud del MOPT, solicitándole intervención como rector sectorial, para que estructurara un proyecto de Plan de Reordenamiento Vial, ni que este ministerio aprobara el mismo. Subrayan que las rutas intervenidas corresponden a la red vial cantonal y no a la nacional, por lo que no es posible la intervención directa del MOPT. Afirman que no existen estudios de impacto ambiental o vial. Refieren que tampoco se convocó a una audiencia pública a los vecinos del cantón, para que se pudieran manifestar sobre como el reordenamiento vial afecta el uso de suelo municipal y, a su vez, es la base de regulación del Plan Regulador Urbano del cantón. Exponen que no fue sino hasta el 31 de octubre de 2017 que se efectuó la audiencia, a solicitud de los munícipes. Indican que el MOPT despojó a la municipalidad de dos vías pertenecientes a la red vial cantonal, destinándolos a carriles exclusivos para autobuses, sin autorización del Concejo. Agregan que el MOPT y la municipalidad variaron sin oportunidad de defensa y audiencia previa, las condiciones bajo las cuales otorgaron las patentes al impedir parqueos y accesos a viviendas y a locales comerciales. Para carga y descarga, lo que ha provocado el cierre de más de 22 establecimientos comerciales. Agregan que después de la ejecución del plan, no existe intervención alguna en la red vial cantonal, como podría serlo la señalización vial que indique la existencia del carril de buses, u otros además, las paradas de buses no están acondicionadas con mobiliario urbano o iluminación. Acusan que tampoco existe control respecto a los límites de velocidad, todo lo cual ha causado una serie de accidentes de tránsito. Explican que tampoco se han demarcado zonas de seguridad o pasos peatonales, pese a que circulan estudiantes del Liceo Mauro Fernández, de la Escuela y Kinder Miguel Obregón, y de los asilos y centros diurnos de adultos mayores. Reclaman que tampoco existe previsión presupuestaria para financiar las obras de infraestructura. Mencionan que también se anuló la posibilidad de que en los funerales se saquen a los difuntos por la puerta principal de la iglesia, debiendo hacerlo por las laterales. Arguyen que el Concejo Municipal, mediante acuerdo V11-1, de la Sesión Ordinaria N°80, del 7 de noviembre de 2017, conoció el recurso extraordinario de revisión contra el acuerdo II de la Sesión Extraordinaria N°31 del 13 de julio de 2017, interpuesto por Ana Victoria Castillo Saborío, el cual se trasladó a la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos para su estudio, análisis y presentación del dictamen correspondiente. Señalan que, a la fecha, el asunto se encuentra en estudio de la Comisión Jurídica. Por lo anterior, estiman lesionados sus derechos fundamentales y solicitan la intervención de la Sala para que ordene a la Municipalidad de Tibas anular el Acuerdo II del Acta de la Sesión Extraordinaria N° 31 del 31 de julio de 2017 del Concejo Municipal, y al MOPT que se restablezca la vialidad del cantón de Tibás al estado original.

2.- 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 Rueda Leal; y,

Considerando:

I.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. Los promoventes acusan que, el 31 de julio de 2017, el Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Tibás aprobó un plan piloto de reordenamiento vial sin cumplir los procedimientos y requisitos formales y materiales, ni contar con las autorizaciones exigidas por el ordenamiento jurídico. Por lo anterior, estiman lesionados sus derechos fundamentales y solicitan la intervención de la Sala para que ordene a la Municipalidad de Tibas anular el Acuerdo II del Acta de la Sesión Extraordinaria N° 31 del 31 de julio de 2017 del Concejo Municipal, y al MOPT que restablezca la vialidad del cantón de Tibás al estado original.

II.-SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. En el sub lite, se advierte que lo planteado por los recurrentes no es más que un conflicto de legalidad ordinaria, que no involucra, al menos en forma directa, derecho fundamental alguno, razón por la cual excede el ámbito de competencia de esta Sala. En efecto, este Tribunal no es un contralor de legalidad ni una instancia más de la Administración, de modo que no le corresponde revisar, si el plan piloto de reordenamiento vial aprobado por la municipalidad accionada se ajusta a la normativa infra constitucional. Esos extremos deben ser resueltos por la Administración o, en su caso, por la jurisdicción ordinaria. En razón de lo anterior, el recurso se declara inadmisible.

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, éstos 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 el recurso.

Ernesto Jinesta L.

Fernando Cruz C.

Fernando Castillo V.

Paul Rueda L.

Mauricio Chacón J.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Ileana Sanchez N.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *47VBQZYQINVU61* 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