Res. 13150-2018 Sala Constitucional — Rejection of unconstitutionality action against AyA regulation for lack of pending prior matter

OutcomeResultado

InadmissibleInadmisible

The unconstitutionality action is flatly rejected because the underlying matter had already concluded since the administrative remedy had been exhausted.Se rechaza de plano la acción de inconstitucionalidad porque el asunto base que servía de fundamento ya se encontraba fenecido al haberse agotado la vía administrativa.

SummaryResumen

The Constitutional Chamber flatly rejected an unconstitutionality action filed by the President of Fabricaciones Acuro S.A. against the Service Provision Regulation of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers (AyA). The plaintiff argued that Article 51 of the regulation excludes commercial and reproductive users from billing adjustments, thereby violating public service principles and equality. However, the Chamber found that the underlying matter —an administrative appeal invoking the unconstitutionality— had already been decided and the administrative remedy exhausted before the action was filed; therefore, there was no pending matter to resolve as required by Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law. Since this essential procedural requirement was not met, the action was rejected without addressing the merits.La Sala Constitucional rechaza de plano una acción de inconstitucionalidad presentada por el Presidente de Fabricaciones Acuro S.A. contra el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). El accionante alegaba que el artículo 51 del reglamento excluye a los usuarios comerciales reproductivos del ajuste de facturación, violando así principios de servicio público e igualdad. Sin embargo, la Sala determinó que el asunto base —un recurso de apelación administrativo que invocaba la inconstitucionalidad— ya había sido resuelto y la vía administrativa agotada antes de interponer la acción, por lo que no existía un asunto pendiente de resolver como exige el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Al no cumplirse este presupuesto procesal indispensable, la acción fue rechazada sin examen de fondo.

Key excerptExtracto clave

In response to the prevention order issued to the plaintiff, the plaintiff submitted as evidence a copy of Resolution No. GG-2018-576 from the General Management of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, dated 8:00 a.m. on June 29, 2018, from which it follows that the appeal that the plaintiff expressly cites as the underlying matter in this action was already decided and rejected, and even the administrative remedy has been exhausted; that is, the said underlying matter is now concluded. Therefore, it is not demonstrated that there is currently a pending prior matter that could serve as an adequate basis for challenging the aforementioned regulation, under the scenario established in paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law. Consequently, the appropriate course is to flatly reject the action, as hereby ordered.En respuesta a la prevención efectuada a la parte accionante, esta aporta -como prueba- copia de la resolución No. GG-2018-576 de la Gerencia General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, de las 8 hrs. del 29 de junio de 2018, de la que se deriva que el recurso de apelación que el accionante cita, expresamente, como asunto base de la presente acción, ya fue resuelto y rechazado e, incluso, ya se dio por agotada la vía administrativa, sea, el referido asunto base ya se encuentra fenecido. Por lo que no se acredita que, en la actualidad, exista un asunto previo pendiente de resolver que sirva de base idónea para la impugnación de la normativa supra aludida, con arreglo al supuesto previsto en el párrafo 1° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por consiguiente, lo procedente es el rechazo de plano de la acción, como así se dispone.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"En su párrafo primero se exige la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sea en sede judicial –incluyendo los recursos de hábeas corpus o de amparo- o en la administrativa –en el procedimiento de agotamiento de esta vía, sea, en el procedimiento administrativo de impugnación contra el acto final-, en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado en el asunto principal."

"Its first paragraph requires the existence of a pending matter to be resolved, whether in judicial proceedings —including habeas corpus or amparo appeals— or in administrative proceedings —in the procedure for exhausting this remedy, i.e., in the administrative procedure for challenging the final act— in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged rule is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest deemed harmed in the main matter."

Considerando I

"En su párrafo primero se exige la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sea en sede judicial –incluyendo los recursos de hábeas corpus o de amparo- o en la administrativa –en el procedimiento de agotamiento de esta vía, sea, en el procedimiento administrativo de impugnación contra el acto final-, en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado en el asunto principal."

Considerando I

"Un asunto previo pendiente de resolver que sirva de base idónea para la impugnación de la normativa supra aludida, con arreglo al supuesto previsto en el párrafo 1° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional."

"A pending prior matter that could serve as an adequate basis for challenging the aforementioned regulation, under the scenario established in paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law."

Considerando III

"Un asunto previo pendiente de resolver que sirva de base idónea para la impugnación de la normativa supra aludida, con arreglo al supuesto previsto en el párrafo 1° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional."

Considerando III

Full documentDocumento completo

Document Review *180108320007CO* Res. No. 2018013150 CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine thirty hours on the fourteenth of August of two thousand eighteen .

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Eduardo Acuña Delgado, of legal age, divorced, pensioner, bearer of identity card No. 7-033-494, in his capacity as President of Fabricaciones Acuro S.A., legal entity identification number 3-101-290731, against the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.

Whereas:

1.- By written submission received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:00 hrs. on July 13, 2018, the claimant requests that the unconstitutionality of the Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados be declared. He indicates that said regulation establishes, in its article 51, that “AyA may apply up to two adjustments to consecutive read bills, every eighteen months, for those services of domiciliary, ordinary, preferential, and government use, subject to compliance with all of the following conditions…”. He alleges that, consequently, the cited regulation does not permit bill adjustment regarding the service of commercial reproductive use. He maintains that such regulation is not based on the principles of Public Law that govern the organization and activity of public entities, given that the Ley General de la Administración Pública provides, in its article 4, that the activity of public entities must be subject in its entirety to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, its efficiency, its adaptation to any change in the legal regime or in the social need they satisfy, and equality in the treatment of recipients, users, or beneficiaries. He claims that the constitutional principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and equality are also infringed. He adds that article 6 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes that the autonomous regulations (reglamentos autónomos) of the Executive Branch and those of decentralized entities are subordinated among themselves within their respective fields of validity. It foresees, furthermore, that in matters not expressly provided for, the regulations (reglamentos) shall be subject to the rules and principles that govern administrative acts. Finally, the cited numeral 6 establishes the hierarchy of the sources of the legal system. He alleges that the questioned regulation is violative of the principles enumerated in the Ley General de la Administración Pública and of the indicated constitutional principles. He accuses that the challenged regulation leaves a group of recipients in a state of defenselessness, inasmuch as they cannot make any claim when the circumstance of high consumption occurs, in infringement of article 33 of the Constitución Política. The claimant requests that the present action be granted and that the nullity of the challenged regulation be declared.

