Partial unconstitutionality of tax benefits for non-traditional exports included in budget lawsInconstitucionalidad parcial de beneficios fiscales a exportaciones no tradicionales incluidos en leyes de presupuesto

03327 Case File No. 2163-S-90, Vote No. 3327-95 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.— San José, at fifteen hours forty-two minutes on the twenty-seventh of June, nineteen ninety-five.— Action of Unconstitutionality filed by Jorge Eduardo Sánchez, of legal age, single, resident of San José, ID No. 1-587-719, against: A) Articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"; B) Article 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976; C) Article 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984; D) Article 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985; E) Articles 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, "Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta"; F) Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988; and G) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989.

Whereas:

I.— The action was filed on December 6, 1990. He bases his standing on Article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, alleging the existence of interests of the community as a whole (colectividad en su conjunto). The claimant maintains that Articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"; Article 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976; Article 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984; Article 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985; Articles 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, "Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta"; Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988; and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989, violate Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution. He points out that Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 additionally violate the Political Constitution in Articles 121, Subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180, as they are atypical norms. He argues that the challenged norms establish a series of tax exemptions and grant the benefit of Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to the country's non-traditional export sector. He affirms that these norms affect an interest of the community as a whole, since it is with the money of all Costa Ricans—derived from the payment of taxes—that the payment of these Tax Credit Certificates is financed, despite the fact that, constitutionally, the State must seek the greatest well-being of all inhabitants. He states that in 1972, the Law for the Promotion of Exports (Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones) was enacted, whose Chapter III creates a series of "incentives" for the non-traditional export sector, which can be summarized as the granting of Tax Credit Certificates and the granting of a franchise from customs duties, economic stabilization tax, consumption tax, sales tax, and other taxes whose collection corresponds to the Central Bank, paid on the raw materials and other materials used in the production, processing, or packaging of goods that are exported. And he adds that "By virtue of reforms produced by subsequent laws, these 'incentives' were magnified and currently, according to the legislation in force, they are as follows:

1.- Deduction of one hundred percent of the income tax, on that part of the net profits for the period, obtained solely from non-traditional exports made by the declarant to third markets.

2.- Deduction of fifty percent of the amount paid, through a stock exchange, for the purchase of shares of corporations domiciled in the country, that have export programs for one hundred percent of their production or that are exporting that total.

3.- Exemption from all types of taxes on the importation of raw materials, inputs, and packaging not produced in the country that form part of the component of non-traditional products exported to third markets.

4.- Exoneration from general sales tax and selective consumption tax, for the acquisition, in the local market, of raw materials, inputs, machinery, and equipment, except vehicles under two tons, their accessories, and spare parts.

5.- Exoneration from all kinds of taxes and surcharges that affect the importation of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and also the importation of motor vehicles. In addition to all of these, they continue to be granted Tax Credit Certificates which, as is known, are instruments by which the State gives to companies that export non-traditional products to third markets, a title for an amount equal to fifteen percent of the FOB value of their operations. With this document, the favored businesspersons can make payment of direct and indirect taxes, or sell them on the stock market, to convert them into cash." The claimant bases the violations of the Political Constitution as follows: A) Articles 18 and 33: He argues that the cited "incentives" granted only to the non-traditional export sector, and above all, the granting of Tax Credit Certificates, constitute a privilege granted to an economic group, without constitutional support, and that on the contrary, they violate the principle of equality before public charges (cargas públicas). The principle of equality implies equal legal treatment in equal situations, which prohibits taking discriminatory measures, that is, differentiating between those who are in the same situation or category. So that taxpayers who are in the same situation must be subject, without any distinction, to the same regime regarding tax levies, and the tax law must ensure that equality of treatment for taxpayers who are in the same legal or factual situation. To make equality before public charges concrete, especially before the tax regime, it is often necessary for the Legislature to establish different categories of taxpayers, thus producing a form of equality by categories. So that equality operates with respect to those who are within the same category. Given that the general principle is that of equality before public charges, when the Legislature exempts a group or category from the payment of taxes or grants it other benefits, that different situation that justifies the exemption must be clearly verifiable, so that it does not become an arbitrary act of the legislator, by which unjust privileges are granted. The Legislature cannot create different categories that do not have a reasonable basis, that is, it cannot create arbitrary categories and subject some to different regimes than others. So that the legal definition of legal situations does not generate either discrimination or privileges. The differentiating treatment must be reasonable and in accordance with the fundamental values of the system. Hence, the establishment of categories and situations that are unnecessary, disproportionate, or inadequate with respect to the facts to which they refer and that lack support in a determinable public interest is arbitrary and discriminatory. Logic and justice lead to the conclusion that there is no valid, appreciable reason for the non-traditional export sector to enjoy these incentives, to the detriment of the traditional export sector and all other sectors that make up the country's economic activity. The foregoing because Article 2 of the Law for the Promotion of Exports establishes an exhaustive list of activities that will be considered traditional exports, so that all activities not contained in that list will be considered non-traditional and, therefore, may access the benefits conferred by this law and the subsequent laws that regulate these benefits. It can be seen that the Ministry of Foreign Trade is thus granted the power to modify the list. It is evident that the categorization made by the Legislature was arbitrary. No valid technical criterion existed nor was expressed in the law to differentiate traditional exports from non-traditional ones. Furthermore, the Legislature delegated, in a very open and very broad manner, the power to determine the beneficiaries of that law to the Ministry of Foreign Trade. In this case, there is an open delegation, which, to some extent, may also contravene Article 9 of the Political Constitution. Do traditional products not also have to compete equally at the international level? They too suffer the damages derived from the anti-export bias that characterizes our economy. There are no differences of significant magnitude that would allow the Legislature to make such a disproportionate distinction. Hence, these are "personal" laws, lacking generality and abstraction, that establish a disparity of treatment among exporters themselves. B) Article 50: The challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution because not only do they not seek an adequate distribution of wealth, but on the contrary, they have allowed money to be concentrated in a few hands, to the detriment of the well-being of the community as a whole. He notes that it has been estimated that the Tax Credit Certificates represent an expenditure of more than five billion five hundred million colones that weigh on the National Budget. That multi-million sum is granted to a mere 572 companies, and there are, to date, more than 1300 applications from other companies for this unjust benefit to be granted to them. C) Articles 121 Subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution: The claimant alleges that Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138, which grant the non-traditional export sector to third markets, exemptions from sales taxes and selective consumption tax, for the acquisition in the local market of raw materials, inputs, machinery, equipment, and all kinds of taxes and surcharges on the importation of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and the importation of motor vehicles, also violate Articles 121 Subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution, since they are "atypical" norms. He points out that the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber has held that the Budget Law is a formal and material law, enacted by the Legislature through a sui generis procedure, in which the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly stands out, as it does not admit the possibility of a veto by the Executive Branch, as provided in Article 178 of the Constitution. It is formal because the Legislature approves it, and material due to its markedly normative character; since it constitutes the limit of action of the public powers, in accordance with Article 180 of the Political Charter, it may validly contain norms of budgetary content, understanding as such those that regulate the efficiency and productivity of public spending. But all norms that are not of budgetary content must be enacted through ordinary legislation, by virtue of the power contained in Subsection 1) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, and consequently, through the ordinary procedure for the formation of laws. He requests that the action be granted.

II.— The Chamber granted leave for the action by resolution at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1991, and the notices were published in Judicial Bulletins No. 71, 72, 73, and 74 on April 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1991, respectively.

III.— The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, through Lic. Adrián Vargas Benavides, Attorney General of the Republic, responded to the hearing according to briefs on folios 49 (Request for rejection ad portas), 58 (Request for interlocutory rejection), and 159 (Responding to hearing). In these briefs, the Attorney General's Office maintains the total inadmissibility of the present action, as there is no prior pending matter. Despite the fact that the claimant alleges the existence of a collective interest, the Attorney General's Office points out that according to reiterated jurisprudence, the Chamber has rejected actions of unconstitutionality filed by two Deputies, in cases similar to the present one, for completely lacking standing, citing the following judgments: No. 234-90 at 2:00 p.m. on February 28, 1990, No. 248-90 at 2:00 p.m. on March 7, No. 495-90 at 3:40 p.m. on May 15, No. 678-90 at 2:15 p.m. on June 9, No. 679-90 at 3:00 p.m. on June 9, 1990, No. 680-90 at 3:15 p.m. on June 19, 1990, No. 1150-90 at 2:15 p.m. on September 25, 1990, No. 1332-90 at 3:00 p.m. on October 23, 1990, No. 1471-90 at 4:30 p.m. on October 30, 1990, No. 1634-90 at 4:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990, No. 504-91 and No. 505-91, both on March 8, 1991. The Attorney General's Office argues that from the set of these resolutions, the conclusion can be drawn that in order to invoke the injury of an interest of the community as a whole (colectividad en su conjunto), it is necessary that we be in the presence of an impact on "the entire Costa Rican community as a whole," not on a sector or category within it. The simple invocation of the unconstitutionality of a norm is not sufficient to open the doors of that jurisdiction, but rather, there must be a legitimizing link. In the case of the hypothesis of the interest of the community as a whole, our Law requires, as that Chamber has clearly understood in the cited resolutions, that the entire society be involved. He adds that in the case under review, such an impact on society as a whole is not present, but rather the clash of interests between different components of the productive apparatus. This simple clash makes it unfeasible to resort to the notion of "community as a whole" (colectividad en su conjunto) since the impact is obviously not general. He points out that it is not appropriate to invoke a mere collective interest, in this case that of the persons who do not benefit from the challenged exonerations, to be in the presence of an interest of the nature required by paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the LJC. This means that while it is true we could identify the existence of various collective interests that could be considered affected by the organization of a system of incentives for non-traditional exports, these collective interests do not correspond to the interests of the community as a whole. Evidently, there is another collective interest, of no less importance, that is directly benefited by the incentives that the questioned norms grant. We are faced with a delicate balance of interests within which one of the components of the community as a whole attempts to attribute to itself the representation of the interests of the whole. He maintains that in reality, the present action seeks to protect a sector of interests, very far from being qualified as representative of the interest of the entire community as a whole. He requests that, based on Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the present action be rejected interlocutorily. As for the merits, the Attorney General's Office maintains that tax incentives find their reason for being in the evident general interest that surrounds the growth and development of the economy. The Legislature makes the assessment of the type of incentive, appreciating the particular circumstances of each activity, without this implying a violation of the principle of equality. The Legislature has a wide margin of assessment to define the promotion model that will be applied to each sector and assumes the political responsibility of designing the most appropriate system. Within this task of organizing the economy, it is perfectly admissible for the Legislature to choose to provide special incentives to a specific sector of the productive apparatus with the aim of seeking harmonious and sustained development of the economy. In the specific case of incentives for the export of non-traditional products, the Legislature makes a global assessment of the national productive model and adopts the decision to incentivize the development of that sector with a clear purpose of diversification and growth of national exports. This objective is framed within the State's obligation to ensure that the country's economic organization reaches levels of development and efficiency such that they allow for the improvement of the living conditions of the entire population. In its general statement, such a system of incentives does not in any way contradict the Constitution; rather, its existence makes it possible to satisfy, in the short term, a state goal of great importance. Thus, it is disproved that the challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution; rather, the strengthening of certain specific sectors of production can be seen as a consequence of the mandate of the cited Article 50. The Attorney General's Office points out that Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution are also not violated because "... the possibility of resorting to tax incentives is a first-order instrument of economic policy that does not contradict in the least the principle of equality before public charges. Such an argument would lead us to maintain that not only are the norms relating to the incentive of the non-traditional sector unconstitutional, but also all tax norms that have the purpose of promoting cooperativism, the exoneración from the coffee production tax, the exoneración from the sales tax on agricultural inputs, the incentives for industrial production for local consumption still in force, the exonerations for the temporary introduction of raw materials for maquila industries. There may be disagreement about the timeliness of all these measures, but what cannot be done is to question the governing competence of the Legislative Assembly in what concerns their adoption. Each and every one of these activities presents particular characteristics that have required the establishment of diverse regimes, a diversity which clearly rules out the possibility that the principle of equality has been violated, which can be invoked when equal situations are regulated differently, or different situations equally, a case different from that which is presented with the challenged provisions." The Attorney General's Office adds that only in the event of a rupture of the principles of proportionality and reasonableness that govern all legislative action, could the Constitutional Chamber enter to hear the merits of the regime of incentives for the export of non-traditional products. Such disproportion or lack of reasonableness is not present in the case under analysis. The instruments in question are the only tool to place non-traditional producers in conditions of international competitiveness. The high capital investments, the elevated expenses involved in the introduction of new agricultural or industrial techniques, the harsh conditions of the international market, and the need to place the country in favorable terms for attracting foreign capital investment, make the existence of the entire challenged system of promotion fully justifiable. Independently of the adjustments that must be made to the incentive model, no disproportion is observed that would suggest that the Legislature has violated any constitutional mandate. The technical and timeliness considerations that need to be raised for the restructuring of the model are the responsibility of the Legislative Branch, which ultimately is politically responsible for its functioning. Finally, the Attorney General's Office concludes: "a) The present action is completely inadmissible for lack of standing of the promoter, and it is appropriate to declare it so interlocutorily, based on Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. b) In the event that this Chamber departs from its jurisprudential line and enters to hear the merits of this action, it must be denied, as it is a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce promotion regimes for the different productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them, and we are not in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of said powers. c) If the Chamber were to rule on the merits of the action, the unconstitutionality of the legal modifications introduced by way of budget norms must be declared, namely, Subsection 12 of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989." IV.— On folios 16 and 198, Samuel Yankelewitz Berger, of legal age, married, chemical engineer, identification number CED46402, resident of San José, appears in his capacity as President with the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Association CÁMARA DE INDUSTRIAS DE COSTA RICA (CAMARA DE INDUSTRIAS DE COSTA RICA). He appears in order to offer legal and economic arguments relating to the claimant's lack of standing. He points out that: "1.- The petitioner invokes Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction to initiate the present action, since according to him, in this case there is no, 'by the nature of the matter, individual and direct injury,' in addition to the fact that the exemptions granted to the export sector 'are detrimental to the community as a whole.' 2.- In the first place, it is clear that the application of the challenged norms can generate individual and direct injuries, so that from the legal point of view, it is not technically a case of diffuse interest. 3.- Secondly, it is also not true that the granting of the CATs affects the community, but rather, on the contrary, as was clearly demonstrated in the first section of this brief, such incentives constitute an important benefit for the national economy. 4.- Nor is it true that the CATS are paid for with money from all other Costa Ricans, which in addition to being a sensationalist and clearly demagogic argument, lacks legal and economic foundation. 5.- In effect, with the issuance of CATS, the State does not disburse money it already had in its assets and would have collected from other taxpayers, but supposedly ceases to receive tax revenues. But this is also not true, since without the existence of the CATS there would be far fewer companies and logically, exports would be substantially reduced. As a consequence of the foregoing, there would be less employment, fewer foreign currencies, less national added value, with which there would be two big losers: the Treasury itself and, ultimately, the Costa Rican people. 6.- So the granting of the CATS rather produces benefits for the Treasury and the country's economy, as it constitutes an investment that produces, among other advantages, the generation of eight times more foreign currency for the country's economy than the compensation received by the beneficiaries of such tax incentives. 7.- From the foregoing, it is concluded that there is no interest in this case that concerns the community as a whole to challenge the validity of the cited norms, since rather, the existence of such compensations for exporters represents a benefit for the community as a whole. In this way, it is idle and rather contrary to the public interest to try to have compensatory norms declared unconstitutional, in the fiscal sphere, that imply the entry of considerable sums of foreign currency into the country and of taxes to the State, for social charges and other direct and indirect taxes. 8.- By reason of the foregoing, the petitioner lacks procedural standing, under the terms of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, to bring the present action of unconstitutionality, which must be rejected ad-portas for being manifestly unfounded." He also points out that the principle of equality before public charges derived from the principle of equality is not violated, because differentiated treatment can also be granted when it is reasonably justified. The CATS and other tax incentives have been granted to exporters of non-traditional products because of the factual situation in which they find themselves, which is different from that of other exporters. In addition, their existence provides the country with numerous advantages; without said tax incentives, exports would decrease considerably, which would cause unemployment, a drop in the State's tax revenues, and a considerable reduction in foreign currency income. If the questioned tax incentives were eliminated, non-traditional product businesspersons would receive discriminatory treatment since they would be forced to compete, with respect to other businesspersons, under unequal conditions. He alleges the non-applicability of the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution because in the case of the establishment of the CATS and other challenged tax incentives, what the Legislature did was precisely to apply the programmatic norm contained in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, given that through them it established incentives for exports, as one of the most effective means to achieve the well-being of the inhabitants of the Republic. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, by virtue of the fact that, according to the claimant's statement, an open power was granted to the Ministry of Foreign Trade to determine the benefits conferred in the law, the co-adjuvant points out that such an "open power" is not accurate because "the law is clear in the sense of establishing what the maximum benefits are that can be granted to exporters. Logically, a certain margin of discretion is granted to the Ministry of Commerce so that, within the parameters established by the law itself, it can grant the incentives created by it to the different exporting companies, in order to take into account the requirements of each of them... The law could not be so inelastic as to not allow the executive bodies charged with applying it to size it in time and space, according to the needs of each specific case... From the legal point of view, such flexibility does not imply, of course, a violation of the principle of separation of powers (división de poderes), since it is not authorizing the invasion of the functions of the Executive Branch with respect to the Legislative. It is simply specifying the proper powers of the Executive Branch in matters of export incentives." On folio 198, the Association Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica pointed out that the action must be rejected outright, for being manifestly unfounded in view of the fact that the plaintiff lacks procedural standing and because it concerns the reiteration of a matter already decided by the Chamber, through Judgment No. 504-91. It argues that: "In judgment 504-91, which rejected for lack of standing of the plaintiff the unconstitutionality claim against all the exemption laws in force at that time, the Chamber also resolved the present matter, since the exemptions contemplated in the Ley de Promoción a las Exportaciones had also been challenged in that action... The case decided through resolution 504-91 is identical to the present one, since the plaintiff was Deputy Dr. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Sáenz, while in the present case, it is also a Deputy, Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez... If in that action it was established that Mr. Gutiérrez, in his personal or deputy capacity, was not the holder of a collective or diffuse interest, it is logical to conclude that in the present case, it must be decided in the same manner, since the assumptions are identical... The Chamber said in that judgment that... In cases such as the present one, the interest that is estimated to be injured must be at least immediate, in terms of the group or community in favor of which or on behalf of which the action of unconstitutionality is brought, a group or community that is the holder of that diffuse or collective interest, to which the person bringing the action must belong, who will thus have a mediate interest in it, an interest that may not, consequently, be of such a degree of abstraction as to maintain that every violation of the Constitution, by that fact alone, legitimizes any person to bring it...".

V.— By means of a brief visible on folio 63, Nombre61107, of legal age, married, Engineer, resident of Escazú, identification number CED75399, in his capacity as President with the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Association CÁMARA DE EXPORTADORES DE COSTA RICA (CAMARA DE EXPORTADORES DE COSTA RICA), appears in order to defend the constitutionality of the challenged norms and to provide a series of legal, economic, and social considerations in their support. He maintains that: "The laws whose unconstitutionality is requested created a system of incentives that allows for the achievement of three basic objectives: A) Diversification of export products.

When a regime of incentives for so-called non-traditional products was created in 1972, the aim was to develop other export products. Although technical and economic policy reasons justified this measure, its development by entrepreneurs and producers was not so attractive, for the following reasons: i- High investment and costs. ii- Lack of knowledge of the technology and lack of technical support. iii- Lack of knowledge of the market and marketing. iv- High risk and international competitiveness. v- Difficulties in payment and collection procedures. Thus, the incentives granted by the Law sought to compensate for the drawbacks of diversification and, with a long-term vision, to secure greater benefits for the country. B) Increase in the country's foreign exchange earnings. By promoting new exports, the Law also sought, as a logical consequence, an increase in the country's foreign exchange earnings. The Law guarantees that the incentives will be granted to companies that deliver their foreign currency earnings to the Banco Central de Costa Rica and requires the exporter to submit an annual report of its exports. This has a direct impact on improving the country's balance of payments. C) Significant contribution to the national product. By requiring companies to have at least 35% value added, the Law ensures that the export activity being incentivized leaves a significant contribution to the gross domestic product. This has direct consequences on other economic aspects, such as: i- Increase in the level of employment. ii- Increase in national wealth, through new investments and developed projects. iii- Development of new technologies and specialization of the workforce. From the objectives indicated, we can conclude that by incentivizing exports, greater economic and social development of the country is ultimately sought." He adds that the results obtained from the export incentive program justify its existence. As of March 1991, there are more than 30 products with exports exceeding one hundred fifty million colones, of which 5 exceed two billion colones in annual exports. Most of them have very significant growth rates, as shown in the graphs on folios 75-81. The increase in income is reflected by the increase in export volume, which went from 333.3 million dollars in 1985 to an estimated 691.4 million dollars in 1990 (projection made based on data from September 1990). The contribution of foreign exchange to the country to improve our balance of payments situation is an aspect that has greater significance as the trade deficit increases, since our imports have grown at a greater volume than exports, which could have serious consequences for the standard of living and general well-being of the country. For this reason, it is essential to increase exports even more. Regarding employment levels, companies with export contracts have generated more than 50, 000 new jobs and purchases of national raw materials of more than thirty billion colones. This in turn generates a higher level of production and the development of significant parallel activity. The CATS have a multiplier effect because they generate wealth, as observed on folio 81. Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of equality before public burdens, he argues that discrimination of categories does not exist, because to a certain extent the category arises from the law. The purpose of the rule is to incentivize non-traditional exports; this category is developed fundamentally by the Government's stimulus policies. The application of this principle is not absolute, but rather assumes that equality of sacrifice will be required of persons or groups that are in the same situation. Due to the technical and economic circumstances that justify the incentive regime, exporting companies are not in the same situation or category. Furthermore, the Income Tax Law implies a limited duration for some of the incentives. So, if the principle is not absolute, its violation cannot be generic. The distinction established by law between traditional and non-traditional exporters was justified at the time of its enactment, providing for the power of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce to modify the list that established the distinction, when it was in the interest of the country's economic and social development. There is no discrimination in the Law if, legally, it contains the possibility of a modification that adapts to the demands of reality. On the other hand, through the export incentive system, the State seeks greater well-being for the inhabitants of the country, since by stimulating the growth of exports, production grows and through them greater general well-being of the population is achieved, because the level of employment increases and there is greater availability of foreign exchange, which allows for an improvement in the level of consumption and standard of living of Costa Ricans. He points out that the CATS are neither legally nor technically an expenditure of money charged to the State. The certificates are granted as a benefit to a new activity and for a specific purpose (the payment of taxes). As an incentive, it is subject to two fundamental conditions: the export of new products and the delivery of the foreign exchange to the Banco Central. The mere fact of handling the foreign exchange brings the State an economic benefit (the exchange differential), together with the positive impact of export growth on the economy. Finally, he states that the exemptions and benefits granted to exporters of non-traditional products are justified and have support in social, economic, and constitutional reasons (article 50 of the Political Constitution), without this meaning the breach of other constitutional principles and norms. He requests that this action be denied.

VI.- On folio 82, there is a brief filed by Miguel Efraín Shyfter Lepar, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, identity card number CED72634, in his capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of TEJIDOS AGUILA S.A., with legal entity identity card number CED75400; Germán Wiernik Waisuchier, of legal age, married, holder of a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, identity card number CED75401, in his capacity as Vice-president with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact, acting in the absence of the President of PEGASO INTERNACIONAL S.A., with legal entity identity card number CED75402; Nombre98442, with a single surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of this city, Indian with passport of the Republic of India number Placa15779, in my capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of GAZAPATI DE COSTA RICA S.A., with legal entity identity card number CED75403; Nombre98443, with a single surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, businessman, U.S. citizen, resident of San José, residence card number CED75404, in his capacity as General Manager with unlimited general attorney-in-fact powers of J. W. CONFECCIONES A.M. S.A., with legal entity identity card number CED75405; Julio Kierszenson Mamet and Edgar Cordero Martínez, both of legal age, lawyers, residents of San Antonio de Belén, married, with identity card numbers CED75406 and CED59730 respectively, in their condition as special judicial attorneys of CONFECCIONES JOHAMA S.A., a brief in which these company representatives appear as coadjuvants, since they hold a legitimate interest in the final resolution issued in this action, by virtue of the fact that they are holders of the incentives that the laws challenged here establish in favor of exporters of non-traditional products. By means of the brief on folio 114, Mr. Miguel Efraín Schyfter Lepar, with the qualities mentioned above, appears in his capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of the association CAMARA DE LA INDUSTRIA TEXTIL Y DE CONFECCION DE COSTA RICA, and requests that said Chamber be considered an interested party within this action, since it holds a legitimate interest in the judgment issued. On folio 171, there is a brief from Edgar Cordero M. and Julio Kierszenson M., known in the proceedings as special judicial attorneys of Cámara de la Industria Textil y de Confección de Costa Rica, Tejidos Aguila S.A., Pegaso Internacional S.A., Gazapati de Costa Rica S.A., J. W. Confecciones A.M. S.A., and Confecciones Johama S.A., appearing to set forth the grounds on which they base their intervention as coadjuvants. They point out that historically, various models of export incentives have emerged from our country's economic development, originating from real and objective circumstances that justified the existence of these incentives at the time and justify them today, without leading to a violation or infringement of the constitutional principles of contribution to public burdens and equality before the law. Moreover, through these incentive models, the State has not only not violated article 50 of the Political Constitution, but has complied with it and put it into effect, by enabling the growth of the Costa Rican economy and therefore, the well-being of all Costa Ricans and not only of the entrepreneurs who have ventured into the activities promoted by the State. Thus, throughout our history, the Costa Rican State has played a dynamic role in promoting economic development. It has thus promoted different productive sectors, which it has chosen at each moment for their potential to become the dynamic engine of the country's future growth. The Costa Rican State has set as an objective to find the path of sustained and sustainable long-term economic development; this has led it to adopt and adapt to changing historical circumstances different frameworks of action that have shaped, over time, various development models. In 1821, coffee plants and land were distributed among people of scarce resources so they could produce coffee. In 1825, coffee production was exempted from many taxes, and in 1831, each farm that had been cultivated with coffee for 5 consecutive years was declared the property of the peasant who cultivated it. This State action not only consolidated a development based on small property holdings, but also consolidated the first productive activity —at that time, non-traditional— that actively linked our economy to the international market, resulting at that time in an accelerated production of national wealth, which made possible a benefit for all Costa Ricans, among others: the construction of the interoceanic railroad, the Teatro Nacional, and the lighting of the city of San José. After the coffee boom, the banana activity was protected by the State, which granted great benefits in favor of that industry through the Contracts signed with the Compañía Bananera, in which public vacant lands were granted in concession and exemptions from income tax payment were created, among others. As a consequence of that policy, the banana became a new export product —non-traditional at that time— that generated economic progress and employment in areas of our territory that were unexploited until then. The Second World War highlighted the weakness of our economy. The Import Substitution Model was then adopted, which aimed to promote the industrial sector and, therefore, the diversification of the productive structure. This objective was intended to be achieved through tariff protection and the expansion of markets through the Central American Common Market. The foregoing was a consequence of the exhaustion of the sector producing primary articles (coffee, sugar, cocoa, and meat) destined for export and its inability to continue being the dynamic sector of the economy, due to the limitations imposed by the international market and the recurring crises to which the country was subjected by depending on those products, totally subject to the whims of external demand. Through that model, various benefits and incentives were granted in the Convenio Centroamericano de Incentivos Fiscales al Desarrollo Industrial, such as total or partial exemption from the payment of customs duties and other related charges for the importation of machinery, equipment, raw materials, etc., exemption for the companies covered by that regime and for their partners from the income tax. In addition, there was the Convenio sobre el Régimen de Industrias Centroamericanas de Integración, which granted exclusivity to certain industries in the exploitation of the Central American market. In the second half of the 1970s, the exhaustion of the Import Substitution Model became evident, the economy's growth rates decelerated, and the country suffered economic strangulation due to the severe limitations imposed by the availability of foreign exchange. However, the capacity for external indebtedness allowed the Import Substitution Model to remain in force for several more years, until the 1980 crisis forced the search for alternative paths. Since 1972, the Costa Rican State had been trying to steer the economy toward alternative paths. The Law for the Promotion of Exports of that year created the Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to incentivize exports of non-traditional products, and in 1984, the current Export Contract was enacted, which unifies into a single legal instrument the various benefits and incentives for exports of non-traditional products. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model aims to solve the problems in the external sector that the Import Substitution Model could not resolve. The main problem was that the country's export base continued to depend on the primary product export sector, which could not provide the country with the necessary resources for sustainable and stable economic growth. By virtue of the mechanism of the Cámara de Compensación Centroamericana, exports to that market were not to be paid in foreign exchange, but in the currency of the purchasing country. Due to that mechanism, and our country's trade surplus with the rest of the area, Costa Rica accumulated unsatisfied credits in foreign exchange, which rendered the efforts aimed at expanding our country's international trade through exchange with the area innocuous and ineffective. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model attacked the greatest structural problem of our economy: the strangulation of the external sector, that is, our impossibility of continuing to import at the rate we had been doing, since the foreign exchange generated by exports was not enough to pay for our imports, and at the same time, the sources of external financing were exhausted due to our country's default on its external debt. Therefore, to emerge from the crisis, it was necessary to diversify the country's export base, producing non-traditional products that could compete advantageously in the international market. However, it was necessary to eliminate the obstacles of the anti-export bias of our economy, which manifests itself in all the barriers and disadvantages that entrepreneurs faced to produce and export their products to the international market, such as a deficient port structure with higher rates than those prevailing in the international market, high social charges, slow and complicated bureaucratic processes to authorize exports, etc. In addition to the above, producers and exporters of non-traditional products had to face several limitations such as lack of experience to enter the international market with non-traditional products, the very high entry costs into potential markets, uncertainty in the marketing and intermediation of products, the protectionist barriers of the countries potentially importing our products, and the great benefits and incentives granted for export by those countries that are our direct competitors (including benefits identical to and even greater than our Tax Credit Certificate). Due to all the foregoing, for the success of the Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model, on which our economic survival depended, it was essential to make investments in that sector profitable, so that the entrepreneurs involved in that sector could reduce the costs caused by the negative internal and external factors mentioned and assume the very high risks of their investment, while their learning process matured and the productive restructuring required to face the new challenges was consolidated. That was the reason why, once again in our economic history, the Costa Rican State granted a specific productive sector certain temporary benefits and incentives; these were established for a period of 12 years and designed by the Nombre98441 in such a way that they responded to the incentives granted in countries competing with ours for the export of similar products. The economic measures adopted by the Costa Rican State seek, in summary: on the one hand, to incentivize and promote what is not had and is needed and, on the other, to maintain what is already had because it was promoted in its time. To maintain what is already had, different laws have been enacted that grant benefits and incentives also to the production and export of traditional products, such as the laws that regulate relations between producers, processors, and exporters of coffee, and between producers, industrializers, and exporters of sugarcane, which guarantee the producers the acquisition, by the industrializers, of their entire harvest, with the corresponding advances and regulating the credits granted to those productive activities. Such a guarantee of purchase of their entire production is not available to producers and exporters of non-traditional products, who, on the contrary, are subject to the uncertainty of an unknown and risky market. For its part, the Ley de Fomento Bananero grants important exemptions, including the fixing by the State of the purchase prices of the fruit from the producer. The objective economic reality demonstrates that the "categorization" between traditional and non-traditional producers is not "arbitrary," but rather responds to the international environment in which our economy is inevitably developed. Therefore, the challenged laws are neither "personal" nor "lacking in generality" nor "abstract," but rather respond to a coherent economic policy of the Costa Rican State framed within constitutional principles. They request that this action be rejected outright for lack of standing, or failing that, that it be denied on the merits, since the legal norms challenged do not violate articles 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution.

