← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00086-2008 Sala Segunda de la Corte · Sala Segunda de la Corte · 08/02/2008
OutcomeResultado
The judgment denying a Hacienda Regime pension to the plaintiff is upheld because he did not meet the legal requirements before the temporal limitation date set by the constitutional ruling that annulled Law 7013.Se confirma la sentencia que denegó la pensión del Régimen de Hacienda al actor por no cumplir los requisitos legales antes de la fecha de dimensionamiento del fallo constitucional que anuló la Ley 7013.
SummaryResumen
The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice upholds the ruling that denied a Hacienda Regime pension to a former employee of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and Banco Popular. The plaintiff claimed entitlement under Law 148 and its amendments, especially Law 7007, and ILO Convention 102, arguing he had worked over 37 years and was over 55 years of age. The Chamber analyzes the evolution of Article 13 of Law 148 and determines that under Law 7007 the plaintiff did not enter the regime because his employing institutions were not included at that time. Only Law 7013 opened that possibility, but after being declared unconstitutional, its effects were circumscribed by Constitutional Chamber ruling 1633-93, which required meeting requirements before May 19, 1993. As of that date, the plaintiff was 49 years and 6 months old with 29 years and 6 months of public service, failing to meet the legal minimums. The application of Transitory III of Law 7302 is dismissed, as the plaintiff never consolidated a right under the repealed law. Consequently, the appeal is rejected and the lower judgment is affirmed.La Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia confirma la sentencia que denegó la pensión del Régimen de Hacienda solicitada por un exfuncionario del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones y del Banco Popular. El actor reclamó el derecho con base en las leyes 148 y sus reformas, en especial la Ley 7007, y el Convenio 102 de la OIT, argumentando que había laborado más de 37 años y tenía más de 55 años de edad. La Sala analiza la evolución del artículo 13 de la Ley 148 y determina que bajo la Ley 7007 el actor no ingresó al régimen porque sus instituciones empleadoras no estaban incorporadas en ese momento. Solo la Ley 7013 le abrió esa posibilidad, pero al ser declarada inconstitucional, los efectos se dimensionaron en el voto 1633-93 de la Sala Constitucional, que exigía cumplir los requisitos antes del 19 de mayo de 1993. A esa fecha el actor tenía 49 años y 6 meses, y 29 años y 6 meses de servicio público, sin alcanzar el mínimo legal. Se descarta la aplicación del Transitorio III de la Ley 7302, pues el actor nunca consolidó un derecho bajo la normativa derogada. En consecuencia, se declara sin lugar el recurso y se confirma la sentencia impugnada.
Key excerptExtracto clave
From the analysis of the offices where the plaintiff rendered services, it is concluded that he could not enter the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148. [...] For that reason, only Law No. 7013, of November 18, 1985, was the one that gave him access to that regime; [...] Indeed, in accordance with that regulatory amendment, the requirements necessary to obtain that pension are as follows: a) For a full pension, to have contributed for a minimum of thirty years to any pension regime and to be at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional pension, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required, and for women, fifty-five; in which case, the amount of the pension would be granted proportionally to the years actually and effectively contributed; requirements that, in light of Constitutional ruling No. 1633 of 2:33 p.m. on April 13, 1993, which declared Law No. 7013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the ruling's temporal limitation, which did not occur because as of that date he had not reached the age or the length of service for a full or proportional contribution since he was only 49 years and 6 months old and had twenty-nine years and six months of public services, so he never acquired any right to the Hacienda Pension Regime directly under Law No. 148 and its amendments, including the amendment introduced by Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992.Del análisis de las dependencias donde el actor prestó sus servicios, se concluye que no pudo ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda con base en el artículo 13 de la ley 148. [...] Por esa razón, sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; [...] En efecto, de conformidad con tal modificación normativa, los requerimientos necesarios, para lograr esa pensión, son los siguientes: a) Para una completa, haber cotizado durante treinta años, como mínimo, en cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones y contar, por lo menos, con cincuenta años de edad. b) Para una proporcional, en el caso de los hombres, se les exigía una edad mínima de cincuenta y siete años y, en el de las mujeres, de cincuenta y cinco; caso éste en el cual, el monto de la pensión, se les otorgaría proporcionalmente en relación con los años efectiva y realmente cotizados; requisitos que, a la luz del voto constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1993, que declaró inconstitucional dicha Ley N° 7013, debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo, lo que no se dio porque a esa data no alcanzó la edad ni el tiempo de servicio para una cotización completa ni para una proporcional pues solo tenía 49 años y 6 meses de edad y veintinueve años y seis meses de servicios públicos por lo que nunca llegó a adquirir derecho alguno al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directamente por la Ley N° 148 aludida y sus reformas, entre ellas la reforma introducida por la citada Ley 7007, derogada por la Ley N° 7302 del 8 de julio de 1992.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Del análisis de las dependencias donde el actor prestó sus servicios, se concluye que no pudo ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda con base en el artículo 13 de la ley 148."