2.- In order to substantiate the standing he holds to promote this action of unconstitutionality, the claimant states that on June 18, 2018, he filed an appeal for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against resolution No. UEN-SUZII-GAM-2018-00201, case No. ZII-18-144-5304692, in which his request for billing adjustment was denied, based on the challenged regulation.

3.- By resolution of 15:55 hrs. on July 17, 2018, the claimant was warned that he must “provide a complete, legible, and certified copy of the written submission where the unconstitutionality of the challenged regulation was expressly invoked, in the base matter (asunto base) of this process and prior to the filing of the action – as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest deemed violated –, as well as to certify the procedural status in which such base matter is found”. The foregoing, in accordance with articles 75, 79, and 80 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.

4.- By means of a written submission received in this Chamber on July 23, 2018, the claimant indicates that he provides a complete, legible, and certified copy of the written submission presented prior to the filing of the action. He points out, furthermore, that the base matter is in subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) before the General Management of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.

5.- Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Chamber to reject summarily (rechazar de plano) or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition presented for its consideration that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient judicial elements to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a prior, identical or similar petition that was rejected.

Authored by Judge Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

I.- OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND FORMALITIES OF THE ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. This Chamber has indicated, repeatedly, that the action of unconstitutionality is a process with certain formalities, which, if not met, make it impossible for this Chamber to rule on the merits of the matter. Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the admissibility requirements for actions of unconstitutionality and regulates distinct situations. The first paragraph requires the existence of a matter pending resolution, whether in a judicial venue – including habeas corpus or amparo appeals – or in the administrative venue – in the procedure for exhaustion of this channel, that is, in the administrative challenge procedure against the final act –, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked, as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered harmed in the main matter. The second and third paragraphs regulate direct action – the base matter (asunto base) is not required –, in the following cases: a) when by the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct harm; b) it involves the defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community as a whole; and c) when the action is brought by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes. Regarding the requirement of a matter pending resolution, this Chamber, by means of judgment No. 04190-95 of 11:33 hrs. on July 28, 1995, indicated the following:

“(…) Firstly, it is a process of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required – whether before the courts of justice or in the procedure to exhaust administrative channels – in order to access constitutional channels, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered harmed in the main matter, so that what is decided by the Constitutional Court has a positive or negative impact on said process pending resolution, inasmuch as it pronounces on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in said matter; and it is only by exception that the legislation permits direct access to this channel – requirements of the second and third paragraphs of article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional …”.

Furthermore, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the written filing submission must be authenticated and contain an explicit determination of the challenged regulation, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the components of the constitutional block (bloque de constitucionalidad) considered infringed (article 78 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). It must also demonstrate the conditions of standing (powers and certifications), proceed to pay the Colegio de Abogados stamp tax, and provide a literal certification of the written submission in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms was invoked in the base matter (article 79 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).

II.- ON THE REQUIREMENT OF A PRIOR MATTER THAT SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR THE ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. Numeral 75, paragraph 1, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional presumes, for purposes of the admissibility of an action of unconstitutionality, in the case of concrete review, the existence of a main matter pending resolution, whether before the courts – including habeas corpus or amparo –, or in the procedure to exhaust administrative channels, in which said unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered harmed. This Court has indicated, in this regard, the following:

“(…) Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes as one of the requirements for filing the action of unconstitutionality, the existence of a matter pending resolution, as it constitutes the connection point that must exist between the process in which the norm deemed unconstitutional is applied with the object of the constitutional process and the foundation that legitimizes the claimant's claim as a last procedural remedy, in the exercise of the right to constitutional jurisdiction. The rigorousness in standing to access constitutional jurisdiction, rather than constituting an obstacle to prevent the review of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel of the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a 'prior matter' (asunto previo) that has motivated that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution, to maintain the jurisdictional function – special –, and not distort the purity of the system of relations of the constitutional powers of the State, of which the Chamber is a part, because as an integral part of those, it is not entirely free and unlimited in its actions. For this reason, it is that the action of unconstitutionality requires its existence – of the prior matter – as a reasonable means to protect the defense of the right or interest considered harmed. However, the reasonableness of the action of unconstitutionality as a means of defense for the claimant should not be analyzed solely within the context of the prior matter, but rather immersed in the constitutional legal framework that governs the actions of this Chamber. It is not, then, a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision, to file an action without requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution, but rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered harmed. (…)” (Voto 1319-1997 of 14:51 hrs. on March 4, 1997) Likewise, regarding the requirement that the action be a reasonable means to protect the substantial legal situation considered harmed, this Chamber has indicated that said requirement:

“(…) does not refer to a simple procedural formality, nor is it an innocuous and insignificant detail to complicate and hinder the review of constitutionality. It is a direct manifestation of the principle according to which the jurisdictional function, of which the review of constitutionality forms a substantial and fundamental part, is exercised through the resolution of real controversies, which find a remedy in a definitive judgment” (Voto No. 2016-002043 of 11:46 hrs. on February 10, 2016).

III.- OF THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT ACTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. In response to the warning issued to the claimant, he provides – as evidence – a copy of resolution No. GG-2018-576 from the General Management of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, of 8 hrs. on June 29, 2018, from which it is deduced that the appeal (recurso de apelación) that the claimant expressly cites as the base matter of the present action, has already been resolved and rejected and, even, the administrative channel has already been exhausted, that is, the referred base matter is already concluded. Therefore, it is not established that, at present, there exists a prior matter pending resolution that serves as a suitable basis for the challenge of the aforementioned regulation, in accordance with the condition provided in paragraph 1 of article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Consequently, the appropriate course is the summary rejection of the action, as is hereby ordered.