VII. - By means of the brief on folio 105, Cecil Alfaro Bravo, of legal age, married, businessman, resident of San José, identity card number CED75407, in his capacity as President with judicial and extrajudicial representation of the ASOCIACION COSTARRICENSE DE FLORICULTORES, appears for the purpose of supporting the efforts to defend the constitutionality of the challenged laws. On folio 188, he requests that the Association he represents be considered a coadjuvant. He sets forth the following arguments: Floriculture in Costa Rica is a recent activity with a high growth rate. The export incentive system is essential for the development and maintenance of floriculture, since the flower activity, in its stage of development and consolidation, requires time to form and create a tradition of its cultivation and harvest among our workers, as well as to adapt a technology to the country. Furthermore, the investment per production area is one of the highest in agriculture. He estimates that the existing infrastructure as of March 1991 has an approximate value of 3,500 million colones for 330 hectares of cultivation. The very high investment per hectare is due to the need to build greenhouses, prepare soils, drainage, install an irrigation and fumigation system, a covered area for packing, a cold room, machinery, and special tools for the care and harvest of the flowers. In addition, floriculture is subjected to a double high risk: first, the damage caused by climatic reasons and diseases is greater due to the intensity and sensitivity of the crop. International phytosanitary and quality requirements are very strict, so any small problem detected in the flowers means their loss. Second, the few facilities for air transport increase the risk of the activity and increase the cost of a possible loss. It should be remembered that the flower is a highly perishable product and very sensitive to changes in conditions, so the simple delay of a flight or exposure of the flowers to the sun also means their rejection in the international market. The incentive system, fundamentally the exemption regime, is indispensable for the development of the floriculture sector and its definitive consolidation. There are many flower exporting companies that cannot opt for the Tax Credit Certificate by virtue of a suspension agreement signed with the Government of the United States (this affects the export of some types of flowers to that country). The flower activity provides important benefits to the country's economy, which justifies the existence of the incentive system. Floriculture is an activity that generates an important source of employment; in 1990, 4,500 direct workers were employed, plus indirect jobs related to the activity (construction of greenhouses, inputs, transport, and others). The contribution in technology to the country is very significant, as it allows valuing and understanding the importance of research and development of proprietary knowledge and processes in the field of agriculture. The location of the projects and the type of work allow for a development of the rural areas of the country, both in the economic, cultural, and technological fields. A relevant factor of floriculture is its value added, which reaches 70%. This represents a greater generation of income for the country and a better use of its resources. He argues that the export incentive regime is amply justified and does not violate the principle of equality before public burdens. The incentive regime is necessary for the definitive consolidation of floriculture. The termination of the regime would mean the closure of many companies, which would damage rights protected by the Political Constitution. With the incentive system, the State complies with the constitutional mandate established in article 50. The Political Constitution presumes a harmonious balance of all the interests of society. The cancellation of the export incentives would cause irreparable damage to flower exporting companies. The change of the conditions established until the year 1996 (by the export contract) would mean the closure of an activity in the process of consolidation; which means the loss of foreign exchange earnings from exports, of jobs, of technology, and of large investments in infrastructure and plants. He requests that, based on article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this action be denied. Otherwise, he requests that, based on article 91 of the cited Law and article 34 of the Political Constitution, the validity of the contracts signed by the State and the benefits derived from them be maintained until 1996.

VIII.- On folio 183, there is a Faxgram signed by Nombre98444, General Secretary of the Unión de Productores Agropecuarios de Pérez Zeledón, through which the UPIAV "... supports the appeal filed and requests a favorable resolution to eliminate the privilege represented by the Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario, CAT), which favors a small sector with very high economic power, thus harming all Costa Ricans." IX.- The oral hearing referred to in articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction was held at 9:15 a.m. on June 22, 1995, with the attendance of the plaintiff, Attorney Jorge Eduardo Sánchez Sibaja, the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, Attorney Farid Beirute Brenes, in association with the Administrative Attorney, Attorney Ana Lorena Brenes, representing the coadjuvants, Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez and Eng. Samuel Yankelewitz, as recorded on folio 264.

X.- This resolution is issued in accordance with the provisions of Transitory Provision II of Law No. 7135 of October 11, 1989.

Drafted by Magistrate SOLANO CARRERA; and,

Considering:

FIRST: ON ADMISSIBILITY.- Regarding admissibility, the Court already ruled in its time by means of a resolution at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1991, in which this action was admitted, as recorded on folio 56.

SECOND: ON THE MERITS.- In relation to articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, called "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones", 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976, 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984, 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985, 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, the plaintiff alleges that said norms violate articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for all the reasons stated in finding number I. For its part, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, regarding the merits of this action, upheld their constitutionality (finding II). In turn, the legal entities appearing as coadjuvants defend the constitutionality of the challenged norms, according to the reasons set forth in recitals IV, V, VI, and VII of this judgment. The Court considers that said norms that grant benefits and incentives for the export of non-traditional products do not violate articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for the reasons that will be stated below:

A).- Regarding the alleged violation of article 9 of the Political Constitution concerning the "broad and open delegation" that the Nombre98441 carries out in article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, in favor of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, alleged by the plaintiff, the Court considers that said article does not contain a broad and open delegation, but rather a relative delegation. On this topic, the Court referred in judgment No. 730-95 of 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995:

"V.- REGARDING THE CITED DECREE NUMBER 23785-H: This Court does not share the criterion held by the attorneys of the appellants, in the sense that Executive Decree number 23785-H, published in La Gaceta number 228 of November thirtieth of last year, violates the principle of 'Legal Reserve' —contained in subsection 13 of article 121 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, since its content, as already noted, does not create any tax and for the explanation of this point, it is necessary to analyze the following aspects: a) The Sales Tax Law, Law number 6826 of November eighth, nineteen eighty-two and its reforms, establishes a tax on the value added in the sale of merchandise (all) and in the provision of certain services; b) Even though it is true that article 9 of the General Sales Tax Law, cited, establishes that the sale of merchandise that composes the 'Canasta Básica Alimentaria' is exempt from the payment of that tax, it is also true that the Regulation to that Law, Executive Decree number 14082-H of November twenty-ninth, nineteen eighty-two and its reforms, and not the former, is the normative body that determines which articles comprise it, so that the exemption enjoyed by 'ice cream and non-canned cookies' —articles produced and marketed by the appellant Companies— came not from the Law but from the Regulation noted, since it is by means of the regulation that the exemption is established; c) On the other hand, it should be noted that the prohibition of taxing with the selective consumption tax in the case of merchandise referred to in article 9 of the General Sales Tax Law, and established by numeral 17 of the cited normative body, is in force solely and exclusively for those articles that comprise the 'Canasta Básica Alimentaria', that is, that are contemplated in the Regulation to said Law.

From the clarifications provided, it is abundantly clear that it was the legislator himself who, given the variable factors that interact in a country's economy and in order to fully achieve the purposes of the law—with regard to the aforementioned exemption—delegated to the Executive Branch, in a relative manner, the ability to determine which articles or goods should, at a given time, make up the "Canasta Básica Alimentaria"—which is exempt from the payment of the tax, regardless of the articles that constitute it—such that the exclusion or inclusion by the Executive of certain goods from that list does not imply, as alleged in the appeal, the creation of an exemption or a tax, as the case may be, by a means other than the Law, that is, an "Absolute Delegation." Indeed, the possibility of including new goods on the list referred to in Article 9 of the Sales Tax Law does not imply a delegation of the "Taxing Power"—which is exclusively the purview of the Legislative Assembly—or a usurpation thereof by the Executive, but rather is a consequence of the nature or character of the tax and of the variable economic factors that, in some cases, make it necessary to include new articles, all with the intention of fulfilling the purposes pursued by the law. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal, as it pertains to the mentioned Decree 23785-H, must be dismissed, and it shall be so declared." In the present case, in Article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, what the Nombre98441 included was a relative delegation, since it is a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce regimes for the promotion of the "different productive sectors"—by which should be understood special fiscal regimes: by zone (Golfito), by activity (construction of social-interest housing), and by specific conditions (extreme poverty)—based on the particularities that characterize them, these in turn depend on variable factors that interact in the country's economy, which is why it is reasonable and necessary for the Executive Branch to be able to progressively define which export products are to be included on the list. The foregoing, because what may initially be considered a "non-traditional export product" can later, with the passing of years and according to economic conditions, come to be considered a "traditional export product." We are dealing with a highly technical matter that is constantly determined by the multiple variables that influence the national economy and the international market. Consequently, Article 2 of the Export Promotion Law of December 22, 1972, does not violate the principle of separation of powers established in Article 9 of the Political Constitution; rather, the Nombre98441 is exercising its powers—to introduce regimes for the promotion of the different productive sectors—and makes a relative delegation in favor of the Executive Branch, a delegation that, as the Attorney General's Office indicated, is neither disproportionate nor unreasonable.

B).- Regarding the principle of equality before public burdens and the generic principle of equality, the Court already addressed this in Judgment No. 1266-95 of 3:39 p.m., March 7, 1995:

"... the Court considers that there has been no violation of the principle of equality before the law, because equality cannot be understood to mean that everyone must be treated equally, regardless of possible differences between individuals. The principle of equality means that discriminatory inequalities cannot be introduced, though reasonable inequalities can be, justified by any differentiating element of legal relevance; because giving similar treatment to unequal situations would lead to greater inequality. Giving different treatment to different situations is compatible with a democratic and social State of Law, due to the values it enshrines: Justice, Freedom, Equality, Legal Certainty, and Solidarity. In tax matters, equality supposes, on one hand, the economic effort of society in paying taxes, and on the other, the State deciding by priorities the needs to be satisfied. Tax equality implies intervention in the rules of the free market; it is a subsystem of rules—tax rules—within the legal system... The Constitution empowers the Nombre98441 to create laws that incorporate the principle of material equality based on objective reasons." (See also judgment 782-93 of 4:24 p.m., February 16, 1993, and judgment 1160-94 of 10:30 a.m., March 2, 1994).

In the case under examination, the Attorney General's Office is correct in stating that the Legislative Branch has the power to introduce regimes for the promotion of the different productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them. Furthermore, we are not in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of these attributions, especially considering that these benefits were granted for 12 years, i.e., they are temporary incentives, which in turn lends greater reasonableness and proportionality to the legislative policy adopted through the challenged norms. These benefits and incentives, especially the Export Contract, the Tax Credit Certificate (Certificado de Abono Tributario, CAT), and the Export Increase Certificate (Certificado de Incremento a las Exportaciones, CIEX), constitute suitable, reasonable, and proportionate instruments to place exporters of non-traditional products in a condition of international competitiveness. In order to increase our country's exports, the Costa Rican State sought a viable alternative to compensate for the internal and external limitations faced by exporters of non-traditional products to third markets. Moreover, exporters of non-traditional products were in a very different factual situation compared to exporters of traditional products. Because venturing into the production and export of a new product and penetrating the international market without experience presents several disadvantages, including: high investment and costs, lack of technology knowledge and technical support, lack of market and marketing knowledge, high risk and international competitiveness, difficulties in payment and collection procedures. On the other hand, the multiplier effect of the Tax Credit Certificate must be kept in mind. CATS are compensatory norms in the fiscal sphere that generate benefits for the entire country, by virtue of generating many millions of colones in labor, social security contributions, and consumption of domestic raw materials; the latter allows the development of parallel activities. In general, incentives for the production of non-traditional products and the increase in the country's exports have several positive consequences, for example: the country is clearly positioned to emerge from the economic crisis, there is greater availability of foreign currency to pay for imports, the level of employment increases (the private sector absorbs labor), there is a transfer of technology, development of new production areas not subject to the whims of the international market, and finally, due to the location of the projects and the type of work, it allows for the economic, social, cultural, and technological development of the country's rural areas. The development of rural areas, through laws that allow them to achieve a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country, was already analyzed by the Court in Judgment No. 319-95 of 2:42 p.m., January 17, 1995:

"ON THE MERITS: As is a public and notorious fact, Law 7012 of November 4, 1985, was enacted as a means of partial solution to the serious economic and social crisis generated by the departure of the companies that exploited banana production in the country's South Pacific. Due to the degree of development of those companies' activities and the economic importance that banana cultivation acquired in that region, the population not directly employed by these companies developed secondary or peripheral economic activities to supply goods and services to the main activity. So that, in one way or another, the region's economic activity had banana production and export as its main driving element. The phenomenon could perhaps be called an 'economic enclave,' as some doctrinal sectors define it. When these companies decided to conclude their activities in our country, they caused a severe deterioration in the zone's economy and forced many people to abandon their businesses and other private activities organized around them. Faced with the severe depression all this caused, the Government proposed to the Legislative Assembly the bill that gave rise to the Law challenged here, as one of the solutions conceived to reactivate production in that zone and allow it, through differentiated treatment, to achieve a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country. IV.- The purpose of the Law, in summary, is to allow the operation of a 'Depósito Libre' or free zone in the city of Golfito, in order to attract buyers who contribute to lifting the zone's economy. The law also promotes the construction of hotels and the establishment of businesses dedicated to commerce in general, all under the incentive of reducing import tariffs on products used or sold there." (See also judgment 321-95 of 2:48 p.m., January 17, 1995).

From the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that the creation of the challenged benefits and incentives, rather, compensates for the difficulties faced by producers and exporters of non-traditional products to third markets, who would normally have to compete under unequal conditions. Therefore, the Court finds no reason whatsoever to consider that they violate Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution, and rather, as will be seen below, they are in accordance with the provisions of Article 50 of the Fundamental Norm.

C).- Regarding the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Court considers that the benefits and incentives established by the norms challenged here, far from undermining Article 50, actually serve to fulfill said programmatic norm. The State must promote and seek the greatest well-being for all the country's inhabitants, through the organization and stimulation of production, as well as the most adequate distribution of wealth. On this subject, the Court ruled in judgment 550-95 of 4:33 p.m., January 31, 1995, stating that:

"The State can, then, attempt to realize its socio-economic ends and objectives by promoting private initiative, or by fostering, through incentives, the activity it is engaged in; or, through the imposition of certain duties on individuals in order to maintain the economic well-being of the population at an acceptable minimum... The current Constitution, in its Article 50, enshrines an important criterion in this matter, giving constitutional foundation to a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, insofar as it is not incompatible with the spirit and conditions of the constitutionally established model of 'social market economy'; that is, this norm, and its constitutional context, postulate economic freedom but with a certain degree of reasonable, proportionate, and non-discriminatory state intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an 'adequate' distribution of wealth. This Court, in its judgment # 1441-92, of 3:45 p.m., June 2, 1992, held:

'The basic general principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in the article, by providing that "the State shall seek the greatest well-being for all the country's inhabitants, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth," which, together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibid, determines the very essence of the political and social system we have chosen for our country and which defines it as a Social State of Law.'" With the establishment of the benefits and incentives under examination, the Costa Rican State seeks several objectives, among them: diversification of export products, an increase in foreign currency income, which implies a substantial improvement in the balance of payments, because the incentives are granted to those companies that deliver their income generated from exports in foreign currency to the Central Bank of Costa Rica (under the obligation to inform said Bank annually about the exports made), a significant contribution to the country's gross domestic product, which entails: an increase in the level of employment, an increase in national wealth—new investments and projects developed—the development of new technologies, and the specialization of labor. All of this logically implies greater economic and social development for the country. In the Court's opinion, it is evident that the establishment of the challenged benefits and incentives signifies an increase in the well-being of all the country's inhabitants, because through its multiplier effect, the CAT transforms into many millions of colones in employment, social contributions, consumption of raw materials—which implies the emergence of an entire parallel activity—and the increase in exports, which in turn signifies the possibility of emerging from the economic crisis the country is undergoing, with the additional benefit of greater availability of foreign currency to cover imports of indispensable products that must necessarily be purchased abroad. The Costa Rican State has the constitutional obligation to seek the economic formulas that allow for the best and greatest development of the country and that logically signify an increase in the well-being of all inhabitants, provided that this economic tool is in full compliance with constitutional norms and principles, as has been said to occur in this case. Therefore, the challenged norms do not violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution. It must be placed on the record that during the oral hearing (on June 22 of this year), the plaintiff made statements that seemed to redirect his position towards challenging the way in which the export incentive system (CAT) is functioning or is being applied by the administration, but despite having submitted a written summary of his conclusions, it is not clear how the complaint would be directed against the way it operates and not against the incentive system itself. In any event, stated in such a generic manner, the problem would not truly be one of constitutionality, but rather an administrative misalignment, which, being correctable, would confirm the legitimacy of the incentive program now under analysis.

D).- Regarding Articles 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Law, the Court notes that both articles—challenged here—were amended by Law 7257 of September 17, 1991, that is, after the filing of the complaint. Article 60 was amended in its heading and in subsections a) and c), and Article 61 was amended only in its subsection e). The amendment to Article 60 establishes that any beneficiary of an export contract who voluntarily accepts the reduction in the percentage of CATs defined by the National Investment Council, shall receive the benefits granted by this law for an additional period beginning in 1996 and until 1999, except with regard to the income tax exemption, for which the extension shall not apply. In the Court's opinion, based on what has been previously stated, the content of these amendments does not violate the constitutional text.

THIRD: ON IMPROPER BUDGETARY NORMS.- Regarding subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989, both budget laws—the first being the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budgets of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Fiscal Year 1989, and the second being a law modifying the ordinary income for the 1989 fiscal year, approved in Article 1 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988—. Through these norms, subsections g) and h) were added to Article 61, and Article 61-b was created, both of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988. Subsections g) and h) added to Article 61 of the Income Tax Law refer to certain benefits granted by the Export Contract and the Production for Export Contract, specifically the benefit of exoneration from all kinds of taxes and surcharges that affect the import of machinery and equipment, their accessories and spare parts, and certain motor vehicles. As well as the exoneration from the general sales tax and selective consumption tax for the acquisition, in the local market, of raw materials, inputs, machinery and equipment, except for vehicles with less than two metric tons of payload capacity, their accessories and spare parts. Article 61-b establishes that the effectiveness of the tax exonerations is conditioned on full compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Law and with the fulfillment of the terms stipulated in the export contracts and programs that are signed. The plaintiff maintains that these norms violate Articles 121, subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 because they are atypical norms; he also alleges the violation of Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50, all of the Political Constitution. On repeated occasions, the Court has indicated that the inclusion of provisions of non-budgetary content in budget laws is contrary to the constitutional precepts referring to the attribution or competence of the Legislative Assembly to enact, amend, or repeal the laws that make up the legal system and those that grant competence or standing to enact the ordinary or extraordinary budgets of the Republic, that is, subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121, and Articles 123 to 128 and 176 to 180 of the Political Constitution. It has thus been considered that:

"III.- ...it is entirely appropriate to include 'general norms' in budget laws, provided they are linked to the specialty that this matter entails, or what is the same, to the execution of the budget. What is not possible to include in budget laws are norms that lack this character, since they must be governed by what is provided for common or ordinary laws ... Although Article 105 of the Political Constitution provides, among other things, that the power to legislate resides in the people, who delegate it through suffrage to the Legislative Assembly, it is in subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121 of the Political Charter that a distinction is drawn between two different modes and forms of legislating, depending on the matter in question. The first text exclusively attributes to the Legislative Branch the power to 'Enact, amend, repeal laws, and give them authentic interpretation, except as stated in the article referring to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.' For its part, subsection 11.) also exclusively attributes to the said Branch the power to 'Enact the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Republic.' As can be observed, the attribution of the first subsection constitutes a very broad power that pertains generally to ordinary or common laws, while that of subsection 11.) is of a special character, whose development is contemplated in Articles 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180 in relation to numeral 125 in fine, which prevents the Executive Branch from vetoing budgetary legislation. Thus, if the Constitution contemplates these powers separately, it is because these are legislative acts of different nature and content, although the budget is a formal and material law and other laws must also have that character.

IV.- Article 176 of our Constitution establishes, among other things, that 'the ordinary budget of the Republic comprises all probable income and all authorized expenditures of the Public Administration, during the fiscal year ... The budget of the Republic shall be issued for a term of one year, from the first of January to the thirty-first of December.' Based on Article 177 and following of the Constitution, the special procedures that the Executive Branch and Congress must observe in the processing of said law are further elaborated. The same occurs in the Regulation of Order, Direction, and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly. It is for this reason that this Court concludes that the budget of the Republic is a formal and material law, but special due to the subject matter that constitutes it and the procedure already discussed. From the texts cited above, it is clear that the competence or standing constitutionally attributed to the Legislative Assembly on such an important matter is to fix in the budgets the probable income and authorized expenditures of the Public Administration, with the modalities that the Constitution itself provides for their modifications and for extraordinary budgets. Consequently, the Legislative Branch cannot, under the budgetary power noted, regulate matters of a different nature or content from that specialty. The foregoing is consistent with the exclusive attribution of the Executive Branch to prepare the draft ordinary budget and the initiative for its modifications and for extraordinary ones, as well as that of the Legislative Assembly regarding its enactment, and also with the already analyzed modality that the Executive Branch does not have the power to veto its approval, according to numeral 125 of the Fundamental Charter" (Judgment No. 121-89 of 11:00 a.m., November 23, 1989; see also judgments No. 568-90 of 5:00 p.m., April 23, 1990, Placa15777 of 4:00 p.m., October 9, 1990, and Placa15778 of 3:06 p.m., November 8, 1994).

In the case now analyzed, it is evident that the provisions of subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989—norms relating to the exonerations of taxes and surcharges granted by the Export Contract and the Production for Export Contract—these norms should have been approved according to the procedures that the Political Constitution and the Regulation of Order and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly provide for the issuance of ordinary laws, and should not have been included as a budgetary norm, it being clear that their content does not pertain to this matter. Being in the presence of a situation identical to that addressed in the cited jurisprudence, because it involves an atypical norm, and finding no reasons to vary the already expressed criterion, nor reasons of public interest that would justify the Court reconsidering the issue, this unconstitutionality claim is therefore upheld insofar as it is directed against subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989. Consequently, it is unnecessary to refer here to the other alleged violations, especially since the issue of benefits and incentives for non-traditional product exports was already analyzed in the second Whereas clause of this judgment.

FOURTH: EFFECTS OF THIS DECLARATION.- The unconstitutionality claim seeks the nullity of the challenged norm, a nullity that the Court has said is the most serious and radical, as it constitutes an affront to the supreme norm. In accordance with this, the Law governing this Jurisdiction grants declaratory and retroactive effect to the judgment of unconstitutionality. Under this understanding, the Court considers that, in the case examined here, the principle of Good Faith must be protected, and consequently, the assets of the companies benefited by the export contract must be guaranteed. For this reason, in this case, the declaration of nullity is to take effect from the date of this judgment; despite the fact that the coadjuvant "Asociación Costarricense de Floricultores" had requested that the benefits remain in effect until 1996, the year the export contracts expire; and that Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, legal representative of the Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, requested at the hearing that the Export Contracts remain in effect until 1996, and that in those cases of extension, for having voluntarily accepted the reduction of the CAT percentage, the contract benefits remain in effect until the year 1999. However, the Court cannot fully grant the claim raised, since granting it with respect to the norms declared unconstitutional here—for being spurious—would in practice mean nullifying such a declaration.

Por tanto:

The unconstitutionality claim is partially upheld, and consequently, the following are annulled: 1) Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and 2) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989; both budget laws that added subsections g) and h) to Article 61 and Article 61-b to the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988. This judgment is declaratory and takes effect from this date, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Consequently, the signed export contracts remain in effect until the year 1996, as well as until the year 1999, in those cases where the reduction of the CAT percentage was voluntarily accepted (in accordance with Law 7257 of September 17, 1991). In both scenarios, the contracts remain in effect with the exception of the benefits established in subsections g) and h) of Article 61, and 61-b), added to the Income Tax Law through the annulled budget laws. In all other respects, the claim is dismissed. Let this pronouncement be noted in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, published in full in the Judicial Bulletin, and communicated to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Notifíquese.

Luis Paulino Mora M.

Jorge E. Castro B. Luis Fernando Solano C. Eduardo Sancho G. Carlos Manuel Arguedas R. Mario Granados M. Nombre45029 . LFSC/secs/jha He argues that the challenged norms establish a series of tax exemptions and grant the benefit of Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to the country's non-traditional export sector. He affirms that these norms are harming an interest of the community, since it is with the money of all Costa Ricans—coming from the payment of taxes—that the payment of these Tax Credit Certificates is financed, despite the fact that constitutionally, the State must seek the greatest well-being of all inhabitants. He states that in 1972 the Law for the Promotion of Exports was enacted, whose Chapter III creates a series of "incentives" for the non-traditional export sector, which can be summarized as the granting of Tax Credit Certificates and the granting of a franchise from customs duties, economic stabilization tax, consumption tax, sales tax, and other taxes whose collection corresponds to the Central Bank, paid on raw materials and other materials used in the production, processing, or conditioning of goods to be exported. And he adds that "By virtue of reforms produced by subsequent laws, these 'incentives' were magnified and currently, according to the legislation in force, are the following:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>1.- Deduction of one hundred percent of the income tax, on that part of the net profits of the period, obtained solely from non-traditional exports made by the declarant to third markets.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>2.- Deduction of fifty percent of the amount paid, through a stock exchange, for the purchase of shares of corporations domiciled in the country that have export programs for one hundred percent of their production or that are exporting that total.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>3.- Exemption from all types of taxes on the import of raw materials, inputs, and packaging not produced in the country that form part of the component of non-traditional products exported to third markets.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>4.- Exemption from general sales and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition, in the local market, of raw materials, inputs, machinery, and equipment, except vehicles under two tons, their accessories, and spare parts.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>5.- Exemption from all kinds of taxes and surcharges affecting the import of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and the import of automotive vehicles. In addition to all of these, they continue to be granted Tax Credit Certificates which, as is known, are instruments through which the State delivers to companies that export non-traditional products to third markets, a title for an amount equal to fifteen percent of the FOB value of their operations. With this document, the favored businesspersons can make payment of direct and indirect taxes, or sell them on the stock market, to convert them into cash". The petitioner bases the violations of the Political Constitution as follows: A) Articles 18 and 33: He argues that the cited "incentives" granted only to the non-traditional export sector, and above all, the granting of the Tax Credit Certificates, constitute a privilege granted to an economic group, without constitutional support, and that on the contrary, they violate the principle of equality before public burdens. The principle of equality implies equal legal treatment before equal situations, which prohibits taking discriminatory measures, that is, differentiating between those who are in the same situation or category. Thus, taxpayers who are in the same situation must be subject, without any distinction, to the same regime relating to fiscal exactions and the tax law must ensure that equality of treatment for taxpayers who are in the same legal or de facto situation. To concretize equality before public burdens, especially before the tax regime, it is often necessary for the legislator to establish different categories of taxpayers, thus producing a form of equality by categories. Thus, equality operates with respect to those who are within the same category. Given that the general principle is equality before public burdens, when the legislator exempts a group or category from the payment of taxes or grants them other benefits, that different situation that justifies the exemption must be clearly verifiable, so that it does not become an arbitrary act by the legislator, through which unjust privileges are granted. The legislator cannot create different categories that do not have a reasonable basis, that is, it cannot create arbitrary categories and subject some to different regimes than others. Thus, the legal definition of legal situations must generate neither discrimination nor privileges. The differentiating treatment must be reasonable and in accordance with the fundamental values of the system. Hence, the establishment of categories and situations that are unnecessary, disproportionate, or inadequate with respect to the facts to which they refer and have no basis in a determinable public interest is arbitrary and discriminatory. Logic and justice lead to saying that there is no valid, appreciable reason for the non-traditional export sector to enjoy these incentives, to the detriment of the traditional export sector and all other sectors that make up the country's economic activity. The foregoing because Article 2 of the Law for the Promotion of Exports establishes an exhaustive list of activities that will be considered traditional exports, so that all activities not contained in that list will be considered non-traditional and therefore, may access the benefits conferred by this law and the subsequent laws that regulate these benefits. It can be seen that the authority to modify the list is thus conferred on the Ministry of Foreign Trade. It is evident that the categorization carried out by the legislator was arbitrary. No valid technical criterion to differentiate traditional from non-traditional exports exists or was set forth in the law. Furthermore, the legislator delegated in a very open and very broad manner the power to determine the beneficiaries of that law, to the Ministry of Foreign Trade. In this case, there is an open delegation, which to some extent, may also contravene Article 9 of the Political Constitution. Could it be that traditional products do not have to compete equally at the international level? They also suffer the damages derived from the anti-export bias that characterizes our economy. There are no differences of significant magnitude that would allow the legislator to make such a disproportionate distinction. Hence, these are 'personal' laws, lacking generality and abstraction, which establish a disparity of treatment among the exporters themselves. B) Article 50: The challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution because they not only do not seek an adequate distribution of wealth, but on the contrary, have allowed money to be concentrated in a few hands, to the detriment of the well-being of the community. He points out that it has been estimated that the Tax Credit Certificates represent an expenditure of more than five thousand five hundred million colones that weigh on the National Budget. That millionaire sum is granted to scarcely 572 companies, and to date, there are more than 1,300 applications from other companies for this unjust benefit to be granted to them. C) Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution: The petitioner alleges that subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138, which grant the non-traditional export sector to third markets exemptions from sales and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition in the local market of raw materials, inputs, machinery, equipment, and all kinds of taxes and surcharges on the import of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and the import of automotive vehicles, also violate Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution, since they are 'atypical' norms. He points out that the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has held that the Budget Law is a formal and material law, enacted by the legislator through a sui generis procedure, in which the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly stands out, as it does not admit the possibility of a veto by the Executive Branch, pursuant to Article 178 of the Constitution. It is formal because the legislator approves it, and material due to its marked normative character; since it constitutes the limit of action of public powers, in accordance with Article 180 of the Political Charter, it can validly contain norms of budgetary content, meaning by these, those that regulate the efficiency and productivity of public spending. But all norms that are not of budgetary content must be enacted through ordinary legislation, by virtue of the power contained in subsection 1) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, and consequently, through the ordinary legislative process. He requests that the action be declared with merit.