"From the analysis of the offices where the plaintiff rendered services, it is concluded that he could not enter the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148."
Considerando IV
"Del análisis de las dependencias donde el actor prestó sus servicios, se concluye que no pudo ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda con base en el artículo 13 de la ley 148."
Considerando IV
"sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; pues fue la que abrió la posibilidad para que todos los servidores del Sector Público del Estado y sus Instituciones [...] de poder acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda."
"only Law No. 7013, of November 18, 1985, was the one that gave him access to that regime; since it was the one that opened the possibility for all servants of the State's Public Sector and its Institutions [...] to be able to benefit from the Hacienda Pension Regime."
Considerando IV
"sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; pues fue la que abrió la posibilidad para que todos los servidores del Sector Público del Estado y sus Instituciones [...] de poder acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda."
Considerando IV
"requisitos que, a la luz del voto constitucional N° 1633... debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo, lo que no se dio porque a esa data no alcanzó la edad ni el tiempo de servicio..."
"requirements that, in light of Constitutional ruling No. 1633... had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the ruling's temporal limitation, which did not occur because as of that date he had not reached the age or the length of service..."
Considerando IV
"requisitos que, a la luz del voto constitucional N° 1633... debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo, lo que no se dio porque a esa data no alcanzó la edad ni el tiempo de servicio..."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
*020005040166LA* *020005040166LA* Corte Suprema de Justicia SALA SEGUNDA Res: 2008-000086 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine forty-five in the morning of February eight, two thousand eight.
Ordinary proceeding established before the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by [Nombre1], public employee, against the STATE, represented by its attorney, Ricardo Vargas Vásquez. Acting as special judicial representative of the plaintiff is Olga Dorís Torres Navarro. All of legal age, married, and residents of San José.
RESULTANDO:
1.- The plaintiff, in a filing dated February eleven, two thousand two, brought this action so that, in judgment, the defendant entity be ordered to grant him a retirement under the Hacienda System (Régimen de Hacienda) under the terms established by Law 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, especially those introduced by Law 6741, 7007, and 7013, which must be granted in accordance with the provisions of said regulations for its enjoyment and from the moment of his cessation of work or from when he ceased them, as well as the payment of interest on the amounts corresponding to that concept, calculated in accordance with those established by the national banking system for fixed-term deposits and from the enjoyment of the retirement until the effective payment made by the defendant party, and both costs.
2.- The defendant's representative answered the action in the terms indicated in the brief dated October eight, two thousand one, and raised the defense of lack of right.
3.- The judge, Maureen Jiménez Gómez, by judgment delivered at ten twenty-six hours on February twenty-eight, two thousand six, ordered: "Based on the foregoing, the cited legal citations, and Article 492 of the Labor Code, the present ordinary labor lawsuit filed by [Nombre1] against the STATE, represented by attorney Ricardo Vargas Vásquez, is declared WITHOUT MERIT in all its claims. The defense of lack of right raised by the defendant's representative is upheld. This matter is resolved without special condemnation as to costs. The parties are advised that this judgment admits an appeal (recurso de apelación), which must be filed before this Court within a three-day term. Within that same term and before this jurisdictional body, the grounds of fact or law on which the appealing party bases its disagreement must also be set forth, either verbally or in writing; under warning of declaring the appeal inadmissible (Articles 500 and 501, subsections c) and d) of the Labor Code; Constitutional Chamber rulings number 5798 at 16:21 hours on August 11, 1998, and 1306 at 16:27 hours on February 23, 1999, and Second Chamber ruling number 386 at 14:20 hours on December 10, 1999)." 4.- The plaintiff appealed, and the Labor Tribunal, First Section, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, composed of Luis Fernando Salazar Alvarado, Mayita Ramón Barquero, and Eugenie Salas Chavarría, by judgment delivered at eight twenty hours on February sixteen, two thousand seven, resolved: "It is declared that no defects or omissions causing nullity or defenselessness are observed in the proceedings. The appealed judgment is confirmed regarding the matters under challenge." 5.- The plaintiff's representative filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated May thirty-first, two thousand seven, which is based on the grounds that will be discussed in the considering part.