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

Therefore:

The action is summarily rejected.

Fernando Castillo V.

Acting President Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Marta Eugenia Esquivel R.

Ana María Picado B.

Hubert Fernández A.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification Code -- *ST47GQQQMD9M61* CASE FILE N° 18-010832-0007-CO Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2295-3712 / 2549-1633. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro church). Reception of matters from vulnerable groups: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, Distrito Catedral, Barrio González Lahmann, calles 19 and 21, avenidas 8 and 6 The second and third paragraphs regulate direct action—where no base matter (asunto base) is required—in the following cases: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury; b) when it involves the defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community as a whole; and c) when the action is brought by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes. Regarding the requirement of a matter pending resolution, this Chamber, through judgment No. 04190-95 of 11:33 hrs. on July 28, 1995, stated the following: “(…) First, it is a proceeding of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution is required—whether before the courts of justice or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route—in order to access the constitutional route, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the principal matter, so that the decision of the Constitutional Court has a positive or negative impact on said pending proceeding, as it rules on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in that matter; and only by exception does the legislation allow direct access to this route—presuppositions of the second and third paragraphs of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional …”.Likewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the filing brief must be authenticated and contain an explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the components of the block of constitutionality (bloque de constitucionalidad) that are considered infringed (Article 78 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). It must also demonstrate standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), pay the Colegio de Abogados stamp, and provide a literal certification of the brief in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms was invoked in the base matter (asunto base) (Article 79 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).II.- REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT OF A PRIOR MATTER TO SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION. Section 75, paragraph 1, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional presupposes, for purposes of the admissibility of an unconstitutionality action, in the case of concrete review, the existence of a principal matter pending resolution, whether before the courts—including habeas corpus or amparo—or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route, in which that unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured. This Tribunal has indicated, in that regard, the following: “(…) Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes as one of the presuppositions for filing an unconstitutionality action the existence of a matter pending resolution, as it constitutes the connection point that must exist between the proceeding in which the norm reputed unconstitutional is applied and the object of the constitutional process, and the basis that legitimizes the claimant's pretension as a last procedural remedy in the exercise of the right to constitutional jurisdiction. The rigor in standing to access constitutional jurisdiction, rather than constituting an obstacle to preventing the review of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel of the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a \"prior matter\" (asunto previo) that has motivated that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution, in order to maintain the—special—jurisdictional function and not distort the purity of the system of relations among the constitutional powers of the State, of which the Chamber is a part, because as a member of those, it is not entirely free and unlimited in its actions. For this reason, the unconstitutionality action requires its existence—of the prior matter (asunto previo)—as a reasonable means to protect the defense of the right or interest considered injured. However, the reasonableness of the unconstitutionality action as a means of defense for the claimant should not be analyzed only within the context of the prior matter (asunto previo), but immersed in the constitutional legal framework that governs the actions of this Chamber. It is not, therefore, a matter of a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision to file an action without requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution, but rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest deemed injured. (…)” (Voto No. 1319-1997 of 14:51 hrs. on March 4, 1997) Likewise, regarding the requirement that the action be a reasonable means of protecting the substantial legal situation deemed injured, this Chamber has indicated that such a requirement:“(…) does not refer to a simple procedural formality, nor is it an innocuous and inconsequential detail to complicate and hinder constitutional review. It is a direct manifestation of the principle according to which the jurisdictional function, of which constitutional review is a substantial and fundamental part, is exercised through the resolution of real controversies, which find remedy in a final judgment” (Voto No. 2016-002043 of 11:46 hrs. on February 10, 2016).III.- THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION. In response to the warning issued to the claimant, the claimant provides-as evidence- a copy of resolution No. GG-2018-576 from the Gerencia General of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, of 8 hrs. on June 29, 2018, from which it follows that the appeal that the claimant expressly cites, expressly,as the base matter (asunto base) of the present action, has already been resolved and rejected and, further, the administrative route has already been deemed exhausted, meaning the referred base matter (asunto base) is already concluded. Therefore, it is not demonstrated that, at present, there isa prior matter (asunto previo) pending resolution that serves as a suitable basis for challenging the regulationssupra alluded to, in accordance with the presupposition provided in paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Consequently, the appropriate course is the outright rejection of the action, as is hereby ordered. IV.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE EXPEDIENTE. The parties are warned that if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology-produced device, thesemust be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.Por tanto: The action is rejected outright. El primero. Que el inciso 36) del artículo 121 de la Ley Forestal N.° 7575 establece que es función de la Administración Forestal del Estado fiscalizar la correcta ejecución de los permisos, concesiones, contratos y demás autorizaciones que involucren el uso del patrimonio forestal del Estado. Asimismo, el artículo 110 dispone que los bosques que crecen en terrenos de dominio público son patrimonio forestal del Estado y están sujetos a las disposiciones de la Ley Forestal y su Reglamento. A partir de esta normativa, se evidencia que los bosques en terrenos del Estado son inalienables y su manejo debe ser autorizado y supervisado por la Administración Forestal del Estado, tal como lo señala el informe de la Procuraduría General de la República N.° C-051-2014 de fecha 7 de marzo de 2014.

Segundo. Que el Decreto Ejecutivo N.° 25721-MINAE, publicado en La Gaceta N.° 41 del 27 de febrero de 1997, denominado Reglamento a la Ley Forestal, establece en su artículo 19 las reglas para el manejo de áreas de protección, indicando en su inciso a) que se prohíbe el cambio de uso del suelo (cambio de uso del suelo) y la corta de árboles en estas áreas. Asimismo, el artículo 33 bis del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal señala que en los terrenos cubiertos de bosque, no se permitirá el fraccionamiento (subdivisión) ni la urbanización, salvo aquellos proyectos que sean declarados por el Poder Ejecutivo como de conveniencia nacional, previo cumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos por la SETENA y el SINAC.