II.- The Chamber processed the action by resolution at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1991, and the notices were published in Judicial Bulletins (Boletines Judiciales) No. 71, 72, 73, and 74 of April 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1991, respectively.

III.- The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), through Lic. Adrián Vargas Benavides, Attorney General of the Republic, answered the hearing according to writs on folios 49 (Request for ad portas rejection), 58 (Request for interlocutory rejection), and 159 (Answer to the hearing). In said writs, the Attorney General's Office maintains the total inadmissibility of the present action, as there is no prior pending matter. Despite the fact that the petitioner alleges the existence of a collective interest, the Attorney General's Office points out that according to reiterated jurisprudence, the Chamber has rejected unconstitutionality actions filed by two Members of the Legislative Assembly, in cases similar to the present one, for completely lacking standing, citing the following rulings: No. 234-90 at 2:00 p.m. on February 28, 1990, No. 248-90 at 2:00 p.m. on March 7, No. 495-90 at 3:40 p.m. on May 15, No. 678-90 at 2:15 p.m. on June 9, No. 679-90 at 3:00 p.m. on June 9, 1990, No. 680-90 at 3:15 p.m. on June 19, 1990, No. 1150-90 at 2:15 p.m. on September 25, 1990, No. 1332-90 at 3:00 p.m. on October 23, 1990, No. 1471-90 at 4:30 p.m. on October 30, 1990, No. 1634-90 at 4:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990, No. 504-91 and No. 505-91, both of March 8, 1991. The Attorney General's Office argues that from the set of these resolutions, the conclusion can be drawn that in order to invoke the injury to an interest of the community as a whole, it is necessary to be in the presence of an affectation of 'the entire Costa Rican community,' not of a sector or category within it. The simple invocation of the unconstitutionality of a norm is not sufficient to open the doors of that jurisdiction; rather, a legitimizing link must exist. In the case of the hypothesis of the interest of the community, our Law requires, as this Chamber has clearly understood in the cited resolutions, that the entire society be involved. It adds that in the case under examination, such affectation of society as a whole is not present, but rather the opposition of interests between different components of the productive apparatus. This simple opposition makes it unfeasible to resort to the notion of 'community as a whole' since obviously the affectation is not general. It points out that it is not appropriate to invoke a mere collective interest, in this case that of the persons who do not benefit from the challenged exemptions, to find oneself in the presence of an interest of the nature required by paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, LJC). This means that although it is true that we could identify the existence of different collective interests that could be considered affected by the organization of a system of incentives for non-traditional exports, these collective interests do not correspond to the interests of the community as a whole. Evidently, there is another collective interest, of no lesser importance, that is directly benefited by the incentives that the questioned norms grant. We are faced with a delicate balance of interests within which one of the components of the community tries to attribute to itself the representation of the interests of the whole. It maintains that in reality, the present action seeks to protect a sector of interests, very far from being qualified as representative of the interest of the entire community. It requests that, based on Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, the present action be rejected on interlocutory grounds. On the merits, the Attorney General's Office maintains that tax incentives find their reason for being in the evident general interest that surrounds the growth and development of the economy. The assessment of the type of incentive is carried out by the legislator, appreciating the particular circumstances of each activity, without this implying a violation of the principle of equality. The legislator has a broad margin of discretion to define the promotion model that will be applied to each sector and assumes the political responsibility of designing the most adequate system. Within this task of organizing the economy, it is perfectly admissible for the legislator to choose to provide special incentives to a specific sector of the productive apparatus with the aim of securing a harmonious and sustained development of the economy. In the specific case of incentives for the export of non-traditional products, the legislator makes a global assessment of the national productive model and adopts the decision to incentivize the development of that sector with a clear purpose of diversification and growth of national exports. Such an objective falls within the State's obligation to ensure that the country's economic organization reaches levels of development and efficiency that allow for the improvement of the living conditions of the entire population. In its general statement, such a system of incentives in no way contradicts the Constitution; rather, its existence makes possible the short-term satisfaction of a State task of great transcendence. Thus, it is disproven that the challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution; rather, the strengthening of certain specific sectors of production can be seen as a consequence of the mandate of the cited Article 50. The Attorney General's Office points out that Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution are also not violated because '... the possibility of resorting to tax incentives is a first-order economic policy instrument that does not contradict in the slightest the principle of equality before public burdens. Such reasoning would lead us to maintain that not only the norms relating to the incentive of the non-traditional sector are unconstitutional, but also all tax norms that have the purpose of promoting cooperativism, the exemption from the coffee production tax, the exemption from the sales tax on agricultural inputs, the incentives for industrial production for local consumption still in force, the exemptions for the temporary import of raw materials by maquila industries. There may be disagreement about the timeliness of all these measures, but what cannot be done is to question the governing competence of the Legislative Assembly regarding their adoption. Each and every one of these activities presents particular characteristics that have forced the establishment of diverse regimes, a diversity which flatly rules out the possibility that the principle of equality has been violated, which is invocable when equal situations are regulated differently, or different situations equally, a different case from the one presented with the challenged provisions'. The Attorney General's Office adds that only in the event of a rupture of the principles of proportionality and reasonableness that preside over all legislative action could the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) hear the merits of the incentive regime for the export of non-traditional products. Such disproportion or lack of reasonableness is not present in the case under analysis. The instruments in question are the only tool to place non-traditional producers in conditions of international competitiveness. The high capital investments, the high expenses involved in introducing new agricultural or industrial techniques, the harsh conditions of the international market, and the need to position the country in favorable terms for attracting foreign capital investment, make the existence of the entire challenged promotion system fully justifiable. Independently of the adjustments that must be made to the incentive model, no disproportion is observed that would suggest that the legislator has violated any constitutional mandate. The technical and timeliness considerations that need to be raised for the restructuring of the model are the responsibility of the Legislative Branch to assume, which is ultimately politically responsible for its operation. Finally, the Attorney General's Office concludes: "a) The present action is completely inadmissible due to the petitioner's lack of standing, and it should be so declared on interlocutory grounds based on Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law. b) In the event that this Chamber departs from its jurisprudential line and hears the merits of the present action, it must be declared without merit, as it is a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce promotion regimes for the different productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them, and as we are not in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of said powers. c) If the Chamber were to rule on the merits of the action, the unconstitutionality of the legal modifications introduced by way of budgetary norms must be declared, that is, subsection 12 of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989".

IV.- On folios 16 and 198, Samuel Yankelewitz Berger, of legal age, married, chemical engineer, identification number CED46402, resident of San José, appears in his capacity as President with the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Association CAMARA DE INDUSTRIAS DE COSTA RICA. He appears in order to offer legal and economic arguments regarding the petitioner's lack of standing. He points out that: "1.- The petitioner invokes Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law to initiate the present action, since according to him, in this case there is no 'individual and direct injury due to the nature of the matter,' in addition to the fact that the exemptions granted to the export sector 'are to the detriment of the community.' 2.- In the first place, it is clear that the application of the challenged norms can generate individual and direct injuries, so it is not, from the legal point of view, technically a case of diffuse interest. 3.- Secondly, it is also not true that the granting of the Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario, CATs) affects the community, but rather, on the contrary, as was clearly demonstrated in the first section of this brief, such incentives constitute an important benefit for the national economy. 4.- Nor is it true that the CATS are paid with money from all other Costa Ricans, which besides being a sensationalist and clearly demagogic argument, lacks legal and economic foundation. 5.- In effect, with the issuance of CATS, the State does not disburse money it already held and that it would have collected from other taxpayers, but rather supposedly stops receiving fiscal income. But this is also not true, since without the existence of the CATS there would be far fewer companies and logically exports would be substantially reduced. As a consequence of the foregoing, there would be less employment, less foreign currency, less national added value, with which there would be two big losers: the Treasury itself and, ultimately, the Costa Rican people. 6.- Thus, the granting of the CATS rather produces benefits for the Treasury and the country's economy, since it constitutes an investment that produces, among other advantages, the generation of eight times more foreign currency for the country's economy than the compensations received by the beneficiaries of such tax incentives. 7.- From the foregoing, it is concluded that there is no interest in this case that concerns the community as a whole to challenge the validity of the cited norms, since rather the existence of such compensations to exporters represents a benefit for the community. Thus, it is idle and rather contrary to the public interest to try to have compensatory norms declared unconstitutional, in the fiscal sphere, that imply the entry of considerable sums of foreign currency into the country and taxes to the State, for social charges and other direct and indirect taxes. 8.- By reason of the aforementioned, the petitioner lacks procedural standing, under the terms of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, to bring the present unconstitutionality action, which must be rejected ad-portas for being manifestly unfounded". He also points out that the principle of equality before public burdens derived from the principle of equality is not violated, because differentiated treatment can also be granted when it is reasonably justified. The CATS and other tax incentives have been granted to exporters of non-traditional products due to the de facto situation in which they find themselves, which is different from the rest of the exporters. Furthermore, their existence provides the country with numerous advantages; without said tax incentives, exports would decrease considerably, which would cause unemployment, a drop in the State's fiscal income, and a significant reduction in the inflow of foreign currency. If the questioned tax incentives were eliminated, non-traditional product businesspersons would receive discriminatory treatment since they would be forced to compete, with respect to other businesspersons, under unequal conditions. He alleges the non-applicability of the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution because in the case of the establishment of the CATS and other challenged tax incentives, what the legislator did was precisely apply the programmatic norm contained in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, given that through them, incentives for exports were established, as one of the most effective means to achieve the well-being of the inhabitants of the Republic. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, by virtue of the fact that, according to the petitioner's statement, an open power was granted to the Ministry of Foreign Trade to determine the benefits conferred in the law, the coadjuvant points out that such 'open power' is not true because "the law is clear in establishing what the maximum benefits are that can be granted to exporters. Logically, a certain margin of discretion is granted to the Ministry of Commerce so that, within the parameters set by the law itself, it can grant the incentives created by it to the different exporting companies, in order to take into account the specific requirements of each one of them... The law could not be so inelastic as not to allow the executive bodies in charge of applying it to dimension it in time and space, according to the specific needs of each concrete case... From a legal point of view, such flexibility does not, of course, imply a violation of the principle of separation of powers, since it does not authorize the invasion of the functions of the Legislative Branch by the Executive Branch. It simply specifies the Executive Branch's own powers regarding export incentives". On folio 198, the Association Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica stated that the action must be rejected outright, for being manifestly unfounded in view of the fact that the plaintiff lacks procedural standing and because it involves the reiteration of a matter already decided by the Chamber, through ruling No. 504-91. It argues that: "In ruling 504-91, which rejected the unconstitutionality against all exemption laws in force at that time due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, the Chamber also resolved the present matter, since the exemptions contemplated in the Law for the Promotion of Exports had also been challenged in that action ... The case decided by resolution 504-91 is identical to the present one, since the plaintiff was Deputy Dr. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Sáenz, while in the present case, the plaintiff is also a Deputy, Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez ... If in that action it was established that Mr. Gutiérrez, in his personal capacity or as a deputy, was not the holder of a collective or diffuse interest, it is logical to conclude that in the present case, the ruling must be in the same manner, since the assumptions are identical ... The Chamber stated in that ruling that ... In cases such as the present one, the interest that is estimated to be injured must be at least immediate, with respect to the group or community in favor of which the unconstitutionality action is brought, a group or community that is the holder of that diffuse or collective interest, to which the person bringing the action must belong, who will thus have a mediate interest in it, an interest that consequently cannot be of such a degree of abstraction as to maintain that every violation of the Constitution, for that sole fact, legitimizes any person to bring it ...".

V.- Through the writ visible on folio 63, Nombre61107, of legal age, married, Engineer, resident of Escazú, identification number CED75399, in his capacity as President with the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Association CAMARA DE EXPORTADORES DE COSTA RICA, appears in order to defend the constitutionality of the challenged norms and to provide a series of legal, economic, and social considerations in their support. He maintains that: "The laws whose unconstitutionality is sought created a system of incentives that allows three basic objectives to be achieved: A) Diversification of export products. When a regime of incentives for so-called non-traditional products was created in 1972, the aim was to develop other export products. Although technical and economic policy reasons justified this measure, its development by businesspersons and producers was not so attractive, for the following reasons: i- High investment and costs. ii- Lack of knowledge of the technology and lack of technical support. iii- Lack of knowledge of the market and commercialization. iv- High risk and international competitiveness. v- Difficulties in payment and collection procedures. Thus, the incentives granted by the Law sought to compensate for the inconveniences of diversification and, in a long-term vision, to secure greater benefits for the country. B) Increase in foreign currency income for the country. By promoting new exports, the Law also sought, as a logical consequence, an increase in the country's foreign currency income. The Law guarantees that incentives will be granted to companies that deliver their income in foreign currency to the Central Bank of Costa Rica and requires the exporter to submit an annual report on their exports. This has a direct impact on improving the country's balance of payments. C) Significant contribution to the national product. By requiring companies to have at least 35% added value, the Law guarantees that the export activity being incentivized leaves a significant contribution to the gross domestic product. This has direct consequences on other economic aspects, such as: i- Increase in employment levels. ii- Increase in national wealth, through new investments and developed projects. iii- Development of new technologies and specialization of the workforce. From the stated objectives, we can conclude that by incentivizing exports, the ultimate goal is greater economic and social development of the country". He adds that the results obtained from the export incentive program justify its existence.

As of March 1991, there are more than 30 products with exports exceeding one hundred fifty million colones, among which 5 exceed two billion colones in annual exports. The majority of them have very significant growth rates, as demonstrated in the graphs appearing on folios 75-81. The increase in income is reflected by the growth in export volume, which rose from 333.3 million dollars in 1985 to an estimated 691.4 million dollars in 1990 (projection made based on data from September 1990). The contribution of foreign currency to the country to improve our balance of payments situation is an aspect that becomes more significant as the trade deficit increases, since our imports have grown at a larger volume than exports, which could have serious consequences for the standard of living and general well-being of the country. For this reason, it is essential to increase exports even further. Regarding the level of employment, companies with export contracts have generated more than 50,000 new jobs and purchases of national raw materials of more than thirty billion colones. This in turn generates a higher level of production and the development of significant parallel activity. The CATS have a multiplier effect because they generate wealth, as observed on folio 81. Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of equality in bearing public burdens, it argues that discrimination of categories does not exist, because to a certain extent the category arises from the law. The purpose of the rule is to incentivize non-traditional exports; this category is developed fundamentally by the Government's stimulus policies. The application of this principle is not absolute, but rather assumes that equality of sacrifice will be required of persons or groups that are in the same situation. Due to the technical and economic circumstances that justify the incentive regime, exporting companies are not in the same situation or category. Furthermore, the Income Tax Law assumes a limited duration for some of the incentives. Therefore, if the principle is not absolute, its violation cannot be generic. The distinction established by law between traditional and non-traditional exporters was justified at the time of its enactment, providing for the authority of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce to modify the list establishing the distinction, when it is in the interest of the economic and social development of the country. There is no discrimination in the Law if, legally, it contains the possibility of a modification that adapts to the demands of reality. On the other hand, through the system of export incentives, the State seeks greater well-being for the inhabitants of the country, since by stimulating export growth, production grows and through them greater general well-being of the population is achieved, as the level of employment increases and there is greater availability of foreign currency, which allows for an improvement in the level of consumption and standard of living of Costa Ricans. It points out that the CATS are neither legally nor technically an expenditure of money borne by the State. The certificates are granted as a benefit to a new activity and for a specific purpose (the payment of taxes). As an incentive, it is subject to two fundamental conditions: the export of new products and the delivery of the foreign currency to the Central Bank. The mere fact of managing the foreign currency yields an economic benefit for the State (the exchange rate differential), combined with the positive impact of export growth on the economy. Finally, it states that the exemptions and benefits granted to exporters of non-traditional products are justified and have support in social, economic, and constitutional reasons (article 50 of the Political Constitution), without this signifying the breach of other constitutional principles and norms. It requests that this action be denied.

VI.- On folio 82 appears a brief submitted by Miguel Efraín Shyfter Lepar, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, identity card number CED72634, in his capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of TEJIDOS AGUILA S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75400; Germán Wiernik Waisuchier, of legal age, married, holder of a Bachelor's degree in Business Administration, identity card number CED75401, in his capacity as Vice-President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact acting in the absence of the President of PEGASO INTERNACIONAL S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75402; Nombre98442 , sole surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of this city, Indian national with passport of the Republic of India number Placa15779, in my capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of GAZAPATI DE COSTA RICA S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75403; Nombre98443 , with sole surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, businessman, United States citizen, resident of San José, residency card number CED75404, in his capacity as General Manager with powers of general attorney-in-fact of J. W. CONFECCIONES A.M. S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75405; Julio Kierszenson Mamet and Edgar Cordero Martínez, both of legal age, lawyers, residents of San Antonio de Belén, married, with identity card numbers CED75406 and CED59730 respectively, in their capacity as special judicial attorneys-in-fact of CONFECCIONES JOHAMA S.A., a brief in which these representatives of companies appear in the capacity of coadjuvants, as they hold a legitimate interest in the final resolution issued in this action, by virtue of the fact that they are holders of the incentives for exporters of non-traditional products established by the laws challenged herein. Through the brief on folio 114, Mr. Miguel Efraín Schyfter Lepar, of the aforementioned qualities, appears in his capacity as President with powers of unlimited general attorney-in-fact of the association CAMARA DE LA INDUSTRIA TEXTIL Y DE CONFECCION DE COSTA RICA, and requests that said Chamber be considered an interested party within the present action, as it holds a legitimate interest in the judgment rendered. On folio 171 appears a brief from Edgar Cordero M. and Julio Kierszenson M., known in the proceedings as special judicial attorneys-in-fact of Cámara de la Industria Textil y de Confección de Costa Rica, Tejidos Aguila S.A., Pegaso Internacional S.A., Gazapati de Costa Rica S.A., J. W. Confecciones A.M. S.A., and Confecciones Johama S.A., appearing to set forth the grounds on which they base their intervention as coadjuvants. They indicate that historically, from the economic development of our country, various models of export incentives have emerged, originating in real and objective circumstances that justified, at their time, and justify, at present, the existence of these incentives, without entailing a violation or infringement of the constitutional principles of contribution to public burdens and equality before the law. Moreover, through these incentive models, the State not only has not violated article 50 of the Political Constitution, but has fulfilled and put it into execution, by enabling the growth of the Costa Rican economy and, therefore, the well-being of all Costa Ricans, and not only that of the businesspeople who have ventured into the activities promoted by the State. In this way, the Costa Rican State has played, throughout our history, a dynamic role in promoting economic development. Thus, it has promoted different productive sectors, which it has chosen at each moment for their potential to become the dynamic engine of the country's future growth. The Costa Rican State has set itself the objective of finding the path to sustained and sustainable long-term economic development; this has led it to adopt and adapt, to the changing historical circumstances, different frameworks of action that have shaped, over time, various development models. In 1821, coffee plants and land were distributed among people with scarce resources, so they could produce coffee. In 1825, coffee production was exempted from many taxes, and in 1831, each farm that had been cultivated with coffee for 5 consecutive years was declared the property of the peasant who cultivated it. This State action not only consolidated a development based on small property but also consolidated the first productive activity—at that time non-traditional—that actively linked our economy to the international market, resulting, at that moment, in an accelerated production of national wealth, which enabled a benefit for all Costa Ricans, among others: the construction of the interoceanic railroad, the National Theater, and the lighting of the city of San José. After the coffee boom, the banana activity was protected by the State, which granted great benefits in favor of that industry through the Contracts signed with the Banana Company, in which public uncultivated lands were granted in concession and the exemption from income tax payments was created, among others. As a consequence of that policy, bananas became a new export product—non-traditional at that time—that generated economic progress and employment in areas of our territory that were until then unexploited. The Second World War revealed the weakness of our economy. The Import Substitution Model was then adopted, which sought to promote the industrial sector and, therefore, the diversification of the productive structure. This objective was intended to be achieved through tariff protection and market expansion through the Central American Common Market. This was a consequence of the exhaustion of the sector producing primary articles (coffee, sugar, cocoa, and meat) destined for export and its inability to continue being the dynamic sector of the economy, due to the limitations imposed by the international market and the recurrent crises to which the country was subjected by depending on those products, totally subject to the whims of external demand. Through that model, various benefits and incentives were granted in the Central American Agreement on Fiscal Incentives for Industrial Development, such as total or partial exemption from the payment of customs duties and other related charges for the importation of machinery, equipment, raw materials, etc., and exemption from income tax for companies benefiting from that regime and for their partners. In addition, there was the Agreement on the Regime of Central American Integration Industries, which granted exclusivity to certain industries in the exploitation of the Central American market. In the second half of the 1970s, the exhaustion of the Import Substitution Model became evident; economic growth rates decelerated, and the country suffered economic strangulation due to the severe limitations imposed by the availability of foreign currency. However, the capacity for external indebtedness allowed the Import Substitution Model to remain in force for several more years, until the 1980 crisis forced the search for alternative paths. Since 1972, the Costa Rican State had been trying to guide the economy towards alternative paths. The Export Promotion Law of that year created the Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to incentivize exports of non-traditional products, and in 1984, the current Export Contract was enacted, unifying into a single legal instrument the various benefits and incentives for exports of non-traditional products. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model aims to solve the problems in the external sector that the Import Substitution Model could not resolve. The main problem was that the country's export base continued to depend on the primary products export sector, which could not provide the country with the necessary resources for sustainable and stable economic growth. By virtue of the Central American Clearing House mechanism, exports to that market were not to be paid in foreign currency, but in the currency of the purchasing country. Due to that mechanism, and to our country's trade surplus with the rest of the area, Costa Rica accumulated unsatisfied credits in foreign currency, which made efforts aimed at expanding our country's international trade through exchange with the area innocuous and ineffective. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model attacked the greatest structural problem of our economy: the strangulation of the external sector, that is, our inability to continue importing at the pace we had been, since the foreign currency generated by exports was insufficient to pay for our imports, and at the same time, the sources of external financing were exhausted due to our country's default on its external debt. Therefore, to emerge from the crisis, it was necessary to diversify the country's export base, producing non-traditional products that could compete advantageously in the international market. However, it was necessary to eliminate the obstacles of the anti-export bias of our economy, which manifests in all the barriers and disadvantages that businesspeople faced in producing and exporting their products to the international market, such as deficient port infrastructure with higher rates than those prevailing in the international market, high social charges, slow and complicated bureaucratic processes to authorize exports, etc. In addition to the above, producers and exporters of non-traditional products had to face several limitations such as the lack of experience in entering the international market with non-traditional products, the extremely high entry costs in potential markets, the uncertainty in the commercialization and intermediation of products, the protectionist barriers of the countries potentially importing our products, and the great benefits and incentives granted for export by those countries that are our direct competitors (including benefits identical to and even greater than our Tax Credit Certificate). For all the foregoing reasons, for the success of the Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model, on which our economic survival depended, it was essential to make investments in that sector profitable, so that the businesspeople involved in that sector could mitigate the costs caused by the negative internal and external factors mentioned and assume the very high risks of their investment, while their learning process matured and the productive restructuring required to face the new challenges was consolidated. That was the reason why, once again in our economic history, the Costa Rican State granted a specific productive sector certain temporary benefits and incentives, which were established for a period of 12 years and designed by the Nombre98441 in such a way that they corresponded to the incentives granted in countries competing with ours for the export of similar products. The economic measures adopted by the Costa Rican State seek, in synthesis: on one hand, to incentivize and promote what is not available and is needed, and on the other, to maintain what is already available because it was promoted in its time. To maintain what is already available, different laws have been enacted that grant benefits and incentives also to the production and export of traditional products, such as the laws regulating the relations between coffee producers, processors, and exporters, and between sugarcane producers, industrial processors, and exporters, which guarantee the producers the acquisition, by the industrial processors, of their entire harvest, with the corresponding advances, and regulating the credits granted to those productive activities. Such a guarantee to purchase their entire production is not available to producers and exporters of non-traditional products, who, on the contrary, are subject to the uncertainty of an unknown and risky market. For its part, the Law for the Promotion of Banana Growing grants important exemptions, including the setting by the State of the purchase prices of the fruit for the producer. The objective economic reality demonstrates that the "categorization" between traditional and non-traditional producers is not "arbitrary," but rather responds to the international environment in which our economy is necessarily developed. Therefore, the challenged laws are neither "personal" nor "lacking in generality" nor "abstract," but rather respond to a coherent economic policy of the Costa Rican State framed within constitutional principles. They request that this action be rejected outright for lack of standing, or failing that, that it be denied on the merits, as the challenged legal norms do not violate articles 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution.

VII. -Through the brief on folio 105, Cecil Alfaro Bravo, of legal age, married, businessman, resident of San José, identity card number CED75407, in his capacity as President with judicial and extrajudicial representation of the ASOCIACION COSTARRICENSE DE FLORICULTORES, appears for the purpose of supporting the efforts to defend the constitutionality of the challenged laws. On folio 188, he requests that the Association he represents be considered a coadjuvant. He sets forth the following arguments: Floriculture in Costa Rica is a recent activity with a high growth rate. The system of export incentives is essential for the development and maintenance of floriculture, since the flower activity, in its stage of development and consolidation, requires time to form and create a tradition of its cultivation and harvesting among our workers, as well as to adapt technology to the country. Furthermore, the investment per production area is one of the highest in agriculture. He estimates that the existing infrastructure as of March 1991 has an approximate value of 3,500 million colones for 330 hectares of cultivation. The very high investment per hectare is due to the need to build greenhouses, prepare soils, install drainage, install an irrigation and fumigation system, a roofed area for packaging, a cold room, and special machinery and tools for the care and harvesting of the flowers. In addition, floriculture is subject to a double high risk: first, the damages caused by climatic reasons and diseases are greater due to the intensity and sensitivity of the cultivation. International phytosanitary and quality requirements are very strict, so any small problem detected in the flowers means their loss. Second, the limited facilities for air transport increase the risk of the activity and increase the cost of a possible loss. It should be remembered that the flower is a highly perishable product and very sensitive to changes in conditions, so the simple delay of a flight or the exposure of the flowers to the sun also means their rejection in the international market. The incentive system, fundamentally the exemption regime, is indispensable for the development of the floriculture sector and its definitive consolidation. There are many flower-exporting companies that cannot opt for the Tax Credit Certificate by virtue of a suspension agreement signed with the Government of the United States (this affects the export of some types of flowers to that country). The flower activity provides important benefits to the country's economy, which justifies the existence of the incentive system. Floriculture is an activity that generates an important source of employment; in 1990, 4,500 direct workers were employed, plus indirect jobs related to the activity (construction of greenhouses, inputs, transportation, and others). The contribution of technology to the country is very significant, as it allows for valuing and understanding the importance of research and the development of own knowledge and processes in the field of agriculture. The location of the projects and the type of work allow for the development of the country's rural areas, in the economic, cultural, and technological fields. A relevant factor of floriculture is its added value, which reaches 70%. This represents a greater generation of income for the country and a better use of its resources. He argues that the regime of export incentives is amply justified and does not violate the principle of equality in bearing public burdens. The incentive regime is necessary for the definitive consolidation of floriculture. The termination of the regime would mean the closure of many companies, which would injure rights protected by the Political Constitution. With the incentive system, the State complies with the constitutional mandate established in article 50. The Political Constitution presupposes a harmonious balance of all interests of society. The cancellation of export incentives would cause irreparable damage to flower-exporting companies. The change of the conditions established until the year 1996 (by the export contract) would mean the closure of an activity in the process of consolidation; which implies the loss of foreign currency income from exports, jobs, technology, and large investments in infrastructure and plants. He requests that, based on article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this action be denied. Otherwise, he requests that, based on article 91 of the cited Law and article 34 of the Political Constitution, the validity of the contracts signed by the State and the benefits derived from them be maintained until 1996.

VIII.- On folio 183 appears a Racsagrama signed by Nombre98444 , General Secretary of the Unión de Productores Agropecuarios de Pérez Zeledón, by means of which the UPIAV "... supports the appeal filed and requests a favorable resolution so that the privilege represented by the Tax Credit Certificates (CAT) is eliminated, which favors a small sector with very high economic power more, thus harming all Costa Ricans." IX.- The oral hearing referred to in articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction was held at 9:15 a.m. on June 22, 1995, with the attendance of the plaintiff, Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez Sibaja, the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, Lic. Farid Beirute Brenes, in association with the Administrative Attorney, Licda. Ana Lorena Brenes, and representing the coadjuvants, Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez and Ing. Samuel Yankelewitz, as recorded on folio 264.

X.- This resolution is issued in accordance with the provisions of Transitory Provision II of Law No. 7135 of October 11, 1989.

Drafted by Judge SOLANO CARRERA; and,

Considering:

FIRST: ON ADMISSIBILITY.- Regarding admissibility, the Chamber already resolved in its time by means of a resolution at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1991, in which this action was admitted for processing, as recorded on folio 56.

SECOND: ON THE MERITS.- In relation to articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, named "Export Promotion Law" ("Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"), 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976, 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984, 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985, 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, the plaintiff alleges that said norms violate articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for all the reasons stated in result number I. For its part, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, regarding the merits of this action, upheld their constitutionality (result II). In turn, the legal entities appearing as coadjuvants defend the constitutionality of the challenged norms, according to the reasons set forth in consideranda IV, V, VI, and VII of this judgment. The Chamber considers that said norms granting benefits and incentives for the export of non-traditional products do not violate articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for the reasons that will be stated below:

A).- Regarding the alleged violation of article 9 of the Political Constitution concerning the "broad and open delegation" that the Nombre98441 makes in article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, in favor of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce, alleged by the plaintiff, the Chamber considers that said article does not contain a broad and open delegation, but rather a relative delegation. On this subject, the Chamber referred in judgment No. 730-95 of 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995:

"V.- REGARDING DECREE NUMBER 23785-H CITED: This Chamber does not share the criterion held by the attorneys of the appellants, in the sense that Executive Decree number 23785-H, published in La Gaceta number 228 of November thirtieth of last year, violates the principle of 'Legal Reserve' (Reserva de Ley) -contained in subsection 13 of article 121 of the Constitution and article 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, since its content, as already noted, does not create any tax, and for the explanation of this point, it is necessary to analyze the following aspects: a) The Sales Tax Law, Law number 6826 of November eight, nineteen eighty-two, and its amendments, establishes a tax on the added value in the sale of goods (all) and in the provision of certain services; b) While it is true that article 9 of the General Sales Tax Law, cited, establishes that the sale of goods that make up the 'Basic Food Basket' (Canasta Básica Alimentaria) are exempt from paying that tax, it is also true that the Regulation to that Law, Executive Decree number 14082-H of November twenty-nine, nineteen eighty-two, and its amendments, and not that Law, is the normative body that determines which articles comprise it, so that the exemption enjoyed by 'ice cream and non-canned cookies' -articles that the appellant Companies produce and market- derived not from the Law but from the noted Regulation, since it is through the regulation that the exemption is established; c) On the other hand, it should be noted that the prohibition on taxing with the selective consumption tax in the case of the goods referred to in article 9 of the General Sales Tax Law and that is established by numeral 17 of the cited normative body, is valid only and exclusively for those articles that make up the 'Basic Food Basket', that is, that are contemplated in the Regulation to said Law. From the clarifications made, it is clearly evident that it was the legislator himself, considering the variable factors such as those that interact in a country's economy and to fully comply with the purposes of the law -regarding the mentioned exemption-, who delegated, to the Executive Branch, in a relative manner, the possibility of determining which are the articles or goods that, at a given moment, should make up the 'Basic Food Basket' -which is the one that is exempt from paying the tax, independently of the articles that comprise it-, so that the exclusion or inclusion by the Executive of certain goods in that list does not imply, as alleged in the appeal, the creation of an exemption or a tax, as the case may be, through a means other than the Law, that is, an 'Absolute Delegation'. In effect, the possibility of including new goods in the list referred to in article 9 of the Sales Tax Law does not imply a delegation of the 'Tax Authority' (Potestad Tributaria) -which corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly-, or a usurpation thereof by the Executive, but rather implies a consequence of the nature or character of the tax and of the variable economic factors that oblige, in some cases, the inclusion of new articles, all with the intention that the purposes the law pursues are fulfilled.