6.- The legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings.
Drafted by Judge Varela Araya; and,
CONSIDERANDO:
I.- Mr. [Nombre1] filed a petition before the National Pension Directorate (Dirección Nacional de Pensiones) of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security on January 18, 2001 (folios 1 and 2 of the administrative file) requesting that he be granted a pension under the Hacienda System, according to Law 7013, arguing that when the validity of that law ended, under the terms of Article 29, Subsection a) of Convention 102 of the International Labour Organization, based on ruling number 68742-99 issued by the Constitutional Chamber and on the sizing of that law established in ruling 1633-93 at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, through May 19, 1993, he has the right to receive a pension for being over fifty years of age and having contributed for more than 30 years to the retirement and pension system (régimen de pensiones y jubilaciones). The National Pension Directorate of said Ministry denied the petition of Mr. [Nombre1] through Resolution R-DE-DNP-NRE-0179-2001 at 11:45 hours on January 26, 2001, indicating that as of May 19, 1993, the petitioner did not meet the combined requirements of 50 years of age and 30 years of service, and that it was not possible to apply Convention 102 to him because Law 7013 was in force for less than the twenty years established by Article 29 of said Convention; and that Law 7013 had been repealed in 1991 and declared unconstitutional in 1993, such that any recognition of rights must refer solely to what was established in Ruling No. 1633 of April 13, 1993 (folios 14 to 20 of the administrative file and 20 to 26 of the court records). Mr. [Nombre1] appealed that resolution (folios 22 and 23 of the administrative file), and his appeal was denied through resolution DMT-CDP-982-01, at 10:04 hours on October 1, 2001, thereby exhausting the administrative channel (folios 31 to 35 of the administrative file). Being dissatisfied with that administrative resolution, the petitioner filed a lawsuit before the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José against the State, basing his claim on Law Numbers 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments by laws 6741 of April 20, 1982, 7007 of November 5, 1985, the aforementioned 7013, and Article 29 of ILO Convention 102 (folios 1 to 15). He requested the granting of a pension under the Hacienda System and that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the action. The State's representation answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and the generic defense of sine actione agit. It argued that the plaintiff has no right under Law 7013, because when it was in force he worked for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and that law did not cover the Bank's workers because that regulation, according to the provisions of Article 1 bis added to Law 148, covered only "…public sector employees, centralized and decentralized, the State and its institutions," and since the Banco Popular is defined as "a non-state public law Institution…" according to the amendment to Article 2 of the Organic Law of that Institution, through Law 7031 of April 14, 1986, its personnel do not have the right to opt for that type of pension. In support of this thesis, it cited Legal Opinions C-183-95 of August 22, 1995, and C-009-97 of January 17, 1997, in which the Attorney General's Office indicated that personnel serving non-state public entities were not covered by Law 7013, and referring to the legislative history of that norm, it indicated that the legislator's will was for that law to apply to employees of the various state dependencies. It indicated that although the Second Chamber granted the pension based on that norm to some workers of non-state public entities, in ruling 52 at 10:00 on February 14, 1996, it indicated that this law did not cover an official of a professional association, which is typically a non-state public entity. Regarding the application of Convention 102, it indicated that the Second Chamber has noted that this convention is not applicable under the regime of Law 7013, given that the period in which it was in force was very short, and that furthermore, in ruling 1633 at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, in which Law 7013 was declared unconstitutional, the Constitutional Chamber, in sizing the effects of that declaration, defined those who were entitled to the enjoyment of the benefits derived from that law; it raised the defense of lack of right. The Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the lawsuit without merit and upheld the defense of lack of right; and resolved the dispute without special condemnation as to costs (folios 88 to 92). It considered that the plaintiff, as of May 19, 1993, did not meet the legal requirements, age and time of service, to be entitled to a pension under the Hacienda System, since as of that date he was forty-nine years and six months of age and had worked for a period of six years and twelve months at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), a period in which he had contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death System (Régimen de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte) of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social), and therefore he could not base his claim on Law No. 7013, nor on Article 29 of Convention 102 of the International Labour Organization. The plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment, arguing: 1) that no reference was made to the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in the lawsuit, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the norm, nor was reference made to Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one made by Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, as well as the provisions of Transitory Provision III of the Framework Pension Law (Ley Marco de Pensiones) Number 7302 of July 15, 1992. 2) that his request is based on two legal norms, namely Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one issued through Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, which extended the scope of the law to the entire Public Sector. 3) that Law No. 7007 should be applied to his case, as the Second Chamber has done when granting pensions to employees of the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic based on that Law. The Tribunal dismissed those grounds of grievance and confirmed the judgment of the a quo (folios 117 to 125).