Tercero. Que mediante oficio SINAC-ACOSA-DT-058-2022 de fecha 21 de febrero de 2022, el Área de Conservación Osa (ACOSA) emitió criterio técnico vinculante para el proyecto "Residencial Bosque Verde", en el cual se determinó que el área del proyecto presenta cobertura boscosa (forest cover) en categoría de bosque primario intervenido y bosque secundario en diferentes estados de regeneración, por lo que se ajusta a lo estipulado en los artículos 19, 33 y 33 bis del Reglamento a la Ley Forestal, y que cualquier intervención en estas áreas requerirá de la autorización de cambio de uso del suelo (land-use change) por parte de la Administración Forestal del Estado, previa evaluación de impacto ambiental (environmental impact assessment, EIA).

Cuarto. Que la Recomendación General N.° 04-2018 de la Contraloría General de la República, sobre la protección del recurso hídrico y la cobertura forestal en áreas de recarga acuífera, estableció que las municipalidades deben verificar que los planes reguladores y los permisos de construcción y fraccionamiento (subdivision) respeten las áreas de protección de las fuentes de agua, incluyendo las nacientes (springs) y los márgenes de ríos y quebradas, y que las áreas de bosque que constituyen zonas de recarga acuífera no sean sometidas a procesos de cambio de uso del suelo (land-use change) que comprometan su función ecosistémica. En el presente caso, se ha constatado que el proyecto "Residencial Bosque Verde" no cuenta con un estudio hidrogeológico actualizado que determine las áreas de recarga acuífera y los posibles impactos sobre el recurso hídrico de la comunidad de Puerto Jiménez. Por lo tanto, la Municipalidad de Golfito debe abstenerse de otorgar los permisos de construcción y fraccionamiento (subdivision) hasta tanto el desarrollador presente dichos estudios y estos sean avalados por el SINAC y la SETENA.

Por tanto:

1. Se insta a la Municipalidad de Golfito a que, en el ejercicio de sus competencias de planificación urbana y en acatamiento de la Recomendación General N.° 04-2018 de la Contraloría General de la República, se abstenga de otorgar los permisos de construcción y el visado de planos de fraccionamiento (subdivision) para el proyecto "Residencial Bosque Verde", hasta tanto no se cuente con un estudio hidrogeológico actualizado, debidamente aprobado por el SINAC y la SETENA, que garantice la protección de las áreas de recarga acuífera y los nacientes (springs) presentes en la zona del proyecto, así como con la correspondiente autorización de cambio de uso del suelo (land-use change) emitida por la Administración Forestal del Estado, y la viabilidad ambiental otorgada por la SETENA.

ARTICLE 6. Environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) of the Agro-Productive Project (proyecto agro-productivo) is analyzed in the following table:

Technical viability (viabilidad técnica) by geographic zone	Technical document
• Lowlands of the Northern Zone / Huetar Norte Region / Atlantic Huetar Region (Zona Baja de la Zona Norte / Región Huetar Norte / Región Huetar Atlántico)<br>• Upala, Los Chiles, Guatuso<br>• Cantons of Sarapiquí, Pococí<br>• Limón, Matina, Siquirres, Talamanca* <br>• Guácimo<br><br> Except in the buffer zones (zonas de amortiguamiento) of protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) and properties with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that is inventoried in PSD	Certification issued by an Agronomist (Ingeniero Agrónomo) or a Regent (Regente) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, MAG) Professional duly incorporated into the CFIA, certifying the existence of the Agro-Productive Project, or indicating that the property possesses livestock, agricultural, or agro-livestock potential for the development of a productive project. Likewise, it must certify that the conditions, location, soil characteristics, and climate of the area classify it as a zone with cattle-raising, agricultural, or agro-livestock aptitude (aptitud ganadera, agrícola o agro- ganadera) and indicate the productive activity to be developed, the canton, district, and town where said property is located, identifying a location map and geographic coordinates. This certification must be issued by the professional in accordance with the Uso Agropecuario layer of the MAG, higher-resolution cartography, or a better technical criterion, which must be indicated; the certification is issued under oath and under full responsibility of the professional for the information stated.
• Rest of the cantons of the country	Forest Management Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Forestal) or Inventory of Plantations (Inventario de Plantaciones) prepared by a Regent (Regente) or Forestry professional (profesional forestal) duly incorporated into the CFIA, which must contain, in addition to the requirements established in the Forest Management Plan or Inventory of Plantations, an Agro-Productive Plan that demonstrably ensures the maintenance of the Production Use (Uso de Producción) in the property, in which the productive activity must be identified. The Forest Management Plan or Inventory of Plantations must be processed before the respective Subregional Office of the National System of Conservation Areas (Oficina Subregional del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), located in the jurisdiction where the property is located. The technical criteria established by the entity in charge of evaluating the instrument must be based only on the verification of the requirements established for the forest management instrument and the verification of the agro-productive model indicated in the agro-productive plan, which, according to the technical criterion of the SINAC official who conducts the field inspection, adapts to the productive conditions of the area and guarantees the use of the soil for the development of the agro-productive project. The plantation inventory must be elaborated only in plantations already established with the species present on the property, without permitting, under any circumstances, the planting of trees as an environmental viability measure.

Technical viability (viabilidad técnica) by geographic zone

Technical document

• Lowlands of the Northern Zone / Huetar Norte Region / Atlantic Huetar Region (Zona Baja de la Zona Norte / Región Huetar Norte / Región Huetar Atlántico) • Upala, Los Chiles, Guatuso • Cantons of Sarapiquí, Pococí • Limón, Matina, Siquirres, Talamanca* • Guácimo* * Except in the buffer zones (zonas de amortiguamiento) of protected wild areas (áreas silvestres protegidas) and properties with forest cover (cobertura boscosa) that is inventoried in PSD

Certification issued by an Agronomist (Ingeniero Agrónomo) or a Regent (Regente) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, MAG) Professional duly incorporated into the CFIA, certifying the existence of the Agro-Productive Project, or indicating that the property possesses livestock, agricultural, or agro-livestock potential for the development of a productive project. Likewise, it must certify that the conditions, location, soil characteristics, and climate of the area classify it as a zone with cattle-raising, agricultural, or agro-livestock aptitude (aptitud ganadera, agrícola o agro- ganadera) and indicate the productive activity to be developed, the canton, district, and town where said property is located, identifying a location map and geographic coordinates. This certification must be issued by the professional in accordance with the Uso Agropecuario layer of the MAG, higher-resolution cartography, or a better technical criterion, which must be indicated; the certification is issued under oath and under full responsibility of the professional for the information stated.