For the reasons stated, the appeal, insofar as it concerns the aforementioned Decree 23785-H, must be dismissed and shall be so declared.\" </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>In the present case, in Article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, what the Nombre98441 included was a relative delegation, since, being a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce promotional regimes for the \"distinct productive sectors\" – by which must be understood special fiscal regimes: by zone (Golfito), by activity (construction of social-interest housing), and by specific conditions (extreme poverty) –, depending on the particularities that characterize them, these in turn depend on variable factors that interact in the country's economy, for which reason it is reasonable and necessary that the Executive Branch be the one that can define which export products are to be included in the list. The foregoing, because what may initially be considered a \"non-traditional export product\" can, over the years and according to economic conditions, come to be considered a \"traditional export product.\" We are dealing with a highly technical matter that is constantly determined by the multiple variables that influence the national economy and the international market. Consequently, Article 2 of the Export Promotion Law of December 22, 1972, does not violate the principle of separation of powers established in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, but rather, the Nombre98441 is making use of its powers – to introduce promotional regimes for the distinct productive sectors – and makes a relative delegation in favor of the Executive Branch, a delegation which, as the Attorney General's Office indicated, is not disproportionate or unreasonable.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>B).- Regarding the principle of equality in bearing public burdens and the generic principle of equality, the Chamber already addressed this in Judgment No. 1266-95 at 15:39 hours on March 7, 1995:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>\"... the Chamber considers that there has been no violation of the principle of equality before the law, because equality cannot be understood to mean that everyone must be treated the same, regardless of possible differences between individuals. The principle of equality means that discriminatory inequalities cannot be introduced, although reasonable inequalities can be, justified by any differentiating element of legal relevance; because giving similar treatment to unequal situations would entail greater inequality. Giving diverse treatment to different situations is compatible with a democratic and social State of Law, due to the values it enshrines: Justice, Freedom, Equality, Legal Certainty, and Solidarity. In tax matters, equality implies, on one hand, the economic effort of society paying taxes, and on the other, the State deciding on priorities for the needs to be satisfied. Tax equality implies intervention in the rules of the free market; it is a subsystem of norms – tax norms – within the legal system... The Constitution empowers the Nombre98441 to create laws that incorporate the principle of substantive equality based on objective reasons.\" (See also Judgment 782-93 at 16:24 hours on February 16, 1993, and Judgment 1160-94 at 10:30 hours on March 2, 1994). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>In the case under examination, the Attorney General's Office is correct in pointing out that the Legislative Branch has the power to introduce promotional regimes for the distinct productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them. Furthermore, we are not in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of said powers, especially if one takes into account that said benefits were granted for 12 years, that is, they are temporary incentives, which in turn imparts greater reasonableness and proportionality to the legislative policy adopted through the challenged norms. These benefits and incentives, especially the Export Contract (Contrato de Exportación), the Tax Credit Certificate (Certificado de Abono Tributario, CAT), and the export increase certificate (certificado de incremento a las exportaciones, CIEX), constitute suitable, reasonable, and proportionate instruments to place exporters of non-traditional products in conditions of international competitiveness. In order to increase our country's exports, the Costa Rican State sought a viable alternative to compensate for the internal and external limitations faced by exporters of non-traditional products to third markets. Moreover, exporters of non-traditional products were in a very different de facto situation compared to exporters of traditional products. Because venturing into the production and export of a new product and entering the international market without experience presents several drawbacks, among them: high investment and costs, lack of knowledge of technology and lack of technical support, lack of market and marketing knowledge, high risk and international competitiveness, difficulties in payment and collection procedures. On the other hand, the multiplier effect of the Tax Credit Certificate (Certificado de Abono Tributario) must be kept in mind. The CATS are compensatory norms in the fiscal sphere that generate benefits for the entire country, by virtue of generating many millions of colones in labor, social guarantees, and consumption of national raw materials, the latter allowing the development of parallel activities. In general, the incentives for the production of non-traditional products and the increase in the country's exports have several positive consequences, for example: the country has clear possibilities of emerging from the economic crisis, there is greater availability of foreign currency to pay for imports, the level of employment increases (the private sector absorbs labor), there is a transfer of technology, development of new production areas not subject to the whims of the international market, and finally, due to the location of the projects and the type of work, it allows economic, social, cultural, and technological development of the country's rural areas. The development of rural zones, through laws that allow achieving a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country, was already analyzed by the Chamber in Judgment No. 319-95 at 14:42 hours on January 17, 1995:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>\"ON THE MERITS: As is a public and notorious fact, Law 7012 of November 4, 1985, was enacted as a means of partially solving the serious economic and social crisis generated by the desertion of the companies that exploited banana production in the South Pacific of the country. Due to the degree of development of the activities of those companies and the economic importance that banana cultivation acquired in that region, the population not directly employed by said companies developed secondary or peripheral economic activities to supply goods and services to the main activity. So that, in one way or another, the economic activity of the region had banana production and export as its main driving element. The phenomenon could perhaps be called an \"economic enclave,\" as a certain sector of the doctrine defines it. When those companies decided to conclude their activities in our country, they produced a serious deterioration in the economy of the zone and forced many people to abandon their businesses and other private activities organized around them. Faced with the severe depression that all this caused, the Government proposed to the Legislative Assembly the bill that gave rise to the Law challenged here, as one of the solutions conceived to reactivate production in that zone and allow it, through differential treatment, to achieve a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country. IV.- The purpose of the Law, in summary, is to allow the operation of a \"Free Deposit\" (Depósito Libre) or free zone in the city of Golfito, in order to attract buyers who contribute to lifting the economy of the zone. The law also promotes the construction of hotels and the establishment of businesses dedicated to commerce in general, all under the incentive of reducing import tariffs on products used or sold there.\" (See also Judgment 321-95 at 14:48 hours on January 17, 1995).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>From the foregoing analysis, it is concluded that the creation of the challenged benefits and incentives rather compensates for the difficulties faced by producers and exporters of non-traditional products to third markets, who would normally have to compete under unequal conditions. Thus, the Chamber finds no reason whatsoever to consider that they violate Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution, and rather, as will be seen next, they fall within the provisions of Article 50 of the Fundamental Norm.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>C).- In relation to the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber considers that the benefits and incentives established by the norms challenged here, far from violating Article 50, rather serve to comply with said programmatic norm. The State must promote and procure the greatest well-being for all inhabitants of the country, through the organization and stimulation of production, as well as the most adequate distribution of wealth. On this topic, the Chamber ruled in Judgment 550-95 at 16:33 hours on January 31, 1995, stating that:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>\"The State can, then, attempt to shape its socio-economic ends and objectives by promoting private initiative, or by fostering, through incentives, the activity to which it is dedicated; or, through the imposition of certain duties on individuals in order to maintain the economic well-being of the population at an acceptable minimum... The current Constitution, in its Article 50, enshrines an important criterion in this matter, giving constitutional foundation to a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, insofar as it is not incompatible with the spirit and conditions of the 'social market economy' model constitutionally established, that is, that norm and its constitutional context postulate economic freedom but within a certain reasonable, proportionate, and non-discriminatory degree of state intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an 'adequate' distribution of wealth. This Chamber, in its judgment # 1441-92, at 15:45 hours on June 1992, held:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>\"The basic general principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in the article, by providing that 'the State shall procure the greatest well-being for all inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth,' which, together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibidem, determines the very essence of the political and social system we have chosen for our country and which defines it as a Social State of Law.\".</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>With the establishment of the benefits and incentives under examination, the Costa Rican State pursues several objectives, among them: diversification of export products, an increase in foreign currency income, which implies a substantial improvement in the balance of payments, because the incentives are granted to those companies that deliver their income generated by exports in foreign currency to the Central Bank of Costa Rica (under the obligation to inform said Bank annually about the exports made), a significant contribution to the country's gross domestic product, which brings with it: an increase in the level of employment, an increase in national wealth – new investments and developed projects –, the development of new technologies, and the specialization of labor. All of this logically implies greater economic and social development for the country. In the Chamber's judgment, it is evident that the establishment of the challenged benefits and incentives means an increase in the well-being of all the country's inhabitants, because through its multiplier effect, the CAT becomes many millions of colones in employment, social charges, consumption of raw materials – which implies the emergence of an entire parallel activity – and the increase in exports, which in turn means the possibility of emerging from the economic crisis the country is going through, with the additional benefit of greater availability of foreign currency to cover the imports of indispensable products that must necessarily be purchased abroad. The Costa Rican State has the constitutional obligation to seek the economic formulas that allow for the best and greatest development of the country and that logically mean an increase in the well-being of all inhabitants, provided that this economic tool is in full conformity with constitutional norms and principles, as has been said occurs in this case. Therefore, the challenged norms do not violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution. It must be placed on record that in the oral hearing (of June 22nd of this year), the plaintiff made statements that seemed to redirect his position to challenging the way the export incentive system (CAT) is functioning or is being applied by the administration, but despite presenting a written summary of his conclusions, it is not clear how the claim would be directed against the way it operates and not against the incentive system itself. In any case, stated in such a generic manner, the problem would not really be one of constitutionality, but rather an administrative mismatch, which, being correctable, would confirm the legitimacy of the incentive program now being analyzed.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>D).- Regarding Articles 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), the Chamber notes that both articles – challenged here – were reformed through Law 7257 of September 17, 1991, that is, after the filing of the claim. Article 60 was reformed in its statement and in subsections a) and c), and Article 61 was reformed only in its subsection e). The reform to Article 60 establishes that any beneficiary of an export contract (contrato de exportación) who voluntarily accepts the reduction of the CAT percentage defined by the National Investment Council (Consejo Nacional de Inversiones) will receive the benefits granted by this law for an additional period starting from 1996 and until 1999, except regarding the exemption from income tax (impuesto sobre la renta), for which the extension will not apply. In the Chamber's judgment, based on what has been set forth above, the content of said reforms does not violate the constitutional text.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>THIRD: ON THE IMPROPER BUDGETARY NORMS.- Regarding subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989, both budget laws – the first is the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budgets of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Fiscal Year 1989, and the second is a law modifying the ordinary revenues for the fiscal year 1989, approved in Article 1 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988. Through these norms, subsections g) and h) were added to Article 61, and Article 61-b was created, both of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988. The subsections g) and h) added to Article 61 of the Income Tax Law refer to certain benefits granted by the Export Contract and Production for Export Contract, specifically the benefit of exemption from all kinds of taxes and surcharges that affect the importation of machinery and equipment, their accessories and spare parts, and certain motor vehicles. As well as the exemption from the general sales (impuestos general sobre las ventas) and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition in the local market of raw materials, inputs, machinery, and equipment, except for vehicles under two metric tons of payload, their accessories and spare parts. Article 61-b establishes that the effectiveness of the tax exemptions is conditioned upon full compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Law and the fulfillment of what is stipulated in the export contracts and programs that are signed. The plaintiff maintains that these norms violate Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180, as they are atypical norms; furthermore, he alleges the violation of Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50, all of the Political Constitution. On repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that the inclusion of provisions with non-budgetary content in budget laws is contrary to the constitutional precepts regarding the power or competence of the Legislative Assembly to enact, reform, or repeal the laws that make up the legal system and those that grant competence or standing to enact the ordinary or extraordinary budgets of the Republic, that is, subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121, 123 to 128, and 176 to 180 of the Political Constitution. Thus, it has been considered that:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>\"III.- ...it is entirely proper to include 'general norms' in budget norms, provided they are linked to the special nature that this subject matter signifies, or what amounts to the same, to the execution of the budget. What is not possible to include in budget laws are norms that do not have that character, since they must be regulated by the provisions for common or ordinary laws ... Although Article 105 of the Political Constitution provides, among other things, that the power to legislate resides in the people, who delegate it through suffrage to the Legislative Assembly, it is in subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121 of the Political Charter that a distinction is made between two different modes and forms of legislating according to the subject matter in question. The first text exclusively attributes to the Legislative Branch the power to 'Enact laws, reform, repeal them, and give them authentic interpretation, except as stated in the article referring to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.' For its part, subsection 11.) also exclusively attributes to said Branch the power to 'Enact the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Republic.' As can be observed, the power in the first subsection constitutes a very broad power that pertains generally to ordinary or common laws, while that of subsection 11.) is of a special nature whose development is contemplated in Articles 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180 in relation to numeral 125 in fine, which prevents the Executive Branch from vetoing budgetary legislation. Thus, if the Constitution contemplates these powers separately, it is because they are legislative acts of different nature and content, even though the budget is a formal and material law and the other laws must also have that character.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>IV.- Article 176 of our Constitution establishes, among other things, that 'the ordinary budget of the Republic comprises all probable revenues and all authorized expenditures of the Public Administration, during the fiscal year ... The budget of the Republic shall be issued for a term of one year, from the first of January to the thirty-first of December.' Based on Articles 177 and following of the Constitution, the special procedures that the Executive Branch and Congress must observe in the processing of said law are further elaborated. The same occurs in the Regulation of Order, Direction, and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly. That is why this Chamber concludes that the budget of the Republic is a formal and material law, but special due to the subject matter that constitutes it and the aforementioned procedure. From the texts cited above, it follows that the competence or standing constitutionally attributed to the Legislative Assembly over such an important matter is to fix in the budgets the probable revenues and authorized expenditures of the Public Administration, with the modalities that the Constitution itself indicates for its modifications and for its extraordinary budgets. Consequently, the Legislative Branch cannot, under the budgetary power noted, regulate matters of a different nature or content from that specialty. The foregoing is consistent with the exclusive power of the Executive Branch to draft the ordinary budget bill and the initiative for its modifications and extraordinary budgets, as well as that of the Legislative Assembly regarding its enactment, and furthermore, with the already analyzed modality that the Executive Branch has no power of veto over its approval, according to numeral 125 of the Fundamental Charter\" (Judgment No. 121-89 at 11:00 hours on November 23, 1989, see also Judgments No. 568-90 at 17:00 hours on April 23, 1990, Placa15777 at 16:00 hours on October 9, 1990, and Placa15778 at 15:06 hours on November 8, 1994). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>In the case now analyzed, it is evident that the provisions of subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989 – norms relating to the exemptions from taxes and surcharges granted by the Export Contract and Production for Export Contract – these norms should have been approved according to the procedures that the Political Constitution and the Regulation of Order and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly provide for the issuance of ordinary laws, and not included as a budgetary norm, it being clear that their content is not of this subject matter. Being in the presence of a situation identical to that addressed in the cited jurisprudence, as it is an atypical norm, and finding no reasons to vary the already expressed criterion, nor reasons of public interest that justify the Chamber reconsidering the question, this action of unconstitutionality is admitted insofar as it is directed against subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989. Therefore, it is unnecessary to refer here to the other alleged violations, especially since the topic of benefits and incentives for exports of non-traditional products was already analyzed in the second whereas clause of this judgment.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>FOURTH: EFFECTS OF THIS DECLARATION.- The action of unconstitutionality has as its object the nullity of the challenged norm, a nullity that, the Chamber has said, is the most serious and radical, as it is an affront to the supreme norm. In accordance with this, the Law governing this Jurisdiction grants declaratory and retroactive effect to the judgment of unconstitutionality. Under this understanding, the Chamber considers that in the case examined here, the principle of Good Faith must be protected and, consequently, the assets of the companies benefiting from the export contract must be guaranteed. For this reason, in this case, the declaration of nullity is to be made effective from the date of this judgment; despite the fact that the coadjuvant \"Costa Rican Association of Flower Growers\" (Asociación Costarricense de Floricultores) had requested that the validity of the benefits be maintained until 1996, the year in which the export contracts expire; and that Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, legal representative of the Association Chamber of Industries of Costa Rica (Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica), requested at the hearing that the validity of the Export Contracts be maintained until 1996, and that in those cases of extension, due to having voluntarily accepted the reduction of the CAT percentage, the benefits of the contract remain in force until 1999. However, the Chamber cannot grant the raised claim in its entirety, since granting it with respect to the norms declared unconstitutional herein – for being spurious – would in practice imply nullifying such a declaration.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Therefore (Por tanto):</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>The action of unconstitutionality is partially granted, and consequently, the following are annulled: 1) Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and 2) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989; both budget laws that added subsections g) and h) to Article 61 and Article 61-b to the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988. This judgment is declaratory and takes effect from this date, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Consequently, the signed export contracts (contratos de exportación) maintain their validity until 1996, as well as until 1999, in those cases where the reduction of the CAT percentage was voluntarily accepted (in accordance with Law 7257 of September 17, 1991). In both cases, the validity of the contracts is maintained except for the benefits established in subsections g) and h) of Article 61, and 61-b), added to the Income Tax Law through the annulled budget laws. In all other respects, the action is dismissed. Let this pronouncement be recorded in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial La Gaceta), published in full in the Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial), and communicated to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Notify.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Luis Paulino Mora M.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>President</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Jorge E. Castro B. Luis Fernando Solano C.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Eduardo Sancho G. Carlos Manuel Arguedas R.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Mario Granados M. Nombre45029</span><span style=\"-aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span>.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>LFSC/secs/jha</span></p></div></body></html> CONSTITUTIONALITY CONTROL MATTERS", "resultado": "Partially upheld", "despachoOrden": "8", "despacho": "Constitutional Chamber", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "1", "fecha": "1995-06-27", "tipoDocumento": "EXT", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "tipoContenido": "Majority vote", "sourceName": "Documentos", "formatoDocumento": "WRITTEN", "tipoResolucion": "On the merits", "tipoInformacion": "Judicial Resolution", "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title></title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span>3327-95. TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR NON-TRADITIONAL EXPORTS OF THE COUNTRY. A) Articles</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No.</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> 5162 of December 22, 1972,</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> \"Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones\";</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> B) Article 4 of Law No.</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> 5909 of June 16,</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> 1976;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> C) Article 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> D) Article 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> E) Articles 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, \"Ley de Impuesto</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> sobre la Renta\";</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> F) subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span><span> No. 7111 of December 12, 1988; and G) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989.</span></p></div></body></html>" }, "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [] } ], "contenidosInteresOrden": "4", "despacho": "Constitutional Chamber", "despachoOrden": "8", "enteSistematizador": "CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER", "esCambioCriterio": "0", "esCriterioUnificador": "0", "esNotaSeparada": "0", "esProtegida": "0", "esResolucionClave": "0", "esResolucionEstructural": "0", "esResolucionOral": "0", "esResolucionRelevante": "1", "esVotoSalvado": "0", "expediente": "900021630007CO", "fecha": "1995-06-27", "formatoDocumento": "WRITTEN", "hora": "15:42", "id": "sen-1-0007-81629", "numeroDocumento": "03327", "redactor": "Luis Fernando Solano Carrera", "sourceName": "Documentos", "subNumeroDocumento": "1", "tipoDocumento": "SNT", "tipoInformacion": "Judicial Resolution", "tipoResolucion": "On the merits", "resultado": "Partially upheld", "controlCons": "Estimatory judgment", "tipoTexto": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "<html><head><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" /><meta http-equiv=\"Content-Style-Type\" content=\"text/css\" /><meta name=\"generator\" content=\"Aspose.Words for .NET 23.6.0\" /><title>03327</title></head><body style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:12pt\"><div><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Exp. No. 2163-S-90 Vote No. 3327-95</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fifteen hours forty-two minutes on June twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Unconstitutionality Action filed by Jorge Eduardo Sánchez, of legal age, single, resident of San José, 1-587-719, against: A) Articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, \"Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones\"; B) Article 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976; C) Article 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984; D) Article 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985; E) Articles 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, \"Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta\"; F) subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988; and G) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>Whereas:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>I.- The action was filed on December 6, 1990. He bases his standing on Article 75, second paragraph, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, alleging the existence of interests of the community as a whole. The plaintiff argues that Articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, \"Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones\"; Article 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976; Article 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984; Article 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985; Articles 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, \"Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta\"; subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988; and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989, violate Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution. He indicates that subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 also violate the Political Constitution in Articles 121, subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180, because they are atypical norms. He argues that the challenged norms establish a series of tax exemptions and grant the benefit of Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to the non-traditional export sector of the country. He affirms that these norms are affecting an interest of the community, since it is with the money of all Costa Ricans—coming from the payment of taxes—that the payment of these Tax Credit Certificates is financed, despite the fact that constitutionally, the State must procure the greatest well-being of all inhabitants. He states that in 1972, the Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones was enacted, whose Chapter III creates a series of \"incentives\" for the non-traditional export sector, which can be summarized as the granting of Tax Credit Certificates and the granting of exemption from customs duties, economic stabilization taxes, consumption taxes, sales taxes, and other taxes whose collection corresponds to the Central Bank, paid on raw materials and other materials used in the production, processing, or conditioning of goods that are exported. And he adds that \"By virtue of reforms produced by subsequent laws, these 'incentives' were magnified and currently, in accordance with current legislation, are as follows:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>1.- Deduction of one hundred percent of the income tax, on that part of the net profits for the period, obtained solely from non-traditional exports made by the declarant to third markets.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>2.- Deduction of fifty percent of the amount paid, through a stock exchange, for the purchase of shares of corporations domiciled in the country that have export programs for one hundred percent of their production or that are exporting that total.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>3.- Exemption from all types of import taxes on raw materials, inputs, and packaging not produced in the country that form part of the component of non-traditional products exported to third markets.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>4.- Exemption from general sales and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition, in the local market, of raw materials, inputs, machinery, and equipment, except vehicles under two tons, their accessories, and spare parts.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>5.- Exemption from all kinds of taxes and surcharges affecting the import of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and the import of motor vehicles. In addition to all of these, they continue to be granted Tax Credit Certificates which, as is known, are instruments through which the State delivers to companies that export non-traditional products to third markets, a certificate for an amount equal to fifteen percent of the FOB value of their operations. With this document, the favored businessmen can make payment of direct and indirect taxes, or sell them on the stock market to convert them into cash.\" The plaintiff bases the violations of the Political Constitution as follows: A) Articles 18 and 33: He argues that the cited \"incentives\" granted only to the non-traditional export sector, and above all, the granting of Tax Credit Certificates, constitute a privilege granted to an economic group, without constitutional support, and on the contrary, violate the principle of equality before public burdens. The principle of equality implies equal legal treatment in equal situations, which prohibits taking discriminatory measures, that is, differentiating between those who are in the same situation or category. So taxpayers in the same situation must be subject, without any distinction, to the same regime relating to fiscal exactions, and tax law must ensure this equality of treatment for taxpayers who are in the same legal or factual situation. To concretize equality before public burdens, especially before the tax regime, it is often necessary for the Legislature (Nombre98441) to establish different categories of taxpayers, thus producing a form of equality by categories. So equality operates with respect to those within the same category. Given that the general principle is equality before public burdens, when the Legislature (Nombre98441) exempts a group or category from the payment of taxes or grants them other benefits, that different situation that justifies the exemption must be clearly verifiable, so that it does not become an arbitrary act of the legislator, by which unjust privileges are granted. The Legislature (Nombre98441) cannot create different categories that do not have reasonable support, that is, it cannot create arbitrary categories and subject some and others to different regimes. So the legal definition of legal situations generates neither discrimination nor privileges. Differentiating treatment must be reasonable and in accordance with the fundamental values of the system. Hence, the establishment of categories and situations that are unnecessary, disproportionate, or inadequate with respect to the facts to which they refer and have no support in a determinable public interest is arbitrary and discriminatory. Logic and justice lead one to say that there is no valid, appreciable reason for the non-traditional export sector to enjoy these incentives, to the detriment of the traditional export sector and all other sectors that make up the country's economic activity. The foregoing because Article 2 of the Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones establishes an exhaustive list of activities that will be considered traditional exports, so that all activities not contained in that list will be considered non-traditional and therefore, may access the benefits conferred by this law and the subsequent laws that regulate these benefits. It can be seen that the Ministry of Foreign Trade is thus given the power to modify the list. It is evident that the categorization carried out by the Legislature (Nombre98441) was arbitrary. There is no valid technical criterion established in the law to differentiate traditional from non-traditional exports. Furthermore, the Legislature (Nombre98441) delegated in a very open and very broad manner the power to determine the beneficiaries of that law, to the Ministry of Foreign Trade. In this case, there is an open delegation, which to some extent may also contravene Article 9 of the Political Constitution. Perhaps traditional products do not also have to compete internationally; they also suffer the damages derived from the anti-export bias that characterizes our economy. There are no differences of significant magnitude that allow the Legislature (Nombre98441) to make such a disproportionate distinction. Hence, these are \"personal\" laws, lacking generality and abstraction, which establish a disparity of treatment among the exporters themselves. B) Article 50: The challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution because not only do they not seek an adequate distribution of wealth, but on the contrary, they have allowed money to be concentrated in a few hands, to the detriment of the well-being of the community. He points out that it has been estimated that Tax Credit Certificates represent an expenditure of more than five billion five hundred million colones that weigh on the National Budget. That millionaire sum is granted to scarcely 572 companies and there are, to date, more than 1300 applications from other companies for this unjust benefit to be granted to them. C) Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution: The plaintiff alleges that subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 and Article 35 of Law No. 7138, which grant the non-traditional export sector to third markets, exemptions from sales and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition in the local market of raw materials, inputs, machinery, equipment, and all kinds of taxes and surcharges on the import of machinery and equipment, as well as their accessories and spare parts, and the import of motor vehicles, also violate Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 of the Political Constitution, since they are \"atypical\" norms. He points out that the reiterated jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber has held that the Budget Law is a formal and material law, enacted by the Legislature (Nombre98441) through a sui generis procedure, in which the supremacy of the Legislative Assembly stands out, since it does not admit the possibility of a veto by the Executive Branch, as provided in Article 178 of the Constitution. It is formal because it is approved by the Legislature (Nombre98441) and material, due to its markedly normative character; since it constitutes the limit of action of the public powers, in accordance with Article 180 of the Political Charter, it can validly contain norms of budgetary content, understood as those that regulate the efficiency and productivity of public spending. But all norms that are not of budgetary content must be enacted through ordinary legislation, by virtue of the attribution contained in subsection 1) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution and consequently, through the ordinary procedure for the formation of laws. He requests that the action be upheld.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>II.- The Chamber granted leave to the action by resolution at 15:00 hours on February 5, 1991, and the notices were published in Judicial Bulletins No. 71, 72, 73, and 74 on April 16, 17, 18, and 19, 1991, respectively.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>III.- The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), through Lic. Adrián Vargas Benavides, Attorney General of the Republic, responded to the hearing according to documents on folios 49 (Request for rejection ad portas), 58 (Request for interlocutory rejection), and 159 (Response to the hearing). In said documents, the Office of the Attorney General argues the total inadmissibility of the present action, as there is no prior pending matter. Despite the plaintiff alleging the existence of a collective interest, the Office of the Attorney General points out that according to reiterated jurisprudence, the Chamber has rejected unconstitutionality actions filed by two Members of Congress, in cases similar to the present one, for completely lacking standing, citing the following judgments: No. 234-90 at 14:00 hours on February 28, 1990, No. 248-90 at 14:00 hours on March 7, No. 495-90 at 15:40 hours on May 15, No. 678-90 at 14:15 hours on June 9, No. 679-90 at 15:00 on June 9, 1990, No. 680-90 at 15:15 on June 19, 1990, No. 1150-90 at 14:15 on September 25, 1990, No. 1332-90 at 15:00 hours on October 23, 1990, No. 1471-90 at 16:30 on October 30, 1990, No. 1634-90 at 16:00 hours on November 14, 1990, No. 504-91 and No. 505-91 both of March 8, 1991. The Office of the Attorney General argues that from all these resolutions, the conclusion can be drawn that in order to invoke the injury of an interest of the community as a whole, it is necessary to be in the presence of an affectation of \"the entire Costa Rican community,\" not of a sector or category within it. The simple invocation of the unconstitutionality of a norm is not sufficient to open the doors of that jurisdiction; rather, there must be a legitimizing link. In the case of the hypothesis of interest of the community, our Law requires, as this Chamber has clearly understood in the cited resolutions, that the entire society be involved. It adds that in the case under examination, such an affectation of society as a whole does not occur, but rather the contraposition of interests between different components of the productive apparatus. This simple contraposition makes it unfeasible to resort to the notion of \"community as a whole\" since the affectation is obviously not general. It points out that it is not appropriate to invoke a mere collective interest, in this case that of the people who do not benefit from the challenged exemptions, to be in the presence of an interest of the nature required by paragraph 2 of Article 75 of the LJC. This means that although it is true we could identify the existence of different collective interests that could be considered affected by the organization of a system of incentives for non-traditional exports, these collective interests do not correspond to the interests of the community as a whole. Evidently, there is another collective interest, of no lesser importance, that is directly benefited by the incentives that the questioned norms grant. We are in the presence of a delicate balance of interests within which one of the components of the community tries to attribute to itself the representation of the interests of the whole. It maintains that in reality, the present action attempts to protect a sector of interests, far from being qualified as representative of the interest of the entire community. It requests that, based on Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, the present action be rejected interlocutorily. As to the merits, the Office of the Attorney General argues that tax incentives find their raison d'être in the evident general interest surrounding the growth and development of the economy. The assessment of the type of incentive is carried out by the Legislature (Nombre98441) by appreciating the particular circumstances of each activity, without this implying a violation of the principle of equality. The Legislature (Nombre98441) has a wide margin of assessment to define the promotion model that will be applied to each sector and assumes the political responsibility of designing the most adequate system. Within this task of organizing the economy, it is perfectly admissible for the Legislature (Nombre98441) to choose to provide special stimuli to a specific sector of the productive apparatus with the purpose of seeking the harmonious and sustained development of the economy. In the specific case of incentives for the export of non-traditional products, the Legislature (Nombre98441) carries out a global assessment of the national productive model and adopts the decision to incentivize the development of that sector with a clear purpose of diversification and growth of national exports. Such an objective is framed within the State's obligation to ensure that the economic organization of the country reaches levels of development and efficiency that allow the improvement of the living conditions of the entire population. In its general statement, such a system of incentives in no way contradicts the Constitution; on the contrary, its existence makes possible the short-term satisfaction of a state mandate of great transcendence. So it is disproven that the challenged norms violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution. Rather, the strengthening of certain specific sectors of production can be seen as a consequence of the mandate of the cited Article 50. The Office of the Attorney General points out that Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution are also not violated because \"... the possibility of resorting to tax incentives is a first-order instrument of economic policy that does not in the least contradict the principle of equality before public burdens. Such reasoning would lead us to maintain that not only are the norms relating to the incentive of the non-traditional sector unconstitutional, but also all tax norms that have the purpose of promoting cooperativism, the exemption from the coffee production tax, the exemption from the sales tax on agricultural inputs, the incentives for industrial production for local consumption still in force, the exemptions for the temporary introduction of raw materials for maquiladora industries. There may be disagreement about the timeliness of all these measures, but what cannot be done is to question the governing competence of the Legislative Assembly regarding their adoption. Each and every one of these activities present particular characteristics that have required the establishment of diverse regimes, diversity which, outright dismisses the possibility that the principle of equality has been violated, which is invocable when different situations are regulated in the same way, or equal situations are regulated differently, a case distinct from that presented with the challenged provisions.\" The Office of the Attorney General adds that only in the event of a rupture of the principles of proportionality and reasonableness that preside over all legislative action, could the Constitutional Chamber hear the merits of the incentive regime for the export of non-traditional products. Such disproportion or lack of reasonableness does not occur in the case under analysis. The instruments in question are the only tool to place non-traditional producers in conditions of international competitiveness. The high capital investments, the high expenses involved in introducing new agricultural or industrial techniques, the harsh conditions of the international market, and the need to place the country in favorable terms for attracting foreign capital investment, make the existence of the entire challenged promotion system fully justifiable. Regardless of the adjustments that must be made to the incentive model, no disproportion is observed that would suggest that the Legislature (Nombre98441) has violated any constitutional mandate. The technical and timeliness considerations that need to be raised for the restructuring of the model are the responsibility of the Legislative Branch, which ultimately is politically responsible for its functioning. Finally, the Office of the Attorney General concludes: \"a) The present action is completely inadmissible due to the plaintiff's lack of standing, and it is appropriate to declare it interlocutorily on that basis according to Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. b) In the event that this Chamber departs from its jurisprudential line and hears the merits of the present action, it must be declared without merit, as it is a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce promotion regimes for the different productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them, and not being in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of said attributions. c) If the Chamber were to rule on the merits of the action, the unconstitutionality of the legal modifications introduced by way of budgetary norms must be declared, namely, subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989.\"</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt\"><span>IV.- On folios 16 and 198, Samuel Yankelewitz Berger, of legal age, married, chemical engineer, identification number CED46402, resident of San José, appears in his capacity as President with the judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Association CÁMARA DE INDUSTRIAS DE COSTA RICA. He appears in order to offer legal and economic arguments relating to the plaintiff's lack of standing. He points out that: \"1.- The petitioner invokes Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional to initiate the present action, since according to him, in this case, 'due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury,' and furthermore, the exemptions granted to the export sector 'are to the detriment of the community.' 2.- In the first place, it is clear that the application of the challenged norms may generate individual and direct injuries, so it is not, from a legal standpoint, technically a case of diffuse interest. 3.- Secondly, it is also not true that the granting of Tax Credit Certificates (CATs) affects the community, but rather, on the contrary, as was clearly demonstrated in the first section of this document, such incentives constitute an important benefit for the national economy. 4.- It is also not true that CATS are paid with money from all other Costa Ricans, which, besides being an attention-grabbing and clearly demagogic argument, lacks legal and economic foundation. 5.- In effect, with the issuance of CATS, the State does not disburse money it already had in its assets and that it would have collected from other taxpayers, but rather supposedly fails to receive tax revenues. But this is also not true, since without the existence of CATS there would be many fewer companies, and logically exports would be substantially reduced. As a consequence of the above, there would be less employment, fewer foreign currency earnings, less national added value, whereby there would be two big losers: the Treasury itself and, ultimately, the Costa Rican people. 6.- So the granting of CATS rather produces benefits for the Treasury and the country's economy, since it constitutes an investment that produces, among other advantages, the generation of eight times more foreign currency for the country's economy than the compensations received by the beneficiaries of such tax incentives. 7.- From the foregoing, it is concluded that in this case, there is no interest that concerns the community as a whole to challenge the validity of the cited norms, since the existence of such compensations to exporters rather represents a benefit for the community. In this way, it is futile and rather contrary to the public interest to try to declare compensatory norms unconstitutional, in the fiscal sphere, which imply the entry of considerable sums of foreign currency into the country and of taxes to the State, by way of social charges and other direct and indirect taxes. 8.- By reason of what was previously indicated, the petitioner lacks procedural standing, under the terms of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, to file the present unconstitutionality action, which must be rejected ad-portas for being manifestly unfounded.\" He also points out that the principle of equality before public burdens derived from the principle of equality is not violated, because differential treatment can also be granted when it is reasonably justified. CATS and other tax incentives have been granted to exporters of non-traditional products because of the factual situation they are in, distinct from the rest of the exporters. Furthermore, their existence provides the country with numerous advantages. Without such tax incentives, exports would decline considerably, which would cause unemployment, a drop in the State's tax revenues, and a considerable reduction in foreign currency inflow. If the questioned tax incentives were eliminated, non-traditional product entrepreneurs would receive discriminatory treatment since they would be forced to compete, with respect to other businessmen, under unequal conditions. He alleges the non-applicability of the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution because, in the case of the establishment of CATS and other challenged tax incentives, what the Legislature (Nombre98441) did was precisely apply the programmatic norm contained in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, given that through them, it established incentives for exports, as one of the most effective means to achieve the well-being of the inhabitants of the Republic.</span></p></div></body></html> Regarding the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Political Constitution, by virtue of which, according to the claimant's statement, an open power was granted to the Ministry of Foreign Trade to determine the benefits conferred in the law, the coadjuvant points out that such "open power" is not true because "the law is clear in establishing what the maximum benefits are that can be granted to exporters. Logically, a certain margin of discretion is granted to the Ministry of Trade so that, within the parameters established by the law itself, it can grant the incentives created by it to the different exporting companies, in order to take into account the specific requirements of each one of them... The law could not be so inelastic as to not allow the executive bodies in charge of applying it to dimension it in time and space, according to the specific needs of each particular case... From a legal point of view, such flexibility does not, of course, imply a violation of the principle of separation of powers, since it is not authorizing the invasion of functions of the Executive Branch with respect to the Legislative Branch. It is simply specifying the powers of the Executive Branch regarding export incentives." At folio 198, the Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica stated that the action must be rejected outright, for being manifestly unfounded in view of the fact that the claimant lacks procedural standing and because it is a reiteration of a matter already decided by the Chamber, through judgment No. 504-91. It argues that: "In judgment 504-91, which rejected the unconstitutionality action against all exemption laws in force at that time due to the claimant's lack of standing, the Chamber also resolved the present matter, since the exemptions contemplated in the Export Promotion Law had also been challenged in that action... The case decided through resolution 504-91 is identical to the present one, since the claimant was Deputy Dr. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Sáenz, while in the present case, the claimant is also a Deputy, Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez... If in that action it was established that Mr. Gutiérrez, in his personal capacity or as a deputy, was not the holder of a collective or diffuse interest, it is logical to conclude that in the present case the ruling must be in the same form, since the assumptions are identical... The Chamber stated in that judgment that... In cases such as the present one, the interest that is considered injured must be at least immediate, with respect to the group or community in favor of which the unconstitutionality action is brought, a group or community that is the holder of that diffuse or collective interest, to which the person exercising it must belong, who will thus have a mediate interest in it, an interest that consequently cannot be of such a degree of abstraction as to maintain that any violation of the Constitution, for that reason alone, legitimizes any person to bring it...".