II.- The plaintiff's representative appeals the ruling of the Labor Tribunal, First Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. She points out that the ad quem omitted to rule on what the Comptroller General of the Republic stated in relation to cases analogous to that of her principal; as well as on the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in his pension application, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the norm; she also points out that the Tribunal omitted to refer to the scope of Transitory Provision III of Law 7302 of July 15, 1992, applicable to the plaintiff because he worked for the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Public Administration), and for the Banco Popular (non-state public entity), so that at the time of filing the lawsuit he had more than 37 years of service, and is 55 years of age, requirements established by the cited transitory provision, meaning that Law 148 should have been applied to him, since that norm is included in the Framework Pension Law number 7302. She argues that both administrative and judicial case law have indicated that the right to retire under the Hacienda System is acquired merely by having worked for one year for an entity protected by that system and that upon meeting the requirements, the pension must be granted. Based on these arguments, she requests that the Tribunal's resolution be revoked, the lawsuit be declared with merit, granting her client a pension under the Hacienda System as provided by the Third Transitory Provision of the Framework Pension Law (folios 134 to 143).
III.- From the evidence provided to the records, it is clear that Mr. [Nombre1] provided services at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal from January 13, 1964, until December 31, 1970, a period during which he contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death System of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (folios 4, 5, and 9 of the administrative file). Subsequently, starting October 16, 1970, he began working for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal (folios 7 and 8 of the administrative file). He currently does not receive any pension and was born on November 14, 1943 (folio 78).
IV.From the analysis of the dependencies where the plaintiff provided his services, it is concluded that he could not have joined the Hacienda pension system (régimen de pensiones de Hacienda) based on Article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended repeatedly. Law number 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in Article 13, established: "The provisions of this law shall also apply to the officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, with respect to services rendered in dependencies or for previous services in other functions. In these cases, it shall be the authority of the Congress Directorate for its definitive handling." This Article 13 was undergoing various amendments, in the manner and order that will be stated. By Law number 2417, of September 14, 1959 (Article 1), it was amended as follows:
"The officials or employees of the Legislative Assembly, of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and of the former Control Center, may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy in the Legislative Assembly shall be computed towards those served in the Public Administration." Subsequently, with Law number 2493 of May 11, 1960 (Article 1), the following paragraph was added:
"This pension system (régimen de pensiones) shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to it, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that they do not wish to belong to that system. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the National Treasury, so that in such cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not made." In 1974, by Law No. 5664, of December 27, 1974 (Article 9), the following paragraph was added:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this System who are over seventy years of age shall be entitled to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month." By Law No. 5696 of May 14, 1975 (Article 14), it was amended as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this system who are over sixty-five years of age shall be entitled to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month." In Article 9 of Law No. 5875, of December 26, 1975, it was again amended:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this System who are over sixty-five years of age shall be entitled to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decency." Then, it was again amended by Law No. 6025, of December 20, 1976 (Article 9):
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this System who are over sixty years of age shall be entitled to a pension of not less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decency." Subsequently, it was also amended by Law No. 6191, of December 12, 1977, (Article 9), as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this System who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decency." By Article 20 of Law number 6256, of April 28, 1978, it was again amended, adding a new paragraph that stated:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers not protected by other pension systems, who meet the indicated requirements, may also avail themselves of the rights established in this article." In that same year, it was amended, adding a new paragraph, through Article 9 of Law No. 6305, of December 21 (1978), as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this system who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decency." By Law 6406, of December 17, 1979 (Article 9), it was again amended:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, covered by this system, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decency." Through Law No. 6542, of December 22, 1980 (Article 9), said Article 13 was amended as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this system, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than ¢ 6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension system, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of need, shall also be entitled to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget lines to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm." It was again amended by Law number 6700 of December 23, 1981 (Article 9), providing:
"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
"Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this system, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than ¢8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension system, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age, shall also be entitled to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget lines to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm." A last paragraph is added to Article 13 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, which will read: "This norm amends the laws, articles, and subsections that oppose it." By Law No. 6811, of September 10, 1982 (Article 8, norm 183), it was amended as follows:
"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this system, shall be entitled to a pension of not less than ten thousand colones (¢10,000). Those former ministers of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension system, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected; or under sixty years of age, shall also be entitled to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget lines, in order to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm." Later, it was attempted to be amended again by Law number 6831, of December 23, 1982 (Article 54); however, regarding that and other norms, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Executive Branch.