• Rest of the cantons of the country

Forest Management Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Forestal) or Inventory of Plantations (Inventario de Plantaciones) prepared by a Regent (Regente) or Forestry professional (profesional forestal) duly incorporated into the CFIA, which must contain, in addition to the requirements established in the Forest Management Plan or Inventory of Plantations, an Agro-Productive Plan that demonstrably ensures the maintenance of the Production Use (Uso de Producción) in the property, in which the productive activity must be identified. The Forest Management Plan or Inventory of Plantations must be processed before the respective Subregional Office of the National System of Conservation Areas (Oficina Subregional del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), located in the jurisdiction where the property is located. The technical criteria established by the entity in charge of evaluating the instrument must be based only on the verification of the requirements established for the forest management instrument and the verification of the agro-productive model indicated in the agro-productive plan, which, according to the technical criterion of the SINAC official who conducts the field inspection, adapts to the productive conditions of the area and guarantees the use of the soil for the development of the agro-productive project. The plantation inventory must be elaborated only in plantations already established with the species present on the property, without permitting, under any circumstances, the planting of trees as an environmental viability measure.

For the purposes of this Regulation, properties will be understood to be dedicated to agro-productive activity when the productive activity occupies at least 51% of the effective area (área efectiva) susceptible to agricultural or livestock use within the same. In no case may planting be permitted in areas of protection of springs (nacientes), water bodies, or natural forests (bosques naturales) present on the property, the forest plantation inventory being limited only to the productive area (área productiva). In cases where the productive activity to be developed is permanent or annual crops, the regulations, criteria, or guidelines for sustainable production, or another instrument defined by the governing body (ente Rector), will be applied, without prejudice to the compliance with the remaining provisions of this Regulation.

In resolution N° 889-2024, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) established that planting can be considered as a measure of environmental viability for those agro-productive activities that justify and accredit it, and in compliance with the provisions of this Article, under the understanding that the agro-productive plan constitutes the guarantee of the production use in the property.

Forest permits, management plans, and inventories of plantations that have been processed before SINAC prior to the entry into force of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) No. 44543-MINAE of March 31, 2023, and that have not obtained environmental viability through SINAC, must be processed before this institution. Once the environmental viability of the agro-productive project has been obtained, the corresponding forest permits, management plans, and inventories of plantations may be resolved.

For properties located in the Lowlands of the Northern Zone / Huetar Norte Region / Atlantic Huetar Region, the governing body will have a period of 10 business days to issue the environmental viability, based on the certification issued by the CFIA professional, and may only reject it if the certification does not contain the required information. For the rest of the country, the period for resolution will be 15 business days. In both scenarios, the period for resolution will be computed from the date of receipt of the documentation by the governing body.

The governing body, through its Human Resources Unit, must lend immediate collaboration for the procurement of the necessary personnel within SINAC structures for the corresponding evaluation.

Luis Fdo.

Authorizing Officer. No. 005 - Oscar Gerardo López Arias. Representative of SETENA. APRIL 2, 2004. 13:40:10 hrs.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Marta Eugenia Esquivel R.

Carlos Aguilar Ramírez

Efraín Umaña Salazar A.

Authorizing Officer. No. 004 - Oscar Gerardo López Arias. Representative of SETENA. APRIL 2, 2004. 13:40:10 hrs.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Marta Eugenia Esquivel R.

Carlos Aguilar Ramírez

Efraín Umaña Salazar A.

Ana María Picado B.</td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"> </td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />Hubert Fernández A.</td></tr></table>  Digitally Signed Document-- Verification Code --*ST47GQQQMD9M61* ST47GQQQMD9M61 EXPEDIENTE N° 18-010832-0007-CO  Telephones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). **Exp: 18-010832-0007-CO** **Res. No. 2018013150** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine thirty hours on August fourteenth, two thousand eighteen.** An unconstitutionality action brought by **Eduardo Acuña Delgado**, of legal age, divorced, pensioner, holder of identity card No. 7-033-494, in his capacity as President of **Fabricaciones Acuro S.A.**, legal entity identification number 3-101-290731, against the Regulations for the Provision of Services of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers.

**Whereas:** **1.-** By a brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 16:00 hrs. on July 13, 2018, the petitioner requests that the unconstitutionality of the Regulations for the Provision of Services of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers be declared. He indicates that said regulations establish, in their article 51, that "AyA may apply up to two adjustments to consecutive read invoices, every eighteen months, for those services of domiciliary, ordinary, preferential, and government use, upon the fulfillment of all the following conditions..." He argues that, consequently, the cited regulations do not allow the adjustment of invoices regarding commercial reproductive use service. He contends that such regulations are not based on the principles of Public Law that govern the organization and activity of public entities, since the General Law of Public Administration provides, in its article 4, that the activity of public entities must be subject as a whole to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, its efficiency, its adaptation to any change in the legal regime or in the social need they satisfy, and equality in the treatment of recipients, users, or beneficiaries. He claims that the constitutional principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and equality are also infringed. He adds that article 6 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes that the autonomous regulations (reglamentos autónomos) of the Executive Branch and those of decentralized entities are subordinated among themselves within their respective fields of validity. It further provides that, in matters not expressly provided for, regulations shall be subject to the rules and principles that govern administrative acts. Finally, the aforementioned numeral 6 establishes the hierarchy of the sources of the legal system. He alleges that the challenged regulation is a violation of the principles listed in the General Law of Public Administration and the indicated constitutional principles. He accuses that the challenged regulation leaves a group of recipients in a state of defenselessness, since they cannot make any claim when the circumstance of high consumption occurs, in violation of article 33 of the Political Constitution. The petitioner requests that the present action be granted and the nullity of the challenged regulation be declared.