V.- By means of a brief filed at folio 63, Name61107, of legal age, married, Engineer, resident of Escazú, identity card number CED75399, in his capacity as President with judicial and extrajudicial representation of the Asociación CAMARA DE EXPORTADORES DE COSTA RICA, appears with the purpose of defending the constitutionality of the challenged norms and providing a series of legal, economic, and social considerations in support thereof. He maintains that: "The laws whose unconstitutionality is sought created a system of incentives that allows for the achievement of three basic objectives: A) Diversification of export products. Upon creating a regime of incentives for so-called non-traditional products in 1972, the goal was to develop other export products. Even though technical and economic policy reasons justified this measure, its development by entrepreneurs and producers was not so attractive, for the following reasons: i- High investment and costs. ii- Lack of knowledge of the technology and lack of technical support. iii- Lack of knowledge of the market and marketing. iv- High risk and international competitiveness. v- Difficulties in payment and collection procedures. In this way, the incentives granted by the Law sought to compensate for the inconveniences of diversification and, in a long-term vision, to procure greater benefits for the country. B) Increase in foreign exchange earnings for the country. By promoting new exports, the Law also sought, as a logical consequence, an increase in the country's foreign exchange earnings. The Law guarantees that the incentives will be granted to companies that deliver their income in foreign currency to the Banco Central de Costa Rica and requires the exporter to submit an annual report of their exports. This has a direct impact on improving the country's balance of payments. C) Significant contribution to the national product. By requiring that companies have at least 35% value added (valor agregado), the Law guarantees that the export activity being incentivized leaves a significant contribution to the gross domestic product. This has direct consequences in other economic aspects, such as: i- Increase in the level of employment. ii- Increase in national wealth, through new investments and developed projects. iii- Development of new technologies and specialization of the workforce. From the stated objectives, we can conclude that by incentivizing exports, what is ultimately sought is greater economic and social development for the country." He adds that the results obtained from the export incentives program justify its existence. As of March 1991, there are more than 30 products with exports exceeding one hundred and fifty million colones, among which 5 exceed two billion colones in annual exports. Most of them have very significant growth rates, as demonstrated in the graphs at folios 75-81. The increase in income is reflected by the increase in the volume of exports, which went from 333.3 million dollars in 1985 to an estimated 691.4 million dollars in 1990 (projection based on data from September 1990). The contribution of foreign exchange to the country to improve the situation of our balance of payments is an aspect of greater importance as the trade deficit increases, since our imports have grown at a greater volume than exports, which can have serious consequences for the standard of living and general well-being of the country. It is therefore essential to increase exports even further. Regarding the level of employment, companies with export contracts have generated more than 50,000 new jobs and purchases of domestic raw materials of more than thirty billion colones. This in turn generates a higher level of production and the development of an important parallel activity. The Tax Credit Certificates (CATS) have a multiplier effect because they generate wealth, as observed at folio 81. Regarding the alleged violation of the principle of equality before public burdens, he argues that discrimination of categories does not exist, because to a certain extent the category arises from the law. The purpose of the norm is to incentivize non-traditional exports; this category is developed fundamentally by the Government's stimulus policies. The application of this principle is not absolute but rather assumes that equality of sacrifice will be required from individuals or groups in the same situation. Due to the technical and economic circumstances that justify the incentive regime, exporting companies are not in the same situation or category. Furthermore, the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) implies a limited validity for some of the incentives. So, if the principle is not absolute, its violation cannot be generic. The distinction established by law between traditional and non-traditional exporters was justified at the time of its enactment, foreseeing the power of the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Commerce to modify the list that established the distinction, when it was in the interest of the country's economic and social development. There is no discrimination in the Law if it legally contains the possibility of a modification that adapts to the demands of reality. On the other hand, through the system of export incentives, the State seeks greater well-being for the country's inhabitants, since by stimulating the growth of exports, production grows and through them greater general well-being of the population is achieved, as the level of employment increases and there is greater availability of foreign currency, which allows for improved consumption and living standards for Costa Ricans. He points out that the CATS are neither legally nor technically an expenditure of money charged to the State. The certificates are granted as a benefit to a new activity and for a specific purpose (the payment of taxes). As an incentive, it is subject to two fundamental conditions: the export of new products and the delivery of foreign currency to the Central Bank. The mere fact of managing the foreign currency brings the State an economic benefit (the exchange rate differential), coupled with the positive impact of export growth on the economy. Finally, he states that the exemptions and benefits granted to exporters of non-traditional products are justified and supported by social, economic, and constitutional reasons (Article 50 of the Political Constitution), without this signifying the breach of other constitutional principles and norms. He requests that this action be denied.

VI.- At folio 82, there is a brief filed by Miguel Efraín Shyfter Lepar, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of San Rafael de Escazú, identity card number CED72634, in his capacity as President with faculties as a generalisimo agent without limit of amount of TEJIDOS AGUILA S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75400; Germán Wiernik Waisuchier, of legal age, married, graduate in Business Administration, identity card number CED75401, in his capacity as Vice-President with faculties as a generalisimo agent without limit of amount acting in the absence of the President of PEGASO INTERNACIONAL S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75402; Name98442, single surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, industrialist, resident of this city, Indian with passport of the Republic of India number Placa15779, in my capacity as President with faculties as a generalisimo agent without limit of amount of GAZAPATI DE COSTA RICA S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75403; Name98443, with a single surname due to his nationality, of legal age, married, businessman, U.S. citizen, resident of San José, residence card number CED75404, in his capacity as General Manager with faculties as a generalisimo agent of J. W. CONFECCIONES A.M. S.A., with legal entity identification number CED75405; Julio Kierszenson Mamet and Edgar Cordero Martínez, both of legal age, lawyers, residents of San Antonio de Belén, married, with identity card numbers CED75406 and CED59730 respectively, in their capacity as special judicial agents of CONFECCIONES JOHAMA S.A., a brief in which these company representatives appear as coadjuvants, since they hold a legitimate interest in the final resolution issued in this action, by virtue of the fact that they are holders of the incentives that the laws challenged here establish in favor of exporters of non-traditional products. By means of a brief at folio 114, Mr. Miguel Efraín Schyfter Lepar, with the personal details mentioned previously, appears in his capacity as President with faculties as a generalisimo agent without limit of amount of the association CAMARA DE LA INDUSTRIA TEXTIL Y DE CONFECCION DE COSTA RICA, and requests that said Chamber be considered an interested party in this action, since it holds a legitimate interest in the judgment issued. At folio 171, there is a brief from Edgar Cordero M. and Julio Kierszenson M., recognized in the proceedings as special judicial agents of Cámara de la Industria Textil y de Confección de Costa Rica, Tejidos Aguila S.A., Pegaso Internacional S.A., Gazapati de Costa Rica S.A., J. W. Confecciones A.M. S.A., and Confecciones Johama S.A., appearing to set forth the grounds on which they base their intervention as coadjuvants. They state that historically, from our country's economic development, various export incentive models have emerged, originating from real and objective circumstances that justified their existence at the time and justify it currently, without entailing a violation or infringement of the constitutional principles of contribution to public burdens and equality before the law. On the other hand, through these incentive models, the State has not only not violated Article 50 of the Political Constitution, but has complied with and implemented it, by making possible the growth of the Costa Rican economy and, therefore, the well-being of all Costa Ricans and not only of the businesspeople who have ventured into the activities promoted by the State. In this way, the Costa Rican State has played, throughout our history, a dynamic role in promoting economic development. Thus, it has promoted different productive sectors, which it has chosen at each moment for their potential to become the dynamic engine of the country's future growth. The Costa Rican State has set as its objective finding the path of sustained and sustainable long-term economic development; this has led it to adopt and adapt to changing historical circumstances, different action frameworks that have shaped, over time, various development models. In 1821, coffee plants and land were distributed among people of scarce resources so they could produce coffee. In 1825, coffee production was exempted from many taxes, and in 1831, each farm that had been cultivated with coffee for 5 consecutive years was declared the property of the peasant who cultivated it. This State action not only consolidated a development based on small properties but also consolidated the first productive activity—at that time non-traditional—that actively linked our economy to the international market, resulting at that time in an accelerated production of national wealth, which made possible a benefit for all Costa Ricans, among others: the construction of the interoceanic railway, the National Theater (Teatro Nacional), and the illumination of the city of San José. After the coffee boom, the banana activity was protected by the State, which granted great benefits in favor of that industry through the Contracts signed with the Banana Company, in which public vacant lands were granted in concession and the exemption from the payment of income tax was created, among others. As a consequence of that policy, the banana became a new export product—non-traditional at that time—which generated economic progress and employment in areas of our territory that were unexploited until then. World War II revealed the weakness of our economy. The Import Substitution Model was then adopted, which aimed to promote the industrial sector and, therefore, the diversification of the productive structure. This objective was sought to be achieved through tariff protection and the expansion of markets through the Central American Common Market. The foregoing was a consequence of the exhaustion of the primary goods-producing sector (coffee, sugar, cocoa, and meat) destined for export and its inability to continue being the dynamic sector of the economy, due to the limitations imposed by the international market and the recurring crises to which the country was subjected by depending on these products, entirely subject to the whims of external demand. Through this model, various benefits and incentives were granted under the Central American Agreement on Fiscal Incentives for Industrial Development (Convenio Centroamericano de Incentivos Fiscales al Desarrollo Industrial), such as total or partial exemption from the payment of customs duties and other related charges for the importation of machinery, equipment, raw materials, etc., exemption from income tax for companies covered by this regime and for their partners. In addition, there was the Agreement on the Regime of Central American Integration Industries, which granted exclusivity to certain industries in exploiting the Central American market. In the second half of the 1970s, the exhaustion of the Import Substitution Model became evident; the economy's growth rates decelerated, and the country suffered economic strangulation due to the severe limitations imposed by the availability of foreign currency. However, the capacity for external indebtedness allowed the Import Substitution Model to remain in force for several more years, until the 1980 crisis forced the search for alternative paths. Since 1972, the Costa Rican State had been trying to steer the economy along alternative paths. The Export Promotion Law (Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones) of that year created the Tax Credit Certificates (Certificados de Abono Tributario) to incentivize exports of non-traditional products, and in 1984, the current Export Contract, which unifies into a single legal instrument the various benefits and incentives for exports of non-traditional products, was enacted. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model aims to solve the problems in the external sector that the Import Substitution Model could not resolve. The main problem was that the country's export base continued to depend on the primary product export sector, which could not provide the country with the necessary resources for sustainable and stable economic growth. By virtue of the Central American Clearing House mechanism, exports to that market were not to be paid in foreign currency, but in the currency of the purchasing country. Due to this mechanism, and our country's trade surplus with the rest of the area, Costa Rica accumulated unsatisfied credits in foreign currency, which rendered ineffective and inefficient the efforts aimed at expanding our country's international trade through exchange with the area. The Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model attacked the greatest structural problem of our economy: the strangulation of the external sector, that is, our impossibility of continuing to import at the rate we had been doing, since the foreign currency generated by exports was insufficient to pay for our imports, and at the same time, external financing sources were exhausted due to our country's default on its external debt. Therefore, to emerge from the crisis it was necessary to diversify the country's export base, producing non-traditional products that could compete advantageously in the international market. However, it was necessary to eliminate the obstacles of the anti-export bias in our economy, manifested in all the barriers and disadvantages that businesspeople faced in producing and exporting their products to the international market, such as deficient port infrastructure with higher tariffs than those prevailing in the international market, high social charges, slow and complicated bureaucratic processes for authorizing exports, etc. In addition to the foregoing, producers and exporters of non-traditional products had to face several limitations such as lack of experience in venturing into the international market with non-traditional products, the extremely high entry costs in potential markets, uncertainty in the marketing and intermediation of products, protectionist barriers in countries potentially importing our products, and the great benefits and incentives for export granted by those countries that are our direct competitors (including benefits identical to and even greater than our Tax Credit Certificate). For all the foregoing reasons, for the success of the Non-Traditional Export Promotion Model, on which our economic survival depended, it was essential to make investments in that sector profitable, so that the businesspeople involved in that sector could mitigate the costs caused by the mentioned internal and external negative factors and assume the extremely high risks of their investment, while their learning process matured and the productive restructuring required to face the new challenges was consolidated. That was the reason why, once again in our economic history, the Costa Rican State granted a specific productive sector certain temporary benefits and incentives; these were established for a period of 12 years and designed by Name98441 in such a way that they responded to the incentives granted for the export of similar products in countries competing with ours. The economic measures adopted by the Costa Rican State seek, in summary: on one hand, to incentivize and promote what is not available and is needed, and on the other, to maintain what is already available because it was promoted in its time. To maintain what is already available, different laws have been enacted that grant benefits and incentives also to the production and export of traditional products, such as the laws regulating relations between producers, processors, and exporters of coffee, and between producers, industrializers, and exporters of sugarcane, which guarantee producers the purchase, by the industrializers, of their entire harvest, with the corresponding advances and regulating the credits granted to those productive activities. Such a guarantee of purchase of their entire production is not available to producers and exporters of non-traditional products, who, on the contrary, are subject to the uncertainty of an unknown and risky market. In turn, the Banana Promotion Law (Ley de Fomento Bananero) grants important exemptions, including the setting by the State of the purchase prices of the fruit to the producer. Objective economic reality shows that the "categorization" between traditional and non-traditional producers is not "arbitrary" but responds to the international environment in which our economy inevitably develops. Therefore, the challenged laws are neither "personal" nor "lacking in generality" nor "abstract," but rather respond to a coherent economic policy of the Costa Rican State framed within constitutional principles. They request that this action be rejected outright for lack of standing, or failing that, that it be denied on the merits, since the challenged legal norms do not violate Articles 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution.

VII.- By means of a brief at folio 105, Cecil Alfaro Bravo, of legal age, married, businessman, resident of San José, identity card number CED75407, in his capacity as President with judicial and extrajudicial representation of the ASOCIACION COSTARRICENSE DE FLORICULTORES, appears in order to support the actions defending the constitutionality of the challenged laws. At folio 188, he requests that the Association he represents be considered a coadjuvant. He sets forth the following arguments: Floriculture in Costa Rica is a recent activity with a high growth rate. The system of export incentives is essential for the development and maintenance of floriculture, since the flower activity, in its development and consolidation stage, requires time to form and create a tradition of its cultivation and harvest in our workers, as well as to adapt technology to the country. Furthermore, the investment per production area is one of the highest in agriculture. He estimates that the existing infrastructure as of March 1991 has an approximate value of 3.5 billion colones for 330 hectares of cultivation. The very high investment per hectare is due to the need to build greenhouses, prepare soils, drainage systems, install an irrigation and fumigation system, a covered area for packaging, a cold room, and special machinery and tools for the care and harvest of flowers. In addition, floriculture is subject to a double high risk: first, the damage caused by climatic reasons and diseases is greater due to the intensity and sensitivity of the crop. International phytosanitary and quality requirements are very strict, so any small problem detected in the flowers means their loss. Second, the limited facilities for air transport increase the risk of the activity and increase the cost of a possible loss. It should be remembered that the flower is a highly perishable product and very sensitive to changes in conditions, so the simple delay of a flight or exposure of the flowers to the sun also means their rejection in the international market. The system of incentives, fundamentally the regime of exemptions, is indispensable for the development of the floriculture sector and its definitive consolidation. There are many flower exporting companies that cannot opt for the Tax Credit Certificate by virtue of a suspension agreement signed with the Government of the United States (this affects the export of some types of flowers to that country). The flower activity provides important benefits to the country's economy, which justifies the existence of the incentive system. Floriculture is an activity that generates an important source of employment; in 1990, 4,500 direct workers were employed, plus the indirect jobs related to the activity (greenhouse construction, supplies, transportation, and others). The contribution of technology to the country is very significant, as it allows for the appreciation and understanding of the importance of research and development of proprietary knowledge and processes in the field of agriculture. The location of the projects and the type of work allow for the development of rural areas of the country, in the economic, cultural, and technological fields. A relevant factor of floriculture is its value added (valor agregado), which reaches 70%. This represents greater income generation for the country and better use of its resources. He argues that the export incentive regime is amply justified and does not violate the principle of equality before public burdens. The incentive regime is necessary for the definitive consolidation of floriculture. The termination of the regime would mean the closure of many companies, which would harm rights protected by the Political Constitution. With the incentive system, the State complies with the constitutional mandate established in Article 50. The Political Constitution presupposes a harmonious balance of all societal interests. The cancellation of export incentives would cause irreparable damage to flower exporting companies. The change of the conditions established until the year 1996 (by the export contract) would mean the closure of an activity in the consolidation process; which implies the loss of foreign exchange earnings from exports, jobs, technology, and large investments in infrastructure and plants. He requests that, based on Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this action be denied. Otherwise, he requests that, based on Article 91 of the cited Law and Article 34 of the Political Constitution, the validity of the contracts signed by the State and the benefits derived from them be maintained until 1996.

VIII.- At folio 183, there is a fax signed by Name98444, General Secretary of the Unión de Productores Agropecuarios de Pérez Zeledón, by means of which the UPIAV "... supports the appeal filed and requests a favorable resolution to eliminate the privilege that the Tax Credit Certificates (CAT) represent, which most favors a small sector with very high economic power, thus harming all Costa Ricans." IX.- The oral hearing referred to in Articles 10 and 85 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) was held at 9:15 a.m. on June 22, 1995, with the attendance of the claimant Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez Sibaja, the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic Lic. Farid Beirute Brenes in association with the Administrative Attorney Licda. Ana Lorena Brenes, representing the coadjuvants Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez and Ing.

Samuel Yankelewitz, as recorded on folio 264.

X.- This resolution is issued in accordance with the provisions of Transitory Provision II of Law No. 7135 of October 11, 1989.

Drafted by Magistrate SOLANO CARRERA; and,

Considering:

FIRST: ON ADMISSIBILITY.- Regarding admissibility, the Chamber already resolved at the appropriate time by means of a resolution at 3:00 p.m. on February 5, 1991, in which this action was admitted, as recorded on folio 56.

SECOND: ON THE MERITS.- In relation to Articles 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, called the "Law for the Promotion of Exports" ("Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"), 4 of Law No. 5909 of June 16, 1976, 40 of Law No. 6955 of February 24, 1984, 11 of Law No. 6999 of September 3, 1985, 60 and 61 of Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, the petitioner alleges that these norms violate Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for all the reasons stated in resultando number I. For its part, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), regarding the merits of this action, upheld their constitutionality (resultando II). In turn, the legal entities appearing as coadjuvants defend the constitutionality of the challenged norms, according to the reasons set forth in considerandos IV, V, VI, and VII of this judgment. The Chamber considers that these norms, which grant benefits and incentives for the export of non-traditional products, do not violate Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50 of the Political Constitution, for the reasons that will be stated below:

A).- Regarding the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Political Constitution concerning the "broad and open delegation" that the Legislature (Nombre98441) makes in Article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, in favor of the Ministry of Economy, Industry, and Commerce, alleged by the petitioner, the Chamber finds that said article does not contain a broad and open delegation, but rather a relative delegation. On this topic, the Chamber referred in Judgment No. 730-95 at 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995:

"V.- REGARDING THE CITED DECREE NUMBER 23785-H: This Chamber does not share the criterion upheld by the representatives of the appellants, in the sense that Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) number 23785-H, published in La Gaceta number 228 of November thirtieth of last year, violates the principle of 'Reserve of Law' (Reserva de Ley) -contained in subsection 13 of Article 121 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, since its content, as already noted, does not create any tax and for the explanation of this point, it is necessary to analyze the following aspects: a) The Sales Tax Law, Law number 6826 of November eighth, nineteen eighty-two and its reforms, establishes a value-added tax on the sale of merchandise (all) and on the provision of certain services; b) While it is true that Article 9 of the cited General Sales Tax Law establishes that the sale of merchandise comprising the 'Basic Food Basket' (Canasta Básica Alimentaria) is exempt from the payment of that tax, it is also true that the Regulation to that Law, Executive Decree number 14082-H of November twenty-ninth, nineteen eighty-two and its reforms, and not the former, is the normative body that determines which articles comprise it, so the exemption that 'ice cream and non-canned cookies' enjoyed -articles produced and marketed by the appellant Companies- came not from the Law but from the noted Regulation, since it is through the regulation that the exemption is established; c) On the other hand, it should be noted that the prohibition of taxing with the selective consumption tax in the case of merchandise referred to in Article 9 of the General Sales Tax Law, and established by numeral 17 of the cited normative body, is valid solely and exclusively for those articles that comprise the 'Basic Food Basket,' that is, those contemplated in the Regulation to said Law. From the clarifications set forth, it is clear with crystalline clarity that it was the legislator himself, taking into account variable factors such as those interacting in a country's economy and to fully comply with the purposes of the law -regarding the mentioned exemption-, who delegated, to the Executive Branch, in relative form, the possibility of determining which are the articles or merchandise that, at a given moment, must comprise the 'Basic Food Basket' -which is the one exempt from tax payment, independently of the articles that comprise it-, so that the exclusion or inclusion by the Executive of certain merchandise on that list does not imply, as alleged in the appeal, the creation of an exemption or a tax, as the case may be, by a means other than the Law, that is, an 'Absolute Delegation.' Indeed, the possibility of including new merchandise on the list referred to in Article 9 of the Sales Tax Law does not imply a delegation of the 'Tax Power' (Potestad Tributaria) -which is exclusively the competence of the Legislative Assembly-, or usurpation of it by the Executive, but rather a consequence of the nature or type of the tax and the variable economic factors that require, in some cases, the inclusion of new articles, all with the intention that the purposes pursued by the law are fulfilled. Therefore, the appeal, as it pertains to the mentioned Decree 23785-H, must be dismissed and shall be so declared." In the present case, in Article 2 of Law No. 5162 of December 22, 1972, what the Legislature included was a relative delegation, given that it is a power of the Legislative Branch to introduce promotion regimes for the "different productive sectors" -by which must be understood special fiscal regimes: by zones (Golfito), by activities (construction of low-income housing), and by specific conditions (extreme poverty)-, depending on the particularities that characterize them, these in turn depend on variable factors that interact in the country's economy, for which reason it is reasonable and necessary that it be the Executive Branch that can define which export products are to be included on the list. The foregoing, because what may initially be considered a "non-traditional export product" may, over the years and according to economic conditions, come to be considered a "traditional export product." We are dealing with a very technical matter that is constantly determined by the multiple variables affecting the national economy and the international market. Consequently, Article 2 of the Law for the Promotion of Exports of December 22, 1972, does not violate the principle of separation of powers established in Article 9 of the Political Constitution, but rather, the Legislature is making use of its powers -to introduce promotion regimes for different productive sectors- and makes a relative delegation in favor of the Executive Branch, a delegation that, as the Attorney General's Office noted, is not disproportionate or unreasonable.