By Law No. 6914, of November 28, 1983 (Article 10), it was again amended, as follows:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who provide their services in State dependencies and institutions, who are entitled to the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age.
When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension system shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, and therefore they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the system.
The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in such cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed towards the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated.
Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement systems, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement of not less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service, and in no case may the total amount of the pension exceed the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries earned monthly by a deputy, for commission and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly.
The pensions referred to in this system shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the pension beneficiary to the Mechanized Technical Office, and the corresponding proportion in case of alimony.
Transitory Provision: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this Article 13, shall be recognized in full starting from the month of January 1983.
The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary the corresponding budget lines, in order to cover the obligations established herein.
The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio, on the corresponding payrolls, the necessary adjustments to the retirements and pensions already granted, to conform them to the provisions of this law." By Law No. 6963, of July 30, 1984 (Article 46), it was amended as follows:
"Article 46. The 5th paragraph of Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, amended by Article 10 of Law number 6914, is amended as follows: Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement systems, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement of not less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right." Subsequently, it underwent a new amendment, through Law No. 6995 (Article 123), of July 22, 1985, which provided:
Article 123.- The fifth paragraph of Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1948, and its amendments, is amended, and its text shall read:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers..." (The rest of the paragraph remains the same). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister." This article was also amended by the law cited in support by the appellant, No. 7007, of November 5, 1985 (Article 5), which stated:
"Article 5.- Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, is modified, and its text shall read:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who provide their services in State dependencies and institutions, who are entitled to the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension system shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, and therefore they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the system.
The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in such cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed towards the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated.
Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement systems, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement of not less than ten thousand colones per month.
It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister.
The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent of the amount of the pension they enjoy, without regard to years of service, and in no case may the total pension amount be greater than the total remuneration of the per diem fees or salaries that a deputy earns monthly for attending committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly.
The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the pension beneficiary for the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony.
The Ministerio de Hacienda shall transfer to each regime the necessary sum to cover the increase set by this law, for which it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions." Finally, that numeral was reformed by Law No. 7018, of December 13, 1985 (Article 14), in the following sense:
"38. The third paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its reforms, is modified, the text of which shall read:
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension (jubilación) shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month." Some of those reforms, specifically those introduced by Laws No. 6191 of 1977 (Article 9); 6542 of 1980 (Article 9), 6700 of 1981 (Article 9), 6811 of 1982 (Article 8, standard 183), and 7018 of 1985 (Article 14, standards 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional through Voto 2136, at 14:00 hours on October 23, 1991, which declared the nullity of those standards, without prejudice to acquired rights and also establishing the following: "In the same manner, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, meaning that all persons who had entered and contributed to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda prior to the entry into force of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary standards declared null and contemplated by that law had so permitted, shall have the right to remain in it. Regarding the servants who had entered the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda after the enactment of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, and those who had done so in the communications pension regime, because any of the standards that are annulled had so permitted, shall have the right that the contributions they had paid be transferred, at their request, to the special retirement or pension regime that they indicate, provided they had contributed to it or had been legally empowered to do so, and if they had not done so in any, or had not been legally empowered for it, they may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served, and they shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding contributions, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern it." According to that text, the servants who had the right to avail themselves of the benefits of Law No. 148 were entitled to a full pension when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and, at the same time, were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of enjoying a pension proportional to the number of years served if they had worked fewer than thirty but more than ten, and in this case, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; it being necessary in both cases the mandatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the Hacienda pension fund. Now then, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulations; it being evident that they referred to employees and officials who at that time—requirement of currency—were providing services in the Legislative Assembly and the Contraloría General de la República, as well as working in other State agencies and institutions that, on that same date, had been punctually incorporated by different laws into the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda. This not being the case, at that time, for the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones or the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, institutions in which the plaintiff provided services. Consequently, under said Law No. 7007, the plaintiff did not enter the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, just as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law No. 7013, of November 18, 1985, gave him access to said regime; as it was what opened the possibility for all servants of the Public Sector of the State and its Institutions, with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the Magisterio Nacional and the Poder Judicial, to be