**2.-** To substantiate his standing to bring this unconstitutionality action, the petitioner states that on June 18, 2018, he filed a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against resolution No. UEN-SUZII-GAM-2018-00201, case No. ZII-18-144-5304692, in which his request for a billing adjustment was denied, based on the challenged regulation.

**3.-** By a ruling at 15:55 hrs. on July 17, 2018, the petitioner was required to "provide a complete, legible, and certified copy of the brief in which, in the base matter of this process and prior to the filing of the action, the unconstitutionality of the challenged regulation was expressly invoked – as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered to be violated –, as well as to demonstrate the procedural status in which such base matter is found". The foregoing, in accordance with articles 75, 79, and 80 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction.

**4.-** By means of a brief received in this Chamber on July 23, 2018, the petitioner indicates that he is providing a complete, legible, and certified copy of the brief filed prior to the filing of the action. He also notes that the base matter is on subsidiary appeal (apelación) before the General Management of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers.

**5.-** Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject any management brought to its attention outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, if it proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or if it constitutes the mere reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar prior management already rejected.

Drafted by Judge **Castillo Víquez**; and, **Considering:** **I.- OF THE REQUIREMENTS AND FORMALITIES OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.** This Chamber has repeatedly indicated that the unconstitutionality action is a process with certain formalities, which, if not met, make it impossible for this Chamber to rule on the merits of the matter. Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the admissibility requirements for unconstitutionality actions and regulates different situations. The first paragraph requires the existence of a matter pending resolution, whether in a judicial venue – including habeas corpus or amparo remedies – or in an administrative venue – in the procedure for exhausting this route, i.e., in the administrative challenge procedure against the final act –, in which the unconstitutionality of the questioned norm is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured in the main matter. The second and third paragraphs regulate the direct action – a base matter is not required –, in the following cases: a) when, due to the nature of the matter, there is no individual and direct injury; b) it involves the defense of diffuse interests or interests concerning the community as a whole; and c) when the action is brought by the Attorney General of the Republic (Procurador General de la República), the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contralor General de la República), the Prosecutor General of the Republic (Fiscal General de la República), and the Ombudsman (Defensor de los Habitantes). Regarding the requirement of a matter pending resolution, this Chamber, by judgment No. 04190-95 at 11:33 hrs. on July 28, 1995, stated the following:

"(…) In the first place, it is a proceeding of an incidental nature, and not a direct or popular action, which means that the existence of a matter pending resolution – either before the courts of justice or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route – is required in order to access the constitutional route, but in such a way that the action constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right considered injured in the main matter, so that what is resolved by the Constitutional Court has a positive or negative repercussion on said process pending resolution, as it rules on the constitutionality of the norms that must be applied in said matter; and it is only by exception that the legislation allows direct access to this route – requirements of the second and third paragraphs of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction…".

Likewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the filing brief must be authenticated and contain an explicit determination of the challenged regulation, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the components of the constitutionality block (bloque de constitucionalidad) considered infringed (article 78 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). The conditions of standing must also be accredited (powers of attorney and certifications), the payment of the Costa Rican Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados) stamp must be made, and a literal certification of the brief in which the unconstitutionality of the challenged norms was invoked in the base matter must be provided (article 79 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction).

**II.- ON THE REQUIREMENT OF A PRIOR MATTER TO SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.** Numeral 75, paragraph 1, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction presupposes, for the admissibility of an unconstitutionality action, in the case of concrete review, the existence of a main matter pending resolution, either before the courts – inclusive of habeas corpus or amparo –, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route, in which that unconstitutionality is invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured. This Court has indicated, in this regard, the following:

"(…) Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes as one of the requirements for filing the unconstitutionality action, the existence of a matter pending resolution, as it constitutes the point of connection that must exist between the process in which the norm considered unconstitutional is applied, the object of the constitutional process, and the basis that legitimizes the petitioner's claim as a last procedural remedy, in the exercise of the right to constitutional jurisdiction. The rigor in standing to access constitutional jurisdiction, rather than constituting an obstacle to preventing the review of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel of the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a 'prior matter' that has motivated that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution, to maintain the (special) jurisdictional function, and not to distort the purity of the system of relations among the State's constitutional powers, of which the Chamber is a part, because as a member of those, it is not entirely free and unlimited in its actions. For this reason, the unconstitutionality action needs its existence – of the prior matter – as a reasonable means to protect the defense of the right or interest considered injured. However, the reasonableness of the unconstitutionality action as a means of defense for the petitioner must not be analyzed only within the context of the prior matter, but immersed in the constitutional legal framework governing the actions of this Chamber. It is not, then, a matter of a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision to file an action without requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution, but rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered injured. (…)" (vote No. 1319-1997 at 14:51 hrs. on March 4, 1997) Likewise, regarding the requirement that the action be a reasonable means to protect the substantial legal situation considered injured, this Chamber has stated that such requirement:

"(…) does not refer to a simple procedural formality, nor is it an innocuous and inconsequential detail to complicate and hinder constitutional review. It is a direct manifestation of the principle according to which the jurisdictional function, of which constitutional review forms a substantial and fundamental part, is exercised through the resolution of real controversies, which find a remedy in a definitive judgment" (vote No. 2016-002043 at 11:46 hrs. on February 10, 2016).