B).- Regarding the principle of equality before public burdens and the generic principle of equality, the Chamber already referred in Judgment No. 1266-95 at 3:39 p.m. on March 7, 1995:

"... the Chamber considers that there has been no violation of the principle of equality before the law, because it cannot be understood that equality means that everyone must be treated equally, regardless of possible differences between individuals. The principle of equality means that discriminatory inequalities cannot be introduced, although reasonable inequalities, justified by any differentiating element of legal relevance, can be introduced; because giving similar treatment to unequal situations would entail a greater inequality. Giving diverse treatment to different situations is compatible with a democratic and social State of Law, due to the values it enshrines: Justice, Liberty, Equality, Legal Certainty, and Solidarity. In tax matters, equality supposes, on one hand, the economic effort of society paying taxes, and on the other, the State deciding on the needs to satisfy by priorities. Tax equality implies intervention on the rules of the free market; it is a subsystem of norms -tax norms- within the legal system... The Constitution empowers the Legislature to create laws that incorporate the principle of material equality based on objective reasons." (See also judgment 782-93 at 4:24 p.m. on February 16, 1993, and judgment 1160-94 at 10:30 a.m. on March 2, 1994).

In the case under examination, the Attorney General's Office is right in pointing out that the Legislative Branch has the power to introduce promotion regimes for the different productive sectors based on the particularities that characterize them. Furthermore, we are not in the presence of a disproportionate or unreasonable use of said attributions, especially considering that said benefits were granted for 12 years, that is, they are temporary incentives, which in turn imparts greater reasonableness and proportionality to the legislative policy adopted through the challenged norms. These benefits and incentives, especially the Export Contract (Contrato de Exportación), the Tax Credit Certificate (Certificado de Abono Tributario, CAT), and the certificate for the increase in exports (certificado de incremento a las exportaciones, CIEX), constitute suitable, reasonable, and proportionate instruments to place exporters of non-traditional products in conditions of international competitiveness. In order to increase our country's exports, the Costa Rican State sought a viable alternative to compensate for the internal and external limitations faced by exporters of non-traditional products to third markets. Furthermore, exporters of non-traditional products were in a de facto situation very different from exporters of traditional products. Because venturing into the production and export of a new product and breaking into the international market without experience presents several drawbacks, including: high investment and costs, lack of knowledge of technology and lack of technical support, lack of knowledge of the market and marketing, high risk and international competitiveness, difficulties in payment and collection procedures. On the other hand, the multiplier effect of the Tax Credit Certificate must be kept in mind. The CATs are compensatory norms in the fiscal sphere that generate benefits for the entire country, by virtue of generating many millions of colones in labor, social security contributions, and consumption of national raw materials; the latter allows the development of parallel activities. In general, incentives for the production of non-traditional products and the increase of the country's exports have several positive consequences, for example: the country has clear possibilities of emerging from the economic crisis, there is greater availability of foreign currency to pay for imports, the level of employment increases (the private sector absorbs labor), there is technology transfer, development of new production areas not subject to the whims of the international market, and finally, due to the location of the projects and the type of work, it allows for economic, social, cultural, and technological development of the country's rural areas. The development of rural zones, through laws that allow achieving a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country, was already analyzed by the Chamber in Judgment No. 319-95 at 2:42 p.m. on January 17, 1995:

"ON THE MERITS: As is a public and notorious fact, Law 7012 of November 4, 1985, was enacted as a means of partial solution to the serious economic and social crisis generated by the desertion of the companies that exploited banana production in the South Pacific of the country. Due to the degree of development of those companies' activities and the economic importance that banana cultivation acquired in that region, the population not directly employed by said companies developed secondary or peripheral economic activities in order to supply goods and services to the main activity. So that in one way or another, the economic activity of the region had the production and export of bananas as its main driving element. The phenomenon could perhaps be called an 'economic enclave,' as some sector of the doctrine defines it. When those companies decided to conclude their activities in our country, they produced a serious deterioration in the zone's economy and forced many people to abandon their businesses and other private activities organized around them. Given the severe depression that all this caused, the Government proposed to the Legislative Assembly the project that gave rise to the Law challenged here, as one of the solutions conceived to reactivate production in that zone and allow it, through differentiated treatment, to achieve a stable and reasonable equality with the rest of the country. IV.- The object of the Law, in synthesis, is to permit the operation of a 'Free Depot' (Depósito Libre) or free zone in the city of Golfito, in order to attract buyers who contribute to lifting the zone's economy. The law also promotes the construction of hotels and the establishment of businesses dedicated to commerce in general, all under the incentive of reducing import tariffs on products used or sold there." (See also judgment 321-95 at 2:48 p.m. on January 17, 1995).

From the preceding analysis, it is concluded that the creation of the challenged benefits and incentives rather compensates for the difficulties faced by producers and exporters of non-traditional products to third markets, who would normally have to compete under unequal conditions. Thus, the Chamber finds no reason whatsoever to consider that they violate Articles 18 and 33 of the Political Constitution and, as will be seen below, they rather fall within the provisions of Article 50 of the Fundamental Norm.

C).- In relation to the alleged violation of Article 50 of the Political Constitution, the Chamber considers that the benefits and incentives established by the norms challenged here, far from violating Article 50, rather come to fulfill that programmatic norm. The State must promote and procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, through the organization and stimulation of production, as well as the most adequate distribution of wealth. On this topic, the Chamber ruled in judgment 550-95 at 4:33 p.m. on January 31, 1995, stating that:

"The State can, then, attempt to shape its socio-economic ends and objectives by promoting private initiative, or by fostering, through incentives, the activity to which it is dedicated; or, by means of imposing certain duties on individuals in order to maintain the economic well-being of the population at an acceptable minimum... The current Constitution, in its Article 50, enshrines an important criterion in this matter, giving constitutional foundation to a certain degree of State intervention in the economy, as long as it is not incompatible with the spirit and conditions of the 'social market economy' model constitutionally established, that is, this norm postulates, and in its constitutional context, economic freedom but with a certain degree of reasonable, proportionate, and non-discriminatory state intervention, allowing the State, within such limits, to organize and stimulate production, as well as to ensure an 'adequate' distribution of wealth. This Chamber, in its judgment # 1441-92, at 3:45 p.m. on June of 1992, ordered:

'The general basic principle of the Political Constitution is embodied in the article, by providing that 'the State shall procure the greatest well-being for all the inhabitants of the country, organizing and stimulating production and the most adequate distribution of wealth,' which, together with the declaration of the Costa Rican State's adherence to the Christian principle of social justice, included in Article 74 ibidem, determines the very essence of the political and social system we have chosen for our country and which defines it as a Social State of Law.'" With the establishment of the benefits and incentives under examination, the Costa Rican State procures several objectives, among them: diversification of export products, increase in foreign currency income, which implies a substantial improvement in the balance of payments, because the incentives are granted to those companies that deliver their income generated by exports in foreign currency to the Central Bank of Costa Rica (under the obligation to inform said Bank annually about the exports made), significant contribution to the country's gross domestic product, which brings with it: an increase in the employment level, an increase in national wealth -new investments and projects developed-, the development of new technologies, and the specialization of labor. All of this logically implies greater economic and social development for the country. In the Chamber's judgment, it is evident that the establishment of the challenged benefits and incentives means an increase in the well-being of all the country's inhabitants, because through its multiplier effect, the CAT is transformed into many millions of colones in employment, social charges, consumption of raw materials -which implies the emergence of an entire parallel activity- and the increase in exports, which in turn means the possibility of emerging from the economic crisis the country is undergoing, with the additional benefit of greater availability of foreign currency to cover imports of indispensable products that must necessarily be purchased abroad. The Costa Rican State has the constitutional obligation to seek economic formulas that allow for the better and greater development of the country and that logically mean an increase in the well-being of all inhabitants, provided that this economic tool is in full conformity with constitutional norms and principles, as stated to be the case here. Therefore, the challenged norms do not violate Article 50 of the Political Constitution. It must be placed on record that in the oral hearing (on June 22 of this year), the plaintiff made statements that seemed to redirect his position to challenge the way in which the export incentive system (CAT) is functioning or is being applied by the administration, but despite presenting a written summary of his conclusions, it is not clear how the claim would be directed against the way it operates and not against the incentive system itself. In any event, stated in such a generic form, the problem would not really be one of constitutionality, but rather an administrative maladjustment, which, being correctable, would confirm the legitimacy of the incentive program now being analyzed.

D).- Regarding Articles 60 and 61 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), the Chamber notes that both articles -challenged here- were reformed by Law 7257 of September 17, 1991, that is, subsequent to the filing of the complaint. Article 60 was reformed in its introductory statement and in subsections a) and c), and Article 61 was reformed only in its subsection e). The reform to Article 60 establishes that any beneficiary of an export contract who voluntarily avails themselves of the reduction in the percentage of the CATs defined by the National Investment Council (Consejo Nacional de Inversiones), will receive the benefits granted by this law for an additional period starting in 1996 and until 1999, except as regards the income tax exemption, for which the extension will not apply. In the Chamber's judgment, due to what has been previously stated, the content of said reforms does not violate the constitutional text.

THIRD: ON IMPROPER BUDGETARY NORMS.- Regarding subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989, both budget laws -the first, is the Law of Ordinary and Extraordinary Budgets of the Republic, Fiscal and by Programs for the Fiscal Year 1989, and the second, is a law by which ordinary revenues for the fiscal year 1989, approved in Article 1 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, are modified-. Through these norms, subsections g) and h) are added to Article 61, and Article 61-bis, both of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, is created. Subsections g) and h) added to Article 61 of the Income Tax Law refer to certain benefits granted by the Export Contract and the Production for Export Contract, specifically the benefit of exemption from all kinds of taxes and surcharges affecting the importation of machinery and equipment, their accessories and spare parts, and certain automotive vehicles. As well as, the exemption from the general sales and selective consumption taxes for the acquisition in the local market of raw materials, inputs, machinery and equipment, except for vehicles under two metric tons of payload, their accessories and spare parts. Article 61-bis establishes that the effectiveness of the tax exemptions is conditioned upon full compliance with what is established in the Income Tax Law and compliance with what is stipulated in the export contracts and programs that are signed. The petitioner maintains that these norms violate Articles 121 subsection 1), 176, 178, and 180 because they are atypical norms; furthermore, he alleges the violation of Articles 9, 18, 33, and 50, all of the Political Constitution. On repeated occasions, the Chamber has indicated that the inclusion of provisions of non-budgetary content in budget laws is contrary to the constitutional precepts referring to the attribution or competence of the Legislative Assembly to issue, reform, or repeal the laws that make up the legal system and those that grant competence or legitimacy to issue the ordinary or extraordinary budgets of the Republic, that is, subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121, 123 to 128, and 176 to 180 of the Political Constitution. It has thus been considered that:

"III.- ...it is entirely appropriate that 'general norms' be included in budget norms, provided that they are linked to the specialty that this matter signifies, or what is the same, to the execution of the budget. What is not possible to include in budget laws are norms that do not have that nature, since they must be regulated by what is provided for common or ordinary laws ... Although Article 105 of the Political Constitution provides, among other things, that the power to legislate resides in the people, who delegate it through suffrage to the Legislative Assembly, it is in subsections 1.) and 11.) of Article 121 of the Political Charter that a distinction is made between two different modes and forms of legislating according to the matter in question. The first text exclusively attributes to the Legislative Branch the power to 'Issue laws, reform them, repeal them, and give them authentic interpretation, except as stated in the article referring to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.' For its part, subsection 11.) also exclusively attributes to the cited Branch the power to 'Issue the ordinary and extraordinary budgets of the Republic.' As can be observed, the attribution of the first subsection constitutes a very broad power that generally concerns ordinary or common laws, while that of subsection 11.) is of a special nature whose development is contemplated in Articles 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180 in relation to numeral 125 in fine, which prevents the Executive Branch from vetoing budgetary legislation. Thus, if the Constitution contemplates these powers separately, it is because they are legislative acts of a different nature and content, although the budget is a formal and material law and the other laws must also have that nature.

IV.- Article 176 of our Constitution establishes, among other things, that 'the ordinary budget of the Republic comprises all probable revenues and all authorized expenditures of the Public Administration, during the economic year ... The budget of the Republic shall be issued for the term of one year, from January first to December thirty-first.' Based on Articles 177 and following of the Constitution, the special procedures that the Executive Branch and Congress must observe in the processing of said law are further detailed. The same occurs in the Regulation of Order, Direction, and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly. It is for this reason that this Chamber concludes that the budget of the Republic is a formal and material law, but special due to the matter that constitutes it and the procedure already commented upon. From the texts cited above, it follows that the competence or legitimacy constitutionally attributed to the Legislative Assembly over such an important matter is to fix in the budgets the probable revenues and authorized expenditures of the Public Administration with the modalities that the Constitution itself indicates for its modifications and for its extraordinary budgets. Consequently, the Legislative Branch cannot, under the budgetary power noted, regulate matters of a different nature or content from that specialty. The foregoing is consistent with the exclusive attribution of the Executive Branch to prepare the ordinary budget project and the initiative for its modifications and for extraordinary ones, as well as that of the Legislative Assembly regarding its issuance, and furthermore, with the already analyzed modality that the Executive Branch has no veto power over its approval, according to the terms of numeral 125 of the Fundamental Charter" (Judgment No. 121-89 at 11:00 a.m. on November 23, 1989, see also judgments No. 568-90 at 5:00 p.m. on April 23, 1990, Placa15777 at 4:00 p.m. on October 9, 1990, and Placa15778 at 3:06 p.m. on November 8, 1994).

In the case now analyzed, it is evident that the provisions of subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989 -norms relating to the exemptions from taxes and surcharges granted by the Export Contract and the Production for Export Contract-, these norms should have been approved according to the procedures that the Political Constitution and the Regulation of Order and Internal Discipline of the Legislative Assembly provide for the issuance of ordinary laws, and not included as a budgetary norm, it being clear that their content is not of this matter. Being in the presence of a situation identical to that addressed in the cited jurisprudence, as it involves an atypical norm, and finding no reasons to vary the criterion already expressed, nor reasons of public interest that justify the Chamber reconsidering the question, this action of unconstitutionality is accepted insofar as it is directed against subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989.

For the foregoing reasons, it is unnecessary to refer here to the other alleged violations, especially since the issue of benefits and incentives for non-traditional product exports was already analyzed in the second whereas clause (considerando segundo) of this ruling.

FOURTH: EFFECTS OF THIS DECLARATION.- The purpose of the action of unconstitutionality is the nullity of the challenged norm, a nullity which this Chamber has stated is the most serious and radical, as it constitutes an affront to the supreme norm. In accordance with this, the Law governing this Jurisdiction grants declaratory and retroactive effect to the ruling of unconstitutionality. Under this understanding, the Chamber considers that in the case examined here, the principle of Good Faith must be protected, and consequently, the assets of the companies benefited by the export contract must be guaranteed. For this reason, in this case the declaration of nullity shall take effect from the date of this ruling; despite the fact that the co-adjuvant "Asociación Costarricense de Floricultores" had requested that the validity of the benefits be maintained until 1996, the year in which the export contracts expire; and despite the fact that Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, legal representative of the Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, requested at the hearing that the validity of the Export Contracts be maintained until 1996 and that in those cases of extension, for having voluntarily accepted the reduction of the CAT percentage, the benefits of the contract remain in force until 1999. However, the Chamber cannot grant the request in its entirety, since granting it with respect to the norms declared unconstitutional here—for being spurious—would in practice render that declaration ineffective.

Por tanto:

The action of unconstitutionality is partially granted, and consequently the following are annulled: 1) Subsection 12) of Article 36 of Law No. 7111 of December 12, 1988, and 2) Article 35 of Law No. 7138 of November 16, 1989; both budget laws that added subsections g) and h) to Article 61 and Article 61-b to the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988. This ruling is declaratory and takes effect from this date, without prejudice to rights acquired in good faith. Consequently, the signed export contracts maintain their validity until 1996, as well as until 1999, in those cases where the reduction of the CAT percentage was voluntarily accepted (in accordance with Law 7257 of September 17, 1991). In both scenarios, the validity of the contracts is maintained, with the exception of the benefits established in subsections g) and h) of Article 61, and 61-b, added to the Income Tax Law through the annulled budget laws. In all other respects, the action is denied. Let this pronouncement be summarized in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, published in its entirety in the Judicial Bulletin, and communicated to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Notifíquese.

Luis Paulino Mora M.

Jorge E. Castro B. Luis Fernando Solano C.

Eduardo Sancho G. Carlos Manuel Arguedas R.

Mario Granados M. Nombre45029 .

LFSC/secs/jha

03327 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.- San José, a las quince horas cuarenta y dos minutos del veintisiete de junio de mil novecientos noventa y cinco.- Acción de Inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por Jorge Eduardo Sánchez, mayor, soltero, vecino de San José, 1-587-719, contra: A) los artículos 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley N.° 5162 de 22 de diciembre de 1972, "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"; B) el artículo 4 de la Ley N.° 5909 de 16 de junio de 1976; C) el artículo 40 de la Ley N.° 6955 de 24 de febrero de 1984; D) el artículo 11 de la Ley 6999 de 3 de setiembre de 1985; E) los artículos 60 y 61 de la Ley N.° 7092 de 21 de abril de 1988, "Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta"; F) el inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988; y G) el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989.

Resultando:

I.- La acción fue presentada el 6 de diciembre de 1990. Fundamenta su legitimación en el artículo 75 párrafo segundo de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, alega la existencia de intereses de la colectividad en su conjunto. Sostiene el accionante que los artículos 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley N.° 5162 de 22 de diciembre de 1972, "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones"; el artículo 4 de la Ley N.° 5909 de 16 de junio de 1976; el artículo 40 de la Ley N.° 6955 de 24 de febrero de 1984; el artículo 11 de la Ley 6999 de 3 de setiembre de 1985; los artículos 60 y 61 de la Ley N.° 7092 de 21 de abril de 1988, "Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta"; el inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988; y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989, quebrantan los artículos 9, 18, 33 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Señala que el inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138, violan además la Constitución Política en los artículos 121 inciso 1), 176, 178 y 180, por tratarse de normas atípicas. Aduce que las normas impugnadas establecen una serie de exoneraciones fiscales y conceden el beneficio de los Certificados de Abono Tributario al sector de exportaciones no tradicionales del país. Afirma que con dichas normas se está afectando un interés de la colectividad, ya que es con el dinero de todos los costarricenses -provenientes del pago de tributos-, con el que se financia el pago de esos Certificados de Abono Tributario, pese a que constitucionalmente, el Estado debe procurar el mayor bienestar de todos los habitantes. Manifiesta que en 1972 se promulgó la Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones, cuyo Capítulo III crea una serie de "incentivos", para el sector de exportaciones no tradicionales, que se pueden resumir en el otorgamiento de Certificados de Abono Tributario y el otorgamiento de franquicia de los impuestos de aduana, estabilización económica, consumo, ventas y otros impuestos cuya recaudación corresponde al Banco Central, pagados por las materias primas y demás materiales utilizados en la producción, elaboración o acondicionamiento de mercaderías que sean exportadas. Y agrega que "En virtud de reformas producidas por leyes posteriores, esos "incentivos" fueron magnificándose y actualmente, conforme a la legislación vigente, son los siguientes:

1.- Deducción del ciento por ciento del impuesto sobre la renta, sobre aquella parte de las utilidades netas del período, obtenidas únicamente por las exportaciones no tradicionales que efectúe el declarante, a terceros mercados.

2.- Deducción del cincuenta por ciento del monto de lo pagado, por medio de una bolsa de comercio, por la compra de acciones de sociedades anónimas domiciliadas en el país, que tengan programas de exportación del ciento por ciento de su producción o que estén exportando ese total.

3.- Exención de todo tipo de impuestos a la importación de las materias primas, insumos y envases no producidos en el país que formen parte del componente de los productos no tradicionales exportados a terceros mercados.

4.- Exoneración de los impuestos general sobre las ventas y selectivo de consumo, para la adquisición, en el mercado local, de materias primas, insumos, maquinaria y equipo, excepto vehículos menores de dos toneladas, sus accesorios y repuestos.

5.- Exoneración de toda clase de tributos y sobretasas que afecten la importación de maquinaria y equipo, lo mismo que sus accesorios y repuestos, así como la importación de vehículos automotores. Además de todos ellos, se les siguen otorgando Certificados de Abono Tributario que, como se sabe, son instrumentos mediante los cuales el Estado entrega a las empresas que exportan productos no tradicionales a terceros mercados, un título por un monto igual al quince por ciento del valor FOB de sus operaciones. Con este documento, los empresarios favorecidos pueden hacer pago de impuestos, directos e indirectos, o venderlos en el mercado bursátil, para convertirlos en dinero en efectivo". El accionante fundamenta las violaciones a la Constitución Política así: A) Artículos 18 y 33: Aduce que los citados "incentivos" concedidos únicamente al sector de exportaciones no tradicionales, y sobre todo, el otorgamiento de los Certificados de Abono Tributario, constituyen un privilegio otorgado a un grupo económico, sin sustento constitucional, y que por el contrario, atentan contra el principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas. El principio de igualdad implica un tratamiento jurídico igual ante situaciones iguales, lo cual prohíbe tomar medidas discriminatorias, es decir, diferenciar entre los que se encuentran en una misma situación o categoría. De modo que los contribuyentes que se encuentren en una misma situación, deben sujetarse, sin distinción alguna, al mismo régimen relativo a las exacciones fiscales y la ley tributaria debe asegurar esa igualdad de tratamiento a los contribuyentes que se encuentren en igual situación jurídica o de hecho. Para concretar la igualdad ante las cargas públicas, sobre todo ante el régimen fiscal, muchas veces se hace necesario que el Nombre98441 establezca categorías diferentes de contribuyentes, produciéndose así una forma de igualdad por categorías. De modo que la igualdad opera respecto de quienes se encuentran dentro de la misma categoría. Dado que el principio general es el de igualdad ante las cargas públicas, cuando el Nombre98441 exime a un grupo o categoría del pago de tributos o le otorgue otros beneficios, esa situación diferente que justifique la exención, debe ser claramente constatable, para que no se convierta en un acto arbitrario del legislador, por el cual concede privilegios injustos. El Nombre98441 no puede crear categorías diferentes que no tengan un sustento razonable, es decir no puede crear categorías arbitrarias y someter a unas y a otras a regímenes diferentes. De modo que la definición legal de situaciones jurídicas no genere ni discriminaciones, ni privilegios. El tratamiento diferenciador debe ser razonable y conforme con los valores fundamentales del sistema. De allí que sea arbitrario y discriminatorio el establecimiento de categorías y situaciones que resulten innecesarias, desproporcionadas o inadecuadas respecto a los hechos a que se refieren y no tengan sustento en un interés público determinable. La lógica y la justicia llevan a decir que no existe una razón válida, apreciable, para que el sector de exportaciones no tradicionales goce de estos incentivos, en detrimento del sector exportador tradicional y de todos los demás sectores que componen la actividad económica del país. Lo anterior por cuanto el artículo 2 de la Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones establece una lista taxativa de actividades que se considerarán exportaciones tradicionales, de tal forma que todas aquellas actividades no contenidas en esa lista, serán consideradas no tradicionales y por lo tanto, podrán acceder a los beneficios que confiere esta ley y las leyes posteriores que regulan estos beneficios. Puede verse que se confiere así al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior la potestad de modificar la lista. Es evidente que la categorización realizada por el Nombre98441 fue arbitraria. No existe ni se plasmó en la ley un criterio técnico válido para diferenciar las exportaciones tradicionales de las no tradicionales. Además el Nombre98441 delegó en una forma muy abierta y muy amplia la potestad de determinar los beneficiados por esa ley, en el Ministerio de Comercio Exterior. En este caso existe una delegación abierta, que en alguna medida, puede contravenir también el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política. Acaso los productos tradicionales no tienen que competir igualmente a nivel internacional, ellos también sufren los perjuicios derivados del sesgo anti-exportador que caracteriza a nuestra economía. No existen diferencias de magnitud importante, que permitan al Nombre98441 hacer una distinción tan desproporcionada. De ahí que éstas sean leyes "personales", carantes de generalidad y abstracción, que establecen una disparidad de trato entre los mismos exportadores. B) Artículo 50: Las normas impugnadas quebrantan el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política porque no sólo no procuran un adecuado reparto de la riqueza, sino que por el contrario, han permitido que el dinero se concentre en unas pocas manos, en perjuicio del bienestar de la colectividad. Señala que se ha estimado que los Certificados de Abono Tributario representan una erogación de más de cinco mil quinientos millones de colones que pesan sobre el Presupuesto Nacional. Esa suma millonaria es otorgada a escasas 572 empresas y existen, a la fecha, más de 1300 solicitudes de otras empresas, para que se les otorgue este injusto beneficio. C) Artículos 121 inciso 1), 176, 178 y 180 de la Constitución Política: Alega el accionante que el inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138, que otorgan al sector de exportaciones no tradicionales a terceros mercados, exenciones de los impuestos sobre las ventas y selectivo de consumo, para la adquisición en el mercado local, de materias primas, insumos, maquinaria, equipo y toda clase de tributos y sobretasas a la importación de maquinaria y equipo, lo mismo que sus accesorios y repuestos, así como la importación de vehículos automotores, violan además los artículos 121 inciso 1), 176, 178 y 180 de la Constitución Política, ya que se trata de normas "atípicas". Señala que la reiterada jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional ha sostenido que la Ley de Presupuesto es una ley formal y material, promulgada por el Nombre98441 a través de un procedimiento sui géneris, en el que sobresale la supremacía de la Asamblea Legislativa, pues no admite la posibilidad del veto por parte del Poder Ejecutivo, conforme lo dispone el artículo 178 constitucional. Es formal, porque la aprueba el Nombre98441 y material, por su marcado carácter normativo; ya que constituye el límite de acción de los poderes públicos, de conformidad con el artículo 180 de la Carta Política, puede contener, validamente, normas de contenido presupuestario, entendiendo por tales, aquéllas que regulan la eficiencia y productividad del gasto público. Pero, todas las normas que no sean de contenido presupuestario, deben ser promulgadas a través de la legislación ordinaria, en virtud de la atribución contenida en el inciso 1) del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política y en consecuencia, por el trámite ordinario de formación de las leyes. Solicita se declare con lugar la acción.

II.- La Sala dio curso a la acción mediante resolución de las 15:00 horas del 5 de febrero de 1991 y los avisos se publicaron en los Boletines Judiciales N.° 71, 72, 73 y 74 de los días 16, 17, 18 y 19 de abril de 1991, respectivamente.