**III.- ON THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PRESENT UNCONSTITUTIONALITY ACTION.** In response to the requirement made to the petitioner, they provide – as evidence – a copy of resolution No. GG-2018-576 from the General Management of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers, at 8 hrs. on June 29, 2018, from which it is evident that the appeal (recurso de apelación) that the petitioner expressly cites as the base matter for this action has already been resolved and rejected, and, furthermore, the administrative route has already been deemed exhausted; that is, the referred base matter is now closed. Therefore, it is not demonstrated that, at present, there exists a prior matter pending resolution to serve as a suitable basis for challenging the aforementioned supra regulations, pursuant to the provision set forth in paragraph 1 of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Consequently, the outright rejection of the action is appropriate, as hereby ordered.

**IV.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE.** The parties are hereby warned that if any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, have been provided, these must be removed from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not removed within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on the Electronic Case File before the Judiciary" (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial), approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Gazette (Boletín Judicial) number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial), in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

**Therefore:** The action is rejected outright.

Fernando Castillo V.Acting President</td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"> </td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />Nancy Hernández L.</td></tr></table> WRONG_THINK_BLOCK I notice you haven't provided any text for me to translate. Your message contains what appears to be a base64-encoded image or data string, followed by an HTML fragment with an image tag and a name "Luis Fdo." I'm ready to translate a Costa Rican Spanish legal document excerpt into English following all the specifications you've outlined - preserving citation references, agency acronyms, proper nouns, using the defined legal/technical terms with parenthetical Spanish on first use, maintaining table structures, and following the style guidelines.

Please share the Spanish text you'd like me to translate, and I'll provide only the English translation as requested.

Gobán, D. H.</td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"> </td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top">Salazar A.</td></tr><tr><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />Jose Paulino Hernández G.</td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"> </td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />Marta Eugenia Esquivel R.</td></tr><tr><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />D. H. Gobán</td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"> </td><td style="padding-left:5.4pt; padding-right:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" />Salazar A.</td></tr></tbody></table> | Voting Magistrate | Ana María Picado B. | | Voting Magistrate | Hubert Fernández A. | --- Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *ST47GQQQMD9M61* --- } }

Revisión del Documento *180108320007CO* Res. Nº 2018013150 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del catorce de agosto de dos mil dieciocho .

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Eduardo Acuña Delgado, mayor, divorciado, pensionado, portador de la cédula de identidad No. 7-033-494, en su condición de Presidente de Fabricaciones Acuro S.A., cédula de persona jurídica No. 3-101-290731, contra el Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 16:00 hrs. del 13 de julio de 2018, el accionante solicita que se declare la inconstitucionalidad del Reglamento de Prestación de Servicios del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. Indica que dicho reglamento establece, en su artículo 51, que el “AyA podrá aplicar hasta dos ajustes a las facturas leídas consecutivas, cada dieciocho meses, en aquellos servicios de uso domiciliar, ordinario, preferencial y gobierno, conforme al cumplimiento de todas las siguientes condiciones…”. Alega que, en consecuencia, el citado reglamento no permite el ajuste a las facturas respecto del servicio de uso comercial reproductivo. Sostiene que tal reglamento no está basado en los principios del Derecho Público que regulan la organización y actividad de los entes públicos, en tanto que la Ley General de la Administración Pública dispone, en su artículo 4, que la actividad de los entes públicos deberá estar sujeta en su conjunto a los principios fundamentales del servicio público, para asegurar su continuidad, su eficiencia, su adaptación a todo cambio en el régimen legal o en la necesidad social que satisfacen y la igualdad en el trato de los destinatarios, usuarios o beneficiarios. Reclama que se infringen, también, los principios constitucionales de proporcionalidad, razonabilidad e igualdad. Añade que el artículo 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública establece que los reglamentos autónomos del Poder Ejecutivo y los de los entes descentralizados están subordinados entre sí dentro de sus respectivos campos de vigencia. Prevé, además, que en lo no dispuesto expresamente, los reglamentos estarán sujetos a las reglas y principios que regulan los actos administrativos. Finalmente, el citado numeral 6 establece la jerarquía de las fuentes del ordenamiento jurídico. Alega que la normativa cuestionada es violatoria de los principios enumerados en la Ley General de la Administración Pública y a los principios constitucionales indicados. Acusa que la normativa impugnada deja a un grupo de destinatarios en estado de indefensión, por cuanto, no pueden hacer reclamo alguno cuando ocurra la circunstancia sobre el alto consumo, en infracción del artículo 33 de la Constitución Política. Solicita, el accionante, que se acoja la presente acción y se declare la nulidad de la normativa impugnada.

2.- A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación que ostenta para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, la parte accionante manifiesta que el 18 de junio de 2018 interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio en contra de la resolución No. UEN-SUZII-GAM-2018-00201, caso No. ZII-18-144-5304692, en la que se denegó su solicitud de ajuste de facturación, con sustento en la normativa impugnada.

3.- Por resolución de las 15:55 hrs. de 17 de julio de 2018, se previno al accionante que debía “aportar copia completa, legible y certificada del escrito donde se invocó, expresamente, en el asunto base de este proceso y con anterioridad a la interposición de la acción, la inconstitucionalidad de la normativa impugnada – como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se estima vulnerado-, así como acreditar el estado procesal en que se encuentra tal asunto base”. Lo anterior, de conformidad a los artículos 75, 79 y 80 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.

4.- Por medio de escrito recibido en esta Sala, el día 23 de julio de 2018, el accionante indica que aporta copia completa, legible y certificada del escrito presentado con anterioridad a la interposición de la acción. Señala, además, que el asunto base se encuentra en apelación en subsidio ante la Gerencia General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados.