III.- La Procuraduría General de la República, por medio del Lic. Adrián Vargas Benavides, Procurador General de la República, contestó la audiencia según escritos de folios 49 (Solicitud de rechazo ad portas), 58 (Solicitud de rechazo interlocutorio) y 159 (Se contesta audiencia). En dichos escritos la Procuraduría sostiene la total inadmisibilidad de la presente acción, por cuanto no existe asunto previo pendiente. A pesar de que el accionante alega la existencia de un interés colectivo, la Procuraduría señala que de acuerdo a la reiterada jurisprudencia, la Sala ha rechazado acciones de inconstitucionalidad planteadas por dos señores Diputados, en casos similares al presente, por carecer por completo de legitimación, cita las siguientes sentencias: N.° 234-90 de las 14:00 horas del 28 de febrero de 1990, N.° 248-90 de las 14:00 horas del 7 de marzo, N.° 495-90 de las 15:40 horas del 15 de mayo, N.° 678-90 de las 14:15 horas del 9 de junio, N.° 679-90 de las 15:00 del 9 de junio de 1990, N.° 680-90 de las 15:15 del 19 de junio de 1990, N.° 1150-90 de las 14:15 del 25 de setiembre de 1990, N.° 1332-90 de las 15:00 horas del 23 de octubre de 1990, N.° 1471-90 de las 16:30 del 30 de octubre de 1990, N.° 1634-90 de las 16:00 horas del 14 de noviembre de 1990, N.° 504-91 y N.° 505-91 ambas del 8 de marzo de 1991. La Procuraduría argumenta que del conjunto de estas resoluciones puede extraerse la conclusión de que para poder invocar la lesión de un interés de la colectividad en su conjunto, es necesario que estemos en presencia de una afectación de "toda la colectividad costarricense", no de un sector o categoría dentro de esta. La simple invocación de la inconstitucionalidad de una norma no es suficiente para abrir las puertas de esa jurisdicción, sino que, debe existir un vínculo legitimante. Tratándose de la hipótesis de interés de la colectividad, nuestra Ley exige, como claramente lo ha entendido esa Sala en las resoluciones citadas, que se involucre a toda la sociedad. Agrega que en el caso bajo examen, no se presenta tal afectación de la sociedad en su conjunto, sino más bien la contraposición de intereses entre distintos componentes del aparato productivo. Esta simple contraposición hace inviable recurrir a la noción de "colectividad en su conjunto" ya que obviamente la afectación no es general. Señala que no es procedente la invocación de un mero interés colectivo, en este caso el de las personas que no se benefician con las exoneraciones impugnadas, para encontrarse en presencia de un interés de la naturaleza que exige el párrafo 2 del artículo 75 de la LJC. Esto quiere decir que si bien es cierto podríamos identificar la existencia de distintos intereses colectivos que podrían considerarse afectados por la organización de un sistema de estímulo a las exportaciones no tradicionales, estos intereses colectivos no corresponden a los intereses de la colectividad en su conjunto. Evidentemente, existe otro interés colectivo, de no menor importancia, que resulta directamente beneficiado con los incentivos que las normas cuestionadas otorgan. Nos encontramos ante un equilibrio delicado de intereses dentro del cual uno de los componentes de la colectividad trata de atribuirse a sí mismo la representación de los intereses del todo. Sostiene que en realidad, en la presente acción se pretende tutelar un sector de intereses, muy lejano de ser calificado como representativo del interés de toda la colectividad. Solicita que con fundamento en el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se rechace interlocutoriamente la presente acción. En cuanto al fondo, la Procuraduría sostiene que los incentivos fiscales encuentran su razón de ser en el evidente interés general que envuelve el crecimiento y desarrollo de la economía. La valoración del tipo de incentivo la efectúa el Nombre98441 apreciando las circunstancias particulares de cada actividad, sin que esto implique una vulneración del principio de igualdad. El Nombre98441 dispone de un amplio margen de valoración para definir el modelo de fomento que se aplicará a cada sector y asume la responsabilidad política de diseñar el sistema más adecuado. Dentro de esta labor de organización de la economía, es perfectamente admisible que el Nombre98441 opte por dotar de estímulos especiales a un sector específico del aparato productivo con la finalidad de procurar un desarrollo armónico y sostenido de la economía. En el caso específico de los incentivos a la exportación de productos no tradicionales, el Nombre98441 efectúa una valoración global del modelo productivo nacional y adopta la decisión de incentivar el desarrollo de dicho sector con una clara finalidad de diversificación y crecimiento de las exportaciones nacionales. Tal objetivo se enmarca dentro de la obligación del Estado de velar porque la organización económica del país alcance niveles de desarrollo y eficiencia tales que permitan el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida de toda la población. En su enunciado general, tal sistema de estímulos en nada contradice la Constitución, antes bien, su existencia posibilita la satisfacción a corto plazo de un cometido estatal de gran trascendencia. De manera que queda desvirtuado que las normas impugnadas violen el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, más bien el fortalecimiento de ciertos sectores específicos de la producción, puede verse como una consecuencia del mandato del citado artículo 50. Señala la Procuraduría que tampoco se quebrantan los artículos 18 y 33 de la Constitución Política porque "... la posibilidad de recurrir a incentivos fiscales es un instrumento de política económica de primer orden que no contradice en lo más mínimo el principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas. Tal argumentación nos llevaría a sostener que no sólo son inconstitucionales las normas relativas al incentivo del sector no tradicional, sino también todas las normas tributarias que tienen como finalidad fomentar el cooperativismo, la exoneración del impuesto a la producción de café, la exoneración del impuesto de ventas de los insumos agrícolas, los incentivos a la producción industrial de consumo local aún vigentes, las exoneraciones a la introducción temporal de materias primas de las industrias de maquila. Puede haber discrepancia sobre la oportunidad de todas estas medidas, pero lo que no se puede hacer es cuestionar la competencia rectora de la Asamblea Legislativa en lo que concierne su adopción. Todas y cada una de estas actividades presentan características particulares que han obligado a establecer regímenes diversos, diversidad la cual, descarta de plano la posibilidad de que se haya vulnerado el principio de igualdad, invocable cuando se regula en forma diferente situaciones iguales, o en forma igual situaciones diferentes, caso distinto al que se presenta con las disposiciones impugnadas". Agrega la Procuraduría que únicamente en caso de ruptura de los principios de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad que presiden toda actuación legislativa, podría la Sala Constitucional entrar a conocer sobre el fondo del régimen de incentivos a la exportación de productos no tradicionales. Tal desproporción o falta de razonabilidad no se presenta en el caso bajo análisis. Los instrumentos en cuestión son la única herramienta para colocar en condiciones de competitividad internacional a los productores no tradicionales. Las altas inversiones de capital, los elevados gastos que implica la introducción de nuevas técnicas agrícolas o industriales, las duras condiciones del mercado internacional y la necesidad de colocar al país en términos favorables para la captación de la inversión de capitales extranjeros, hacen plenamente justificable la existencia de todo el sistema de fomento impugnado. Independientemente de los ajustes que deban hacerse al modelo de incentivos, no se observa ninguna desproporción que haga pensar que el Nombre98441 haya quebrantado mandato constitucional alguno. Las consideraciones técnicas y de oportunidad que sea necesario plantear para la restructuración del modelo, corresponde asumirlas al Poder Legislativo, quien en última instancia es el responsable político por su funcionamiento. Finalmente, la Procuraduría concluye: "a) La presente acción es completamente inadmisible por falta de legitimación del promovente, y así corresponde declararlo interlocutoriamente con fundamento en el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. b) En caso que esa Sala se separe de su línea jurisprudencial y entre a conocer del fondo de la presente acción, debe ser declarada sin lugar, por ser una potestad del Poder Legislativo introducir regímenes de fomento de los distintos sectores productivos en función de las particularidades que los caractericen, y no estar en presencia de un uso desproporcionado o irrazonable de dichas atribuciones. c) Si la Sala llegare a pronunciarse sobre el fondo de la acción, debe declararse la inconstitucionalidad de las modificaciones legales introducidas por la vía de normas presupuestarias, sea, el inciso 12 del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989".

IV.- A folios 16 y 198 comparece Samuel Yankelewitz Berger, mayor, casado, ingeniero químico, cédula número CED46402, vecino de San José, en su condición de Presidente con la representación judicial y extrajudicial de la Asociación CAMARA DE INDUSTRIAS DE COSTA RICA. Comparece a fin de ofrecer argumentos jurídicos y económicos relativos a la falta de legitimación del accionante. Señala que: "1.- El recurrente invoca el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional para incoar la presente acción, pues según él en la especie no existe, "por la naturaleza del asunto lesión individual y directa", además de que las exenciones otorgadas al sector exportador "van en detrimento de la colectividad". 2.- En primer lugar, es claro que la aplicación de las normas impugnadas puede generar lesiones individuales y directas, por lo que no se trata, desde el punto de vista jurídico, técnicamente de un caso de interés difuso. 3.- En segundo término, tampoco es cierto que el otorgamiento de los CAT afecte a la comunidad, sino más bien, por el contrario como quedó claramente demostrado en el primer acápite de este libelo, tales incentivos constituyen un beneficio importante para la economía nacional. 4.- Tampoco es cierto que los CATS se paguen con dinero de todos los demás costarricenses, lo cual además de ser un argumento efectista y claramente demagógico, carece jurídica y económicamente de fundamento. 5.- En efecto, con la emisión de CATS el Estado no desembolsa dinero que ya tenía en su haber y que hubiera recaudado de otros contribuyentes, sino que supuestamente deja de percibir ingresos fiscales. Pero esto tampoco es cierto, puesto que sin la existencia de los CATS habría mucho menos empresas y lógicamente las exportaciones se reducirían sustancialmente. Como consecuencia de lo anterior se produciría menos empleo, menos divisas, menor valor agregado nacional, con lo cual habría dos grandes perdedores: el Fisco mismo y, en última instancia, el pueblo costarricense. 6.- De manera que el otorgamiento de los CATS más bien produce beneficios al Fisco y a la economía del país, por cuanto constituye una inversión que produce, entre otras ventajas, la generación de ocho veces más divisas a la economía del país que las compensaciones recibidas por los beneficiarios de tales incentivos tributarios. 7.- De lo anterior se concluye que no existe en la especie ningún interés que ataña a la colectividad en su conjunto para impugnar la validez de las normas citadas, por cuanto más bien la existencia de tales compensaciones a los exportadores representan un beneficio para la colectividad. De esa manera resulta ocioso y más bien contrario al interés público tratar de que se declaren inconstitucionales normas compensatorias, en el ámbito fiscal, que implican el ingreso de sumas considerables de divisas al país y de tributos al Estado, por concepto de cargas sociales y otros impuestos directos e indirectos. 8.- En razón de lo antes indicado el recurrente carece de legitimación procesal, en los términos del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, para plantear la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad, la cual deberá rechazarse ad-portas por ser manifiestamente infundada". Señala también que no se viola el principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas derivado del principio de igualdad, porque también se puede otorgar un trato diferenciado cuando sea razonablemente justificado. Los CATS y demás incentivos fiscales se han otorgado a los exportadores de productos no tradicionales por la situación de hecho en que se encuentran distinta del resto de los exportadores. Además su existencia otorga al país numerosas ventajas, sin dichos incentivos fiscales, las exportaciones descenderían considerablemente, lo que provocaría desempleo, baja en los ingresos fiscales del Estado y una merma considerable en el ingreso de divisas. Si se eliminaran los incentivos fiscales cuestionados, los empresarios de productos no tradicionales recibirían un trato discriminatorio puesto que se les obligaría a competir, respecto de los demás empresarios, en desigualdad de condiciones. Alega la no procedencia de la supuesta violación al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política por cuanto en el caso del establecimiento de los CATS y demás incentivos fiscales impugnados lo que hizo el Nombre98441 fue precisamente aplicar la norma programática contenida en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, dado que mediante ellos estableció incentivos a las exportaciones, como uno de los medios más eficaces para lograr el bienestar de los habitantes de la República. En cuanto a la supuesta violación del artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, en virtud de que de acuerdo al dicho del accionante, se otorgó al Ministerio de Comercio Exterior una potestad abierta para determinar los beneficios conferidos en la ley, señala la codyuvante que tal "potestad abierta" no es cierta porque "la ley es clara en el sentido de establecer cuáles son los beneficios máximos que se pueden otorgar a los exportadores. Lógicamente se otorga cierto margen de discrecionalidad al Ministerio de Comercio para que, dentro de los parámetros que fija la propia ley, pueda otorgar los incentivos por ella creados a las distintas empresas exportadoras, a fin de tomar en cuenta los requerimientos propios de cada una de ellas... La ley no podría ser tan poco elástica de no permitirle a los órganos ejecutivos encargados de aplicarla, de dimensionarla en el tiempo y en el espacio, de acuerdo a las necesidades propias de cada caso concreto... Desde el punto de vista jurídico dicha flexibilidad no implica, desde luego, violación del principio de división de poderes, puesto que no se está autorizando la invasión de funciones del Poder Ejecutivo respecto del Legislativo. Simplemente se están precisando las potestades propias del Poder Ejecutivo en materia de incentivos a la exportación". A folio 198, la Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, señaló que la acción debe ser rechazada de plano, por ser manifiestamente infundada en vista de que el actor carece de legitimación procesal y porque se trata de la reiteración de un asunto ya fallado por la Sala, mediante la sentencia N.° 504-91. Argumenta que: "En la sentencia 504-91, que rechazó por falta de legitimación del actor la inconstitucionalidad contra todas las leyes de exenciones vigentes en ese momento, la Sala resolvió también el presente asunto, pues las exenciones contempladas en la Ley de Promoción a las Exportaciones habían sido también recurridas en esa acción ... El caso fallado mediante la resolución 504-91 es idéntico al presente, pues el accionante lo era el señor diputado Dr. Rodrigo Gutiérrez Sáenz, en tanto que en el presente, lo es también un señor diputado, el Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez ... Si en dicha acción se estableció que el señor Gutiérrez, en su condición personal o de diputado, no era titular de un interés colectivo ni difuso, es lógico concluir que en el presente caso se debe fallar en la misma forma, pues los supuestos son idénticos ... Dijo la Sala en dicha sentencia que ... En casos como el presente, el interés que se estima lesionado debe ser al menos inmediato, en cuanto al grupo o colectividad en favor del cual o de la cual se promueva la acción de inconstitucionalidad, grupo o colectividad titular de ese interés difuso o colectivo, al que debe pertenecer la persona que ejerza, la cual tendrá así un interés mediato en ella, interés que no podrá en consecuencia, ser de tal grado de abstracción como para sostener que toda violación a la Constitución, por sólo ese hecho, legitima a cualquier persona para promoverla ...".

V.- Mediante escrito visible a folio 63, Nombre61107 , mayor, casado, Ingeniero, vecino de Escazú, cédula número CED75399, en su calidad de Presidente con la representación judicial y extrajudicial de la Asociación CAMARA DE EXPORTADORES DE COSTA RICA, se apersona con el fin de defender la constitucionalidad de las normas impugnadas y aportar una serie de consideraciones de orden jurídico, económico y social en su apoyo. Sostiene que: "Las leyes cuya inconstitucionalidad se pide, crearon un sistema de incentivos que permite alcanzar tres objetivos básicos: A) Diversificación de los productos de exportación. Al crearse en 1972 un régimen de incentivos para los llamados productos no tradicionales, se buscaba desarrollar otros productos de exportación. A pesar de que razones técnicas y de política económica justificaban esta medida, su desarrollo por parte de empresarios y productores no resultaba tan atractivo, por las siguientes razones: i- Alta inversión y costos. ii- Desconocimiento de la tecnología y falta de apoyo técnico. iii- Desconocimiento del mercado y la comercialización. iv- Alto riesgo y competitividad internacional. v- Dificultades en las gestiones de pago y cobro. De esta forma, los incentivos otorgados por la Ley, buscaban compensar los inconvenientes de la diversificación y en una visión a largo plazo, procurarle mayores beneficios al país. B) Aumento de los ingresos de divisas al país. La Ley al fomentar nuevas exportaciones, buscaba también, como consecuencia lógica, un aumento en el ingreso de las divisas del país. Con la Ley se garantiza que los incentivos serán otorgados a las empresas que entreguen sus ingresos en moneda extranjera al Banco Central de Costa Rica y se exige al exportador un informe anual de sus exportaciones. Esto tiene un impacto directo de mejora de la balanza de pagos del país. C) Aporte significativo al producto nacional. La Ley, al exigir que las empresas tengan al menos un 35% de valor agregado, se garantiza que la actividad de exportación que se incentiva, deje un aporte significativo al producto interno bruto. Esto tiene consecuencias directas en otros aspectos económicos, como son: i- Aumento del nivel de empleo. ii- Aumento de la riqueza nacional, a través de las nuevas inversiones y de los proyectos desarrollados. iii- Desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías y especialización de la mano de obra. De los objetivos señalados podemos concluir que mediante el incentivo de las exportaciones se busca finalmente un mayor desarrollo económico y social del país". Agrega que los resultados obtenidos del programa de incentivos a las exportaciones justifican su existencia. A marzo de 1991, hay más de 30 productos con exportaciones superiores a los ciento cincuenta millones de colones, dentro de los cuales 5 superan los dos mil millones de colones de exportación anual. La mayoría de ellas con índices de crecimiento muy significativos, como se demuestra en los gráficos que constan a folios 75-81. El aumento de los ingresos se refleja por el incremento en el volumen de exportaciones, que pasó de 333.3 millones de dólares en 1985 a un estimado de 691.4 millones de dólares en 1990 (proyección efectuada con base en datos de setiembre de 1990). El aporte de divisas al país para mejorar la situación de nuestra balanza de pagos, es un aspecto que tiene mayor trascendencia al ir aumentando el déficit comercial, ya que nuestras importaciones han crecido a un volumen mayor que las exportaciones, lo que puede tener serias consecuencias en el nivel de vida y bienestar general del país. Por ello es indispensable incrementar aún más las exportaciones. En cuanto a nivel de empleo, las empresas con contratos de exportación han generado más de 50.

000 nuevos trabajos y compras de materia prima nacional de más de treinta mil millones de colones. Esto a su vez genera un mayor nivel de producción y el desarrollo de una importante actividad paralela. Los CATS tienen un efecto multiplicador porque generan riqueza, según se observa a folio 81. Respecto de la supuesta violación del principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas, aduce que la discriminación de categorías no existe, porque en cierta medida la categoría surge de la ley. El objeto de la norma es incentivar las exportaciones no tradicionales, esta categoría se desarrolla fundamentalmente por las políticas de estímulo del Gobierno. La aplicación de este principio no es absoluta, sino que supone que la igualdad de sacrificios será requerida a las personas o grupos que se encuentren en una misma situación. Por las circunstancias técnicas y económicas que justifican el régimen de incentivos, las empresas exportadoras no se encuentran en una misma situación o categoría. Además la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta supone una vigencia limitada de algunos de los incentivos. De manera que si el principio no es absoluto, su violación no puede ser genérica. La distinción establecida por la ley entre exportadores tradicionales y no tradicionales se justificó al momento de promulgarla, previendo la facultad del Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Comercio de modificar la lista que establecía la distinción, cuando fuere de interés para el desarrollo económico y social del país. No hay discriminación de la Ley, si jurídicamente esta contiene la posibilidad de una modificación que se adapte a las exigencias de la realidad. Por otra parte, mediante el sistema de incentivos a las exportaciones, el Estado procura un mayor bienestar a los habitantes del país, ya que al estimular el crecimiento de las exportaciones, la producción crece y a través de ellos se logra un mayor bienestar general de la población, por cuanto aumenta el nivel de empleo y hay mayor disponibilidad de divisas, lo que permite mejorar el nivel de consumo y de vida de los costarricenses. Señala que los CATS no son ni jurídica ni técnicamente, una erogación de dinero a cargo del Estado. Los certificados se otorgan como un beneficio a una actividad nueva y para un objeto determinado (el pago de impuestos). Como incentivo queda sujeto a dos condiciones fundamentales: la exportación de nuevos productos y la entrega de las divisas al Banco Central. El solo hecho del manejo de las divisas le comporta al Estado un beneficio económico (el diferencial cambiario), unido al impacto positivo del crecimiento de las exportaciones en la economía. Finalmente manifiesta que las exoneraciones y los beneficios otorgados a los exportadores de productos no tradicionales, son justificados y tienen sustento en razones de orden social, económico y constitucional (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política), sin que ello signifique el quebranto de otros principios y normas constitucionales. Solicita se deniegue esta acción.

VI.- A folio 82 consta escrito presentado por Miguel Efraín Shyfter Lepar, mayor, casado, industrial, vecino de San Rafael de Escazú, cédula número CED72634, en su calidad de Presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de TEJIDOS AGUILA S.A., con cédula de persona jurídica número CED75400; Germán Wiernik Waisuchier, mayor, casado, licenciado en Administración de Empresas, cédula número CED75401, en su calidad de Vice-presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma actuando en ausencia del Presidente de PEGASO INTERNACIONAL S.A., con cédula de persona jurídica número CED75402; Nombre98442 , único apellido en razón de su nacionalidad, mayor, casado, industrial, vecino de ésta ciudad, indio con pasaporte de la República de India número Placa15779, en mi calidad de Presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de GAZAPATI DE COSTA RICA S.A., con cédula de persona jurídica número CED75403; Nombre98443 , con único apellido en razón de su nacionalidad, mayor, casado, empresario, ciudadano estadounidense, vecino de San José, cédula de residencia número CED75404, en su calidad de Gerente General con facultades de apoderado generalísimo de J. W. CONFECCIONES A.M. S.A., con cédula de persona jurídica número CED75405; Julio Kierszenson Mamet y Edgar Cordero Martínez, ambos mayores, abogados, vecinos de San Antonio de Belén, casados, con cédula de identidad número CED75406 y CED59730 respectivamente, en su condición de apoderados especiales judiciales de CONFECCIONES JOHAMA S.A., escrito en que esos representantes de sociedades se apersonan en condición de coadyuvantes, ya que ostentan un interés legítimo en la resolución final que se dicte en ésta acción, en virtud de que las mismas son titulares de los incentivos que en favor de los exportadores de productos no tradicionales establecen las leyes aquí impugnadas. Mediante escrito de folio 114 el señor Miguel Efraín Schyfter Lepar, de calidades antes mencionadas, comparece en su calidad de Presidente con facultades de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de la asociación CAMARA DE LA INDUSTRIA TEXTIL Y DE CONFECCION DE COSTA RICA, y solicita se tenga a dicha Cámara, como parte interesada dentro de la presenta acción, ya que la misma ostenta un interés legítimo en la sentencia que se dicte. A folio 171 consta escrito de Edgar Cordero M. y Julio Kierszenson M., en autos conocidos como apoderados especiales judiciales de Cámara de la Industria Textil y de Confección de Costa Rica, Tejidos Aguila S.A., Pegaso Internacional S.A., Gazapati de Costa Rica S.A., J. W. Confecciones A.M. S.A. y Confecciones Johama S.A., se apersonan para exponer los fundamentos en que basan su intervención como coadyuvantes. Señalan que históricamente, del desarrollo económico de nuestro país han surgido diversos modelos de incentivos a las exportaciones, originados en circunstancias reales y objetivas que justificaron en su momento y justifican en la actualidad la existencia de esos incentivos, sin acarrear una violación o infracción de los principios constitucionales de contribución a las cargas y de igualdad ante la ley. Por otra parte, mediante esos modelos de incentivos el Estado no sólo, no ha violado el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, sino que lo ha cumplido y puesto en ejecución, al posibilitar el crecimiento de la economía costarricense y por ende, el bienestar de todos los costarricenses y no únicamente, de los empresarios que han incursionado en las actividades promocionadas por el Estado. De tal manera, el Estado costarricense ha jugado, a lo largo de nuestra historia, un papel dinámico en la promoción del desarrollo económico. Así ha promovido distintos sectores productivos, los cuales ha escogido en cada momento por su potencial de convertirse en el motor dinámico del crecimiento futuro del país. El Estado costarricense se ha fijado como objetivo, el encontrar el camino del desarrollo económico sostenido y sostenible a largo plazo; esto lo ha llevado a ir adoptando y adaptando a las cambiantes circunstancias históricas, distintos marcos de acción que han configurado, en el tiempo, diversos modelos de desarrollo. En 1821 fueron distribuidas plantas de café y tierra entre las personas de escasos recursos, para que produjeran café. En 1825 la producción de café fue exonerada de muchos impuestos y en 1831 cada finca que hubiera sido cultivada de café por 5 años consecutivos, fue declarada propiedad del campesino que la cultivó. Esta acción del Estado no solo consolidó un desarrollo basado en la pequeña propiedad, sino que también consolidó la primera actividad productiva -en ese momento no tradicional- que ligó activamente nuestra economía al mercado internacional, resultando en ese momento una acelerada producción de riqueza nacional, que posibilitó un beneficio para todos los costarricenses, entre otros: la construcción del ferrocarril interoceánico, el Teatro Nacional y la iluminación de la ciudad de San José. Después del auge cafetalero, la actividad bananera fue protegida por el Estado que otorgó grandes beneficios en favor de esa industria mediante los Contratos firmados con la Compañía Bananera, en los cuales se otorgaron baldíos públicos en concesión y se crearon, entre otras, la exoneración del pago del impuesto sobre la renta. Como consecuencia de esa política, el banano se convirtió en un nuevo producto de exportación -no tradicional en ese momento- que generó progreso económico y empleo en zonas hasta entonces inexplotadas de nuestro territorio. La Segunda Guerra Mundial puso de manifiesto la debilidad de nuestra economía. Entonces se adoptó el Modelo de Sustitución de Importaciones, que pretendía promover el sector industrial y por lo tanto, la diversificación de la estructura productiva. Dicho objetivo se pretendía lograr mediante la protección arancelaria y la ampliación de los mercados a través del Mercado Común Centroamericano. Lo anterior como consecuencia del agotamiento del sector productor de artículos primarios (café, azúcar, cacao y carne) destinados a la exportación y su inhabilidad para seguir siendo el sector dinámico de la economía, debido a las limitaciones impuestas por el mercado internacional y por las crisis recurrentes a las que estaba sometido el país al depender de esos productos, sujetos totalmente a los caprichos de la demanda externa. Mediante ese modelo, se otorgaron diversos beneficios e incentivos en el Convenio Centroamericano de Incentivos Fiscales al Desarrollo Industrial, tales como exención total o parcial del pago de derechos de aduana y demás gravámenes conexos para la importación de maquinaria, equipo, materias primas, etc., exención para las empresas acogidas a ese régimen y para sus socios del impuesto sobre la renta. Además estaba el Convenio sobre el Régimen de Industrias Centroamericanas de Integración, que otorgaba exclusividad a determinadas industrias en la explotación del mercado centroamericano. En la segunda mitad de la década de los años 70, se hizo evidente el agotamiento del Modelo de Sustitución de Importaciones, las tasas de crecimiento de la economía se desaceleraron y el país sufrió el estrangulamiento económico por las severas limitaciones impuestas por la disponibilidad de divisas. No obstante, la capacidad de endeudamiento externo permitió que siguiera en vigencia el Modelo de Sustitución de Importaciones por varios años, hasta que la crisis de 1980 obligó a la búsqueda de caminos alternativos. Desde 1972, el Estado costarricense venía tratando de orientar la economía por caminos alternativos. La Ley de Fomento a las Exportaciones, de ese año, creó los Certificados de Abono Tributario para incentivar las exportaciones de productos no tradicionales y en 1984 se promulgó el Contrato de Exportación actual, que unifica en un solo instrumento jurídico los diversos beneficios e incentivos a las exportaciones de productos no tradicionales. El Modelo de Promoción de Exportaciones no tradicionales, tiene como objeto solventar los problemas en el sector externo que el Modelo de Sustitución de Importaciones no pudo resolver. El problema principal era que la base exportadora del país seguía dependiendo del sector de exportaciones de productos primarios, los cuales no podían proveer al país los recursos necesarios para un crecimiento económico sostenible y estable. En virtud del mecanismo de la Cámara de Compensación Centroamericana, las exportaciones a ese mercado no debían ser pagadas en divisas, sino en la moneda del país comprador. Debido a ese mecanismo, y al superávit comercial de nuestro país con el resto del área, Costa Rica acumuló créditos en divisas no satisfechos, lo que hacía inocuos e ineficaces los esfuerzos tendientes a ampliar el comercio internacional de nuestro país mediante intercambio con el área. El Modelo de Promoción de Exportaciones no Tradicionales, atacó el mayor problema estructural de nuestra economía: el estrangulamiento del sector externo, es decir nuestra imposibilidad de seguir importando al ritmo que lo veníamos haciendo, ya que las divisas generadas por las exportaciones no alcanzaban para pagar nuestras importaciones y al mismo tiempo, las fuentes de financiamiento externo estaban agotadas por incumplimiento de nuestro país en el pago de su deuda externa. Por ello, para salir de la crisis era necesario diversificar la base exportadora del país, produciendo productos no tradicionales que pudieran competir ventajosamente en el mercado internacional. Sin embargo, era necesario eliminar los obstáculos del sesgo anti-exportador de nuestra economía, que se manifiesta en todas las trabas y desventajas que afrontaban los empresarios para producir y exportar sus productos al mercado internacional, tales como deficiente estructura portuaria con tarifas más altas de las vigentes en el mercado internacional, altas cargas sociales, lentos y complicados procesos burocráticos para autorizar las exportaciones etc. Además de lo anterior, los productores y exportadores de productos no tradicionales debían enfrentar varias limitaciones como la falta de experiencia para incursionar el mercado internacional con productos no tradicionales, los elevadísimos costos de entrada en los potenciales mercados, la incertidumbre en la comercialización e intermediación de los productos, las barreras proteccionistas de los países potencialmente importadores de nuestros productos y los grandes beneficios e incentivos que otorgaban a la exportación aquellos países que son nuestros competidores directos (incluyendo beneficios idénticos y aún mayores a nuestro Certificado de Abono Tributario). Por todo lo anterior, para el éxito del Modelo de Promoción de Exportaciones no tradicionales, del que dependía nuestra sobrevivencia económica, era imprescindible hacer rentables las inversiones en ese sector, a efecto de que los empresarios involucrados en ese sector aminoraran los costos causados por los factores internos y externos negativos mencionados y asumieran los elevadísimos riesgos de su inversión, mientras maduraba su proceso de aprendizaje y se consolidaba la reestructuración productiva requerida para enfrentar los nuevos retos. Esa fue la causa por la cual, una vez más en nuestra historia económica, el Estado costarricense otorgó a un sector productivo determinado, ciertos beneficios e incentivos temporales, los mismos fueron establecidos por un período de 12 años y diseñados por el Nombre98441 de manera tal, que respondieran a los incentivos otorgados en los países competidores con el nuestro a la exportación de productos similares. Las medidas económicas adoptadas por el Estado Costarricense buscan en síntesis: por un lado, incentivar y promover lo que no se tiene y se necesita y por otro, de mantener lo que ya se tiene porque fue promovido en su oportunidad. Para mantener lo que ya se tiene, se han promulgado diferentes leyes que otorgan beneficios e incentivos también a la producción y exportación de productos tradicionales, tales como las leyes que regulan las relaciones entre productores, beneficiadores y exportadores de café, y entre productores, industrializadores y exportadores de caña de azúcar, que garantizan a los productores la adquisición, por parte de los industrializadores, de la totalidad de su cosecha, con los adelantos correspondientes y regulando los créditos que se conceden a esas actividades productivas. Tal garantía de compra de la totalidad de su producción no la tienen los productores y exportadores de productos no tradicionales quienes, por el contrario, están sujetos a la incertidumbre de un mercado desconocido y riesgoso. Por su parte, la Ley de Fomento Bananero otorga importantes exenciones, incluyendo la fijación por parte del Estado de los precios de compra de la fruta al productor. La objetiva realidad económica demuestra que la "categorización" entre productores tradicionales y no tradicionales no es "arbitraria", sino que responde al entorno internacional en que obligadamente se desarrolla nuestra economía. Por ello, las leyes impugnadas no son ni "personales" ni "carentes de generalidad" ni "abstractas", sino que responden a una política económica coherente del Estado costarricense enmarcada dentro de los principios constitucionales. Solicitan se rechace de plano esta acción por falta de legitimación, o en su defecto, se deniegue la misma por el fondo, ya que las normas legales impugnadas no violan los artículos 18, 33 y 50 de la Constitución Política.

VII. -Mediante escrito de folio 105, Cecil Alfaro Bravo, mayor, casado, empresario, vecino de San José, cédula número CED75407, en su calidad de Presidente con la representación judicial y extrajudicial de la ASOCIACION COSTARRICENSE DE FLORICULTORES, se apersona con el fin de apoyar las gestiones de defensa de la constitucionalidad de las leyes impugnadas. A folio 188 solicita se tenga a la Asociación que representa como coadyuvante. Expone los siguientes argumentos: La floricultura en Costa Rica es una actividad reciente y de un alto índice de crecimiento. El sistema de incentivos a la exportación es esencial para el desarrollo y mantenimiento de la floricultura, ya que la actividad de flores en su etapa de desarrollo y consolidación, requiere de tiempo para formar y crear una tradición de su cultivo y cosecha en nuestros trabajadores, así como la de adaptar una tecnología al país. Además la inversión por área de producción es una de las más altas en agricultura. Estima que la infraestructura existente a marzo de 1991, tiene un valor aproximado de 3.500 millones de colones por 330 hectáreas de cultivo. La inversión tan alta por hectárea se debe a la necesidad de construir invernaderos, preparar los suelos, drenajes, instalar un sistema de riego y fumigación, área techada para empaque, cámara fría, maquinaria y herramientas especiales para el cuido y cosecha de las flores. En adición, la floricultura esta sometida a un doble alto riesgo: primero, los daños causados por razones climáticas y enfermedades, son mayores debido a la intensidad y sensibilidad del cultivo. Los requerimientos internacionales de sanidad vegetal y de calidad son muy estrictos, por lo que cualquier pequeño problema detectado en las flores supone la pérdida de las mismas. Segundo, las pocas facilidades para el transporte aéreo incrementan el riesgo de la actividad y aumentan el costo de una posible pérdida. Recuérdese que la flor es un producto altamente perecedero y muy sensible al cambio de condiciones, por lo que el simple retraso de un vuelo o la exposición al sol de las flores, significa también su rechazo en el mercado internacional. El sistema de incentivos, fundamentalmente el régimen de exoneraciones, es indispensable para el desarrollo del sector de la floricultura y su consolidación definitiva. Existen muchas empresas exportadoras de flores que no pueden optar por el Certificado de Abono Tributario en virtud de un acuerdo de suspensión firmado con el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos (este afecta la exportación de algunos tipos de flores a dicho país). La actividad de flores da importantes beneficios a la economía del país, lo cual justifica la existencia del sistema de incentivos. La floricultura es una actividad que genera una importante fuente de empleo, en 1990 se emplearon 4.500 trabajadores directos, más los empleos indirectos relacionados con la actividad (construcción de invernaderos, insumos, transporte y otros). El aporte en tecnología al país es muy significativo, pues permite valorar y comprender la importancia de la investigación y desarrollo de conocimientos y procesos propios en el campo de la agricultura. La ubicación de los proyectos y el tipo de trabajo, permite un desarrollo de las áreas rurales del país, tanto en el campo económico, como cultural y tecnológico. Un factor relevante de la floricultura es su valor agregado que alcanza el 70%. Esto representa una mayor generación de ingresos para el país y un mejor aprovechamiento de sus recursos. Aduce que el régimen de incentivos a la exportación se encuentra ampliamente justificado y no viola el principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas. El régimen de incentivos es necesario para la consolidación definitiva de la floricultura. La terminación del régimen significaría el cierre de muchas empresas, lo que lesionaría derechos amparados por la Constitución Política. Con el sistema de incentivos, el Estado cumple con el mandato constitucional establecido en el artículo 50. La Constitución Política supone un equilibrio armónico de todos los intereses de la sociedad. La cancelación de los incentivos a la exportación, causaría daños irreparables a las empresas exportadoras de flores. El cambio de las condiciones establecidas hasta el año 1996 (por el contrato de exportación), significaría el cierre de una actividad en proceso de consolidación; lo que supone la pérdida de ingresos de divisas por las exportaciones, de puestos de trabajo, de tecnología y de grandes inversiones en infraestructura y plantas. Solicita que con fundamento en el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se deniegue esta acción. En caso contrario, solicita que con fundamento en el artículo 91 de la citada Ley y el artículo 34 de la Constitución Política, se mantenga la vigencia de los contratos firmados por el Estado y los beneficios derivados de ellos hasta 1996.

VIII.- A folio 183 consta un Racsagrama firmado por Nombre98444 , secretario General de la Unión de Productores Agropecuarios de Pérez Zeledón, mediante el cual la UPIAV "... apoya el recurso presentado y solicita favorable resolución para que se elimine el privilegio que significan los Certificados de Abono Tributario (CAT) el cual favorece más a un pequeño sector con un poder económico muy elevado perjudicando así a todos los costarricenses".

IX.- La audiencia oral a que se refieren los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se celebró a las 9:15 horas del 22 de junio de 1995, con la asistencia del actor Lic. Jorge Eduardo Sánchez Sibaja, del Procurador Adjunto de la República Lic. Farid Beirute Brenes en asocio de la Procuradora Administrativa Licda. Ana Lorena Brenes, en representación de los coadyuvantes el Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez y el Ing. Samuel Yankelewitz, según consta a folio 264.

X.- Esta resolución se dicta de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Transitorio II de la Ley N.° 7135 de 11 de octubre de 1989.

Redacta el Magistrado SOLANO CARRERA; y,

Considerando:

PRIMERO: SOBRE LA ADMISIBILIDAD.- En cuanto a la admisibilidad, la Sala ya resolvió en su oportunidad mediante resolución de las 15 horas del 5 de febrero de 1991, en la cual se dio curso a la presente acción, según consta a folio 56.

SEGUNDO: SOBRE EL FONDO.- En relación a los artículos 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley N.° 5162 de 22 de diciembre de 1972 denominada "Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones", 4 de la Ley N.° 5909 de 16 de junio de 1976, 40 de la Ley N.° 6955 de 24 de febrero de 1984, 11 de la Ley N.° 6999 de 3 de setiembre de 1985, 60 y 61 de la Ley N.° 7092 del 21 de abril de 1988, el accionante alega que dichas normas violan los artículos 9, 18, 33 y 50 de la Constitución Política, por todas las razones que constan en el resultando número I. Por su parte, la Procuraduría General de la República, en cuanto al fondo de esta acción, sostuvo la constitucionalidad de las mismas (resultando II). A su vez, las personas jurídicas apersonadas como coadyuvantes defienden la constitucionalidad de las normas impugnadas, según las razones expuestas en los considerandos IV, V, VI y VII de esta sentencia. La Sala considera que dichas normas que conceden beneficios e incentivos a la exportación de productos no tradicionales, no quebrantan los artículos 9, 18, 33 y 50 de la Constitución Política, por las razones que seguidamente se dirán:

A).- Respecto de la supuesta violación del artículo 9 de la Constitución Política relativa a la "delegación amplia y abierta" que el Nombre98441 realiza en el artículo 2 de la Ley N.° 5162 de 22 de diciembre de 1972 a favor del Ministerio de Economía Industria y Comercio, alegada por el accionante, la Sala estima que dicho artículo no contiene una delegación amplia y abierta, sino más bien una delegación relativa. Sobre este tema la Sala se refirió en la sentencia N.° 730-95 de las 15 horas del 3 de febrero de 1995:

"V.- EN CUANTO AL DECRETO NUMERO 23785-H CITADO: No comparte esta Sala el criterio sostenido por los apoderados de las recurrentes, en el sentido de que con el Decreto Ejecutivo número 23785-H, publicado en La Gaceta número 228 del treinta de noviembre del año pasado, se viola el principio de "Reserva de Ley" -contenido en el inciso 13 del artículo 121 Constitucional y el artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, puesto que su contenido, como ya se apuntó, no crea tributo alguno y para la explicación de este extremo, es necesario analizar los siguientes aspectos: a) La Ley de Impuesto sobre las Ventas, Ley número 6826 de ocho de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos y sus reformas, establece un impuesto sobre el valor agregado en la venta de mercancías (todas) y en la prestación de ciertos servicios; b) Si bien es cierto que el artículo 9 de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, citada, establece que se encuentran exentas del pago de ese impuesto la venta de las mercancías que componen la "Canasta Básica Alimentaria", también lo es que el Reglamento a esa Ley, Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082-H de veintinueve de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos y sus reformas y no aquella, es el cuerpo normativo que determina cuáles artículos la conforman, de manera que la dispensa que disfrutaban los "helados y las galletas no enlatadas" -artículos que producen y comercializan las Sociedades recurrentes- provenía no de la Ley sino del Reglamento apuntado, pues es mediante el reglamento que se establece la exención; c) Por otra parte, cabe señalar que la prohibición de gravar con el impuesto selectivo de consumo en el caso de las mercancías a que se refiere el artículo 9 de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas y que establece el numeral 17 del citado cuerpo normativo, tiene vigencia única y exclusivamente para aquellos artículos que conformen la "Canasta Básica Alimentaria", es decir que estén contemplados en el Reglamento a dicha Ley. De las aclaraciones expuestas, se desprende con meridiana claridad que fue el propio legislador, habida cuenta de los factores variables como los que interactúan en la economía de un país y para dar cabal cumplimiento a los fines de la ley -en cuanto a la exención mencionada-, el que delegó, en el Poder Ejecutivo, en forma relativa, la posibilidad de determinar cuáles son los artículos o mercancías que, en un momento determinado, deben conformar la "Canasta Básica Alimentaria" -que es la que se encuentra exenta del pago del impuesto, independientemente de los artículos que la conformen-, de manera que, la exclusión o inclusión por parte del Ejecutivo de determinadas mercancías en esa lista no implica, como se alega en el recurso, la creación de una exención o de un impuesto, según sea el caso, por una vía distinta a la Ley, es decir una "Delegación Absoluta". En efecto la posibilidad de incluir nuevas mercancías en la lista a que se refiere el artículo 9 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre las Ventas, no implica una delegación de la "Potestad Tributaria" -que le compete exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa-, o usurpación de la misma por parte del Ejecutivo, sino que implica una consecuencia de la naturaleza o índole del impuesto y de los factores económicos variables que obligan, en algunos casos, a incluir nuevos artículos, todo ello con la intención de que se cumplan los fines que la ley persigue. Por lo expuesto el recurso, en lo que toca al Decreto 23785-H mencionado, debe desestimarse y así debe declararse." En el presente caso, en el artículo 2 de la Ley N.° 5162 de 22 de diciembre de 1972 lo que el Nombre98441 incluyó, fue una delegación relativa, ya que siendo una potestad del Poder Legislativo introducir regímenes de fomento de los "distintos sectores productivos" -por tales debe entenderse regímenes fiscales especiales: por zonas (Golfito), por actividades (construcción de casas de interés social) y por condiciones específicas (pobreza extrema)-, en función de las particularidades que los caracterizan, éstos a su vez dependen de factores variables que interactúan en la economía del país, motivo por el cual resulta razonable y necesario que sea el Poder Ejecutivo el que pueda ir definiendo cuáles son los productos de exportación que han de irse incluyendo en la lista. Lo anterior, por cuanto lo que en un inicio puede considerarse "producto de exportación no tradicional" luego con los años y de acuerdo a las condiciones de la economía, puede pasar a ser considerado como "producto de exportación tradicional". Estamos ante una materia muy técnica que está constantemente determinada por las múltiples variables que inciden sobre la economía nacional y el mercado internacional. En consecuencia, el artículo 2 de la Ley de Fomento de las Exportaciones de 22 de diciembre de 1972, no quebranta el principio de división de poderes establecido en el artículo 9 de la Constitución Política, sino más bien, el Nombre98441 está haciendo uso de sus facultades -de introducir regímenes de fomento de los distintos sectores productivos- y hace una delegación relativa a favor del Poder Ejecutivo, delegación que como señaló la Procuraduría, no es desproporcionada ni irrazonable.

B).- En cuanto al principio de igualdad ante las cargas públicas y el genérico de igualdad, la Sala ya se refirió en la sentencia N.° 1266-95 de las 15:39 horas del 7 de marzo de 1995:

"... la Sala considera que no ha existido violación al principio de igualdad ante la ley, porque no puede entenderse que la igualdad significa que todos han de ser tratados por igual, con independencia de las posibles diferencias entre los individuos. El principio de igualdad significa que no se pueden introducir desigualdades discriminatorias, aunque sí desigualdades razonables, justificadas por cualquier elemento diferenciador de relevancia jurídica; porque dar un tratamiento similar a situaciones desiguales, conllevaría una mayor desigualdad. Dar un tratamiento diverso a situaciones distintas es compatible con un Estado democrático y social de Derecho, por los valores que éste consagra: Justicia, Libertad, Igualdad, Seguridad Jurídica y Solidaridad. En materia tributaria, la igualdad supone por un lado, el esfuerzo económico de la sociedad pagando impuestos, y por otro, el Estado decidiendo por prioridades las necesidades a satisfacer. La igualdad tributaria implica la intervención sobre las reglas del libre mercado; se trata de un subsistema de normas -normas tributarias- dentro del sistema jurídico... La Constitución faculta al Nombre98441 para crear leyes que incorporen el principio de igualdad material fundado en razones objetivas." (Ver además sentencia 782-93 de las 16:24 horas del 16 de febrero de 1993 y sentencia 1160-94 de las 10:30 horas del 2 de marzo de 1994).

En el caso bajo examen, lleva razón la Procuraduría al señalar que el Poder Legislativo tiene la potestad de introducir regímenes de fomento de los distintos sectores productivos en función de las particularidades que los caracterizan. Además, no estamos en presencia de un uso desproporcionado o irrazonable de dichas atribuciones, máxime si se toma en cuenta que dichos beneficios fueron otorgados por 12 años, es decir, se trata de incentivos temporales, lo que a su vez imprime mayor razonabilidad y proporcionalidad a la política legislativa adoptada mediante las normas impugnadas. Estos beneficios e incentivos, de manera especial el Contrato de Exportación, el Certificado de Abono Tributario (CAT) y el certificado de incremento a las exportaciones (CIEX), constituyen instrumentos idóneos, razonables y proporcionados para colocar en condiciones de competitividad internacional a los exportadores de productos no tradicionales. Con el fin de incrementar las exportaciones de nuestro país, el Estado costarricense buscó una alternativa viable para compensar las limitaciones internas y externas con las que topaban los exportadores de productos no tradicionales a terceros mercados. Además, los exportadores de productos no tradicionales se encontraban en una situación de hecho muy distinta en relación a los exportadores de productos tradicionales. Porque el aventurarse en la producción y exportación de un producto nuevo e incursionar en el mercado internacional sin tener experiencia, presenta varios inconvenientes, entre ellos: alta inversión y costos, desconocimiento de la tecnología y falta de apoyo técnico, desconocimiento del mercado y la comercialización, alto riesgo y competitividad internacional, dificultades en las gestiones de pago y cobro. Por otra parte, debe tenerse presente el efecto multiplicador del Certificado de Abono Tributario. Los CATS son normas compensatorias en el ámbito fiscal que generan beneficios para todo el país, en virtud de que generan muchos millones de colones en mano de obra, garantías sociales y consumo de materia prima nacional, esto último permite el desarrollo de actividades paralelas. En general, los incentivos a la producción de productos no tradicionales y el incremento de las exportaciones del país tiene varias consecuencias positivas, por ejemplo: el país tiene claras posibilidades de salir de la crisis económica, hay mayor disponibilidad de divisas para pagar las importaciones, aumenta el nivel de empleo (el sector privado absorbe mano de obra), existe transferencia de tecnología, desarrollo de nuevas áreas de producción no sujetas a los caprichos del mercado internacional y finalmente, por la ubicación de los proyectos y el tipo de trabajo, permite un desarrollo económico, social, cultural y tecnológico de las áreas rurales del país. El desarrollo de las zonas rurales, mediante leyes que permitan alcanzar una estable y razonable igualdad con el resto del país, ya fue analizado por la Sala en la sentencia N.° 319-95 de las 14:42 horas del 17 de enero de 1995:

"SOBRE EL FONDO: Como es un hecho público y notorio, la Ley 7012 de 4 de noviembre de 1985, fue promulgada como un medio de solución parcial de la grave crisis económica y social generada por la deserción de las compañías que explotaban la producción de banano en el Pacífico Sur del país. Por el grado de desarrollo de las actividades de esas compañías y por la importancia económica que adquirió el cultivo del banano en esa región, la población no directamente empleada por dichas empresas desarrolló actividades económicas secundarias o periféricas a fin de suplir bienes y servicios a la actividad principal. De manera que de uno u otro modo, la actividad económica de la región tenía la producción y exportación de banano como principal elemento impulsor. El fenómeno tal vez podría denominarse como de "enclave económico", como lo define algún sector de la doctrina. Cuando esas compañías decidieron concluir sus actividades en nuestro país, produjeron un grave deterioro en la economía de la zona y forzaron a muchas personas a abandonar sus negocios y otras actividades privadas, organizadas a su alrededor. Ante la severa depresión que todo esto causó, el Gobierno propuso a la Asamblea Legislativa el proyecto que dio lugar a la Ley aquí impugnada, como una de las soluciones concebidas para reactivar la producción en esa zona y permitirle, mediante un tratamiento diferenciado, alcanzar una estable y razonable igualdad con el resto del país. IV.- El objeto de la Ley, en síntesis, es el de permitir el funcionamiento de un "Depósito Libre" o zona libre en la ciudad de Golfito, a fin de atraer compradores que contribuyan a levantar la economía de la zona. La ley también fomenta la construcción de hoteles y el establecimiento de negocios dedicados al comercio en general, todo bajo el incentivo de reducir los aranceles de importación de los productos que allí se usen o vendan." (Ver además sentencia 321-95 de las 14:48 horas del 17 de enero de 1995).

Del análisis anterior, se concluye que la creación de los beneficios e incentivos impugnados, más bien compensa las dificultades que afrontan los productores y exportadores de productos no tradicionales a terceros mercados, que normalmente tendrían que competir en desigualdad de condiciones. De manera que, la Sala no encuentra motivo alguno, para estimar que los mismos quebrantan los artículos 18 y 33 de la Constitución Política y más bien, como se verá seguidamente, se inscriben en lo dispuesto por el artículo 50 de la Norma Fundamental.

C).- En relación a la supuesta violación al artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, la Sala considera que los beneficios e incentivos que establecen las normas aquí impugnadas, lejos de atentar contra el artículo 50, más bien vienen a dar cumplimiento a dicha norma programática. El Estado debe promover y procurar el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, mediante la organización y el estímulo de la producción, así como el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza. Sobre este tema la Sala se pronunció en la sentencia 550-95 de las 16:33 horas del 31 de enero de 1995, señalando que:

"El Estado puede, entonces, intentar plasmar sus fines y objetivos socio-económicos impulsando la iniciativa privada, o fomentando, por medio de incentivos, la actividad a que se dedica; o bien, mediante la imposición de ciertos deberes a los particulares con el fin de mantener en un mínimo aceptable el bienestar económico de la población... La Constitución vigente, en su artículo 50, consagra un criterio importante en esta materia, dando fundamento constitucional a un cierto grado de intervención del Estado en la economía, en el tanto no resulte incompatible con el espíritu y condiciones del modelo de "economía social de mercado" establecido constitucionalmente, es decir, se postula en esa norma, y en su contexto constitucional, la libertad económica pero en un cierto grado, razonable, proporcionado y no discriminatorio de intervención estatal, permitiéndose al Estado, dentro de tales límites, organizar y estimular la producción, así como asegurar un "adecuado" reparto de la riqueza. Esta Sala en su sentencia # 1441-92, de las 15:45 horas del junio de 1992, dispuso:

"El principio general básico de la Constitución Política está plasmado en el artículo, al disponer que "el Estado procurará el mayor bienestar a todos los habitantes del país, organizando y estimulando la producción y el más adecuado reparto de la riqueza" lo que unido a la declaración de adhesión del Estado costarricense al principio cristiano de justicia social, incluido en el artículo 74 ibídem, determina la esencia misma del sistema político y social que hemos escogido para nuestro país y que lo definen como un Estado Social de Derecho.".

Con el establecimiento de los beneficios e incentivos bajo examen, el Estado costarricense procura varios objetivos, entre ellos: diversificación de los productos de exportación, aumento del ingreso de divisas, lo que implica una sustancial mejora en la balanza de pagos, porque los incentivos se otorgan a aquellas empresas que entreguen sus ingresos generados por la exportación en moneda extranjera al Banco Central de Costa Rica (bajo la obligación de informar a dicho Banco anualmente sobre las exportaciones realizadas), aporte significativo al producto interno bruto del país, lo que trae aparejado: el aumento del nivel de empleo, el aumento de la riqueza nacional -nuevas inversiones y proyectos desarrollados-, el desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías y la especialización de mano de obra. Todo ello lógicamente implica un mayor desarrollo económico y social del país. A juicio de la Sala, resulta evidente que el establecimiento de los beneficios e incentivos impugnados significan el aumento del bienestar de todos los habitantes del país, porque por su efecto multiplicador el CAT se transforma en muchos millones de colones en empleo, cargas sociales, consumo de materia prima -lo que implica el surgimiento de toda una actividad paralela- y el incremento de las exportaciones, que a su vez viene a significar la posibilidad de salir de la crisis económica que atraviesa del país, con el beneficio adicional de la mayor disponibilidad de divisas para poder cubrir las importaciones de productos indispensables, que deben necesariamente comprarse en el extranjero. El Estado costarricense tiene la obligación constitucional de buscar las fórmulas económicas que permitan el mejor y mayor desarrollo del país y que lógicamente signifiquen el incremento del bienestar de todos los habitantes, siempre y cuando esa herramienta económica se encuentre en un todo conforme con las normas y principios constitucionales, según se dijo ocurre en este caso. Por lo anterior, las normas impugnadas no violan el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política. Debe dejarse constancia de que en la audiencia oral )del 22 de junio de este año), el actor realizó manifestaciones que parecían reconducir su posición a impugnar la forma en que el sistema de incentivos a la exportación (CAT) está funcionando o está siendo aplicado por la administración, pero no obstante que presentó un resumen escrito de sus conclusiones, no queda claro cómo se enderezaría el reclamo contra la forma en que opera y no contra el sistema mismo de incentivos. De toda suerte, dicho en forma tan genérica, el problema no sería realmente de constitucionalidad, sino un desajuste de naturaleza administrativa, que por subsanable, confirmaría la legitimidad del programa de incentivos que ahora se analiza.

D).- En cuanto a los artículos 60 y 61 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, la Sala advierte que ambos artículos -aquí impugnados- fueron reformados mediante la Ley 7257 del 17 de setiembre de 1991, es decir, con posterioridad a la interposición de la demanda. El artículo 60 fue reformado en el enunciado y en los incisos a) y c), y el artículo 61 fue reformado únicamente en su inciso e). La reforma al artículo 60 establece que todo beneficiario de un contrato de exportación que voluntariamente se acoja a la reducción del porcentaje de los CAT que defina el Consejo Nacional de Inversiones, recibirá los beneficios que concede esta ley por un período adicional a partir de 1996 y hasta 1999, salvo en lo que se refiere a la exención del impuesto sobre la renta, para lo cual no regirá la ampliación. A juicio de la Sala, por lo que se ha expuesto precedentemente, el contenido de dichas reformas no quebranta el texto constitucional.

TERCERO:SOBRE LAS NORMAS PRESUPUESTARIAS IMPROPIAS.- En cuanto al inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989, ambas leyes de presupuesto -la primera, es la Ley de Presupuestos Ordinario y Extraordinario de la República, Fiscal y por Programas para el Ejercicio Fiscal de 1989 y la segunda, es una ley mediante la cual se modifican los ingresos ordinarios para el ejercicio fiscal de 1989, aprobados en el artículo 1 de la Ley N.° 7111 del 12 de diciembre de 1988-. Mediante estas normas se adicionan los incisos g) y h) al artículo 61 y se crea el artículo 61-b ambas de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta N.° 7092 del 21 de abril de 1988. Los incisos g) y h) adicionados al artículo 61 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, se refieren a ciertos beneficios otorgados por el Contrato de Exportación y de Producción para la Exportación, específicamente el beneficio de la exoneración de toda clase de tributos y sobretasas que afecten la importación de maquinaria y equipo, sus accesorios y repuestos, y de ciertos vehículos automotores. Así como también, la exoneración de los impuestos general sobre las ventas y selectivo de consumo para la adquisición en el mercado local, de materias primas, insumos, maquinaria y equipo, excepto de vehículos menores de dos toneladas métricas de carga útil, sus accesorios y repuestos. El artículo 61-b establece que la eficacia de las exoneraciones tributarias están condicionadas al pleno acatamiento de lo establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y al cumplimiento de lo estipulado en los contratos y programas de exportación que se suscriban. El accionante sostiene que estas normas violan los artículos 121 inciso 1), 176, 178 y 180 por tratarse de normas atípicas; además alega el quebranto de los artículos 9, 18, 33 y 50 todos de la Constitución Política. En reiteradas ocasiones la Sala ha señalado que la inclusión de disposiciones de contenido no presupuestario en las leyes de presupuesto, es contraria a los preceptos constitucionales referentes a la atribución o competencia de la Asamblea Legislativa para dictar, reformar o derogar las leyes que conforman el ordenamiento jurídico y las que otorgan competencia o legitimación para dictar los presupuestos ordinarios o extraordinarios de la República, es decir, los incisos 1.) y 11.) del artículo 121, 123 a 128 y 176 a 180 de la Constitución Política. Es así como se ha considerado que:

"III.- ...es enteramente procedente que se incluyan "normas generales" en las normas de presupuesto, siempre y cuando ellas se encuentren ligadas a la especialidad que esa materia significa, o lo que es lo mismo decir, a la ejecución del presupuesto. Lo que no es posible incluir en las leyes de presupuesto son las normas que no tienen ese carácter, ya que ellas deben regularse por lo dispuesto para las leyes comunes u ordinarias ... Si bien el artículo 105 de la Constitución Política, dispone entre otras cosas, que la potestad de legislar reside en el pueblo, el cual la delega por medio del sufragio en la Asamblea Legislativa, es en los incisos 1.) y 11.) del artículo 121 de la Carta Política que se distingue entre dos diferentes modos y formas de legislar según corresponda a la materia de que se trate. El primer texto atribuye de manera exclusiva al Poder Legislativo la potestad de "Dictar las leyes, reformar, derogarlas y darles interpretación auténtica, salvo lo dicho en el artículo referente al Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones." Por su parte el inciso 11.) atribuye también de manera exclusiva al citado Poder la potestad de "Dictar los presupuestos ordinarios y extraordinarios de la República". Como podrá observarse la atribución del inciso primero constituye una potestad muy amplia que atañe en general a las leyes ordinarias o comunes, en tanto que la del inciso 11.) es de carácter especial cuyo desarrollo se contempla en los artículos 176, 177, 178, 179 y 180 en relación al numeral 125 in fine que impide al Poder Ejecutivo el veto en materia de legislación presupuestarial. Es así, que si la Constitución contempla por separado esas facultades, es porque se trata de actos legislativos de diferente naturaleza y contenido, aunque el presupuesto sea una ley formal y material y las demás leyes deban tener también ese carácter.

IV.- Establece el artículo 176 de nuestra Constitución, entre otras cosas que "el presupuesto ordinario de la República comprende todos los ingresos probables y todos los gastos autorizados, de la Administración Pública, durante el año económico ... El presupuesto de la República se emitirá para el término de un año, del primero de enero al treinta y uno de diciembre." Con fundamento en los artículos 177 y siguientes de la Constitución se profundiza más en los procedimientos especiales que el Poder Ejecutivo y el Congreso deben observar en la tramitación de dicha ley. Lo mismo ocurre en el Reglamento de Orden, Dirección y Disciplina Interior de la Asamblea Legislativa. Es por ello que esta Sala concluye en el sentido de que el presupuesto de la República es una ley formal y material pero especial por la materia que la constituye y por el procedimiento ya comentado. De los textos antes citados se desprende que la competencia o legitimación que constitucionalmente se atribuye a la Asamblea Legislativa sobre tan importante materia, es para fijar en los presupuestos los ingresos probables y los gastos autorizados de la Administración Pública con las modalidades que para sus modificaciones y para sus presupuestos extraordinarios la misma Constitución señala. No puede en consecuencia, el Poder Legislativo bajo la potestad presupuestaria que se apunta, regular materias de diferente naturaleza o contenido a esa especialidad. Lo expuesto es congruente con la atribución exclusiva del Poder Ejecutivo de elaboración del proyecto de presupuesto ordinario y la iniciativa de sus modificaciones y de los extraordinarios, así como de la Asamblea Legislativa en cuanto a su dictado, además, con la modalidad ya analizada de que el Poder Ejecutivo no tiene atribución de veto sobre su aprobación, a tenor del numeral 125 de la Carta Fundamental" (Sentencia N 121-89 de las 11 horas del 23 de noviembre de 1989, ver además sentencias N 568-90 de las 17 horas del 23 de abril de 1990, Placa15777 de las 16 horas del 9 de octubre de 1990 y Placa15778 de las 15:06 horas del 8 de noviembre de 1994).

En el caso ahora analizado, resulta evidente que las disposiciones del inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989 -normas relativas a las exoneraciones de tributos y sobretasas que otorga el Contrato de Exportación y de Producción para la Exportación-, éstas normas debieron haberse aprobado según los trámites que la Constitución Política y el Reglamento de Orden y Disciplina Interior de la Asamblea Legislativa prevén para la emisión de leyes ordinarias, y no incluirlas como norma presupuestaria, siendo claro que su contenido no es de esta materia. Al estar en presencia de una situación idéntica a la tratada en la jurisprudencia citada, por tratarse de una norma atípica, y no encontrando motivos para variar el criterio ya externado, ni razones de interés público que justifiquen que la Sala reconsidere la cuestión, es que procede acoger esta acción de inconstitucionalidad en cuanto se dirige contra el inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988 y el artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989. Por lo anterior, resulta innecesario referirse aquí a las otras violaciones alegadas, máxime que el tema de los beneficios e incentivos a las exportaciones de productos no tradicionales ya fue analizado en el considerando segundo de esta sentencia.

CUARTO: EFECTOS DE ESTA DECLARATORIA.- La acción de inconstitucionalidad tiene por objeto la nulidad de la norma impugnada, nulidad que la Sala ha dicho, es la más grave y radical, por tratarse de una afrenta a la norma suprema. De conformidad con ello, la Ley que rige esta Jurisdicción, otorga efecto declarativo y retroactivo a la sentencia de inconstitucionalidad. Bajo esta inteligencia, la Sala estima que en el caso aquí examinado, debe protegerse el principio de Buena Fe y en consecuencia, debe garantizarse el patrimonio de las empresas beneficiadas por el contrato de exportación. Por tal motivo, en este caso la declaratoria de nulidad procede hacerla a partir de la fecha de esta sentencia; a pesar de que la coadyuvante "Asociación Costarricense de Floricultores" había solicitado que se mantuviera la vigencia de los beneficios hasta 1996, año en que vencen los contratos de exportación; y de que el Dr. Carlos José Gutiérrez, representante legal de la Asociación Cámara de Industrias de Costa Rica, solicitó en la vista que se mantuviera la vigencia de los Contratos de Exportación hasta 1996 y que en aquellos casos de ampliación, por haberse acogido voluntariamente a la reducción del porcentaje del CAT, que los beneficios del contrato se mantengan vigentes hasta el año 1999. Sin embargo, la Sala no puede conceder en su totalidad la pretensión planteada, toda vez que concederla respecto de las normas aquí declaradas inconstitucionales -por espurias- implicaría en la práctica dejar sin efecto tal declaratoria.

Por tanto:

Se declara parcialmente con lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad y en consecuencia se anulan: 1) El inciso 12) del artículo 36 de la Ley N.° 7111 de 12 de diciembre de 1988, y 2) El artículo 35 de la Ley N.° 7138 de 16 de noviembre de 1989; ambas leyes de presupuesto que adicionaron los incisos g) y h) al artículo 61 y el artículo 61-b a la Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta N.° 7092 de 21 de abril de 1988. La presente sentencia es declarativa y surte efectos a partir de esta fecha, sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos de buena fe. En consecuencia, los contratos de exportación suscritos mantienen su vigencia hasta el año 1996, así como hasta el año 1999, en aquellos casos de haberse acogido voluntariamente a la reducción del porcentaje del CAT (de conformidad con la Ley 7257 del 17 de setiembre de 1991). En ambos supuestos la vigencia de los contratos se mantiene con excepción de los beneficios establecidos en los incisos g) y h) del artículo 61, y 61-b), adicionados a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta mediante las leyes de presupuesto anuladas. En todo lo demás, se declara sin lugar la acción. Reséñese este pronunciamiento en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, publíquese íntegramente en el Boletín Judicial y comuníquese a los Poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo. Notifíquese.

Luis Paulino Mora M.

Jorge E. Castro B. Luis Fernando Solano C.

Eduardo Sancho G. Carlos Manuel Arguedas R.

Mario Granados M. Nombre45029 .

LFSC/secs/jha