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

Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,

Considerando:

I.- DE LOS REQUISITOS Y FORMALIDADES DE LA ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD. Esta Sala ha señalado, de forma reiterada, que la acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con determinadas formalidades, que, si no se reúnen, imposibilitan que esta Sala se pronuncie sobre el fondo del asunto. En el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional se establecen los presupuestos de admisibilidad para las acciones de inconstitucionalidad y se regulan situaciones distintas. En el párrafo primero se exige la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sea en sede judicial –incluyendo los recursos de hábeas corpus o de amparo- o en la administrativa –en el procedimiento de agotamiento de esta vía, sea, en el procedimiento administrativo de impugnación contra el acto final-, en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad de la norma cuestionada, como medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado en el asunto principal. En los párrafos segundo y tercero se regula la acción directa –no se requiere del asunto base-, en los siguientes supuestos: a) cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista lesión individual y directa; b) se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos o que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto; y c) cuando la acción sea promovida por el Procurador General de la República, el Contralor General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes. En cuanto a la exigencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, esta Sala, mediante sentencia No. 04190-95 de las 11:33 hrs. del 28 de julio de 1995, señaló lo siguiente:

“(…) En primer término, se trata de un proceso de naturaleza incidental, y no de una acción directa o popular, con lo que se quiere decir que se requiere de la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver -sea ante los tribunales de justicia o en el procedimiento para agotar la vía administrativa- para poder acceder a la vía constitucional, pero de tal manera que, la acción constituya un medio razonable para amparar el derecho considerado lesionado en el asunto principal, de manera que lo resuelto por el Tribunal Constitucional repercuta positiva o negativamente en dicho proceso pendiente de resolver, por cuanto se manifiesta sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas que deberán ser aplicadas en dicho asunto; y únicamente por excepción es que la legislación permite el acceso directo a esta vía -presupuestos de los párrafos segundo y tercero del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional …”.

Asimismo, existen otras formalidades que deben ser cumplidas, a saber, el escrito de interposición debe estar autenticado y contener una determinación explícita de la normativa impugnada, debidamente fundamentada, con cita concreta de los componentes del bloque de constitucionalidad que se consideren infringidos (artículo 78 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Debe, además, acreditarse las condiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), procederse al pago del timbre del Colegio de Abogados y aportarse certificación literal del escrito en el que se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de las normas impugnadas en el asunto base (artículo 79 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional).

II.- SOBRE LA EXIGENCIA DE ASUNTO PREVIO QUE SIRVA DE BASE A LA ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD. El numeral 75, párrafo 1°, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional presupone, para efectos de la admisibilidad de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, en el caso del control concreto, la existencia de un asunto principal pendiente de resolver, ya sea ante los tribunales –inclusive de hábeas corpus o de amparo-, o en el procedimiento para agotar la vía administrativa, en que se invoque esa inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés que se considere lesionado. Este Tribunal ha indicado, al respecto, lo siguiente:

“(…) El artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece como uno de los presupuestos para interponer la acción de inconstitucionalidad, la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, por constituir el punto de conexión que ha de existir entre el proceso en que se aplica la norma que se reputa inconstitucional con el objeto del proceso constitucional y el fundamento que legitima la pretensión del accionante como último remedio procesal, en el ejercicio del derecho a la jurisdicción constitucional. El rigor en la legitimación para acceder a la jurisdicción constitucional, más que constituir un obstáculo para impedir el control de la constitucionalidad de las leyes, constituye el cauce del derecho de acceso a la justicia, derivado de la existencia de un "asunto previo" que haya motivado aquella discordancia o contradicción entre la ley y la Constitución, para mantener la función jurisdiccional -especial-, y no distorsionar la pureza del sistema de relación de los poderes constitucionales del Estado, del que es parte la Sala, porque como integrante de aquellos, no es enteramente libre e ilimitada en sus acciones. Por esta causa, es que la acción de inconstitucionalidad necesita de su existencia -del asunto previo- como medio razonable para amparar la defensa del derecho o interés que se considera lesionado. Empero, la razonabilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad como medio de defensa del accionante no debe analizarse solo dentro del contexto del asunto previo, sino inmersa en el marco jurídico constitucional que rige las actuaciones de esta Sala. No se trata, entonces, de una consideración particular de la inconstitucionalidad de una disposición normativa, para interponer una acción sin requerir la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sino, que es necesario que se demuestre que constituye un medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se estima lesionado. (…)” (voto No. 1319-1997 de las 14:51 hrs. de 4 de marzo de 1997) Asimismo, en cuanto a la exigencia que la acción sea medio razonable de amparar la situación jurídica sustancial que se estima lesionada, esta Sala ha señalado que tal requisito:

“(…) no hace referencia a una simple formalidad procesal, ni se trata de un detalle inocuo e intranscendente para complicar y entorpecer el control de constitucionalidad. Se trata de una manifestación directa del principio según el cual la función jurisdiccional, de la cual forma parte sustancial y fundamental el control de constitucionalidad, se ejerce mediante la resolución de controversias reales, que encuentran remedio en una sentencia definitiva” (voto No. 2016-002043 de las 11:46 hrs. del 10 de febrero de 2016).

III.- DE LA INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA PRESENTE ACCIÓN DE INCONSTITUCIONALIDAD. En respuesta a la prevención efectuada a la parte accionante, esta aporta -como prueba- copia de la resolución No. GG-2018-576 de la Gerencia General del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, de las 8 hrs. del 29 de junio de 2018, de la que se deriva que el recurso de apelación que el accionante cita, expresamente, como asunto base de la presente acción, ya fue resuelto y rechazado e, incluso, ya se dio por agotada la vía administrativa, sea, el referido asunto base ya se encuentra fenecido. Por lo que no se acredita que, en la actualidad, exista un asunto previo pendiente de resolver que sirva de base idónea para la impugnación de la normativa supra aludida, con arreglo al supuesto previsto en el párrafo 1° del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por consiguiente, lo procedente es el rechazo de plano de la acción, como así se dispone.

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

Por tanto:

Se rechaza de plano la acción.

Fernando Castillo V.

Presidente a.i Nancy Hernández L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jose Paulino Hernández G.

Marta Eugenia Esquivel R.

Ana María Picado B.

Hubert Fernández A.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- *ST47GQQQMD9M61*

Rejection of unconstitutionality action against AyA regulation for lack of pending prior matterRechazo de acción de inconstitucionalidad contra reglamento de AYA por falta de asunto previo pendiente

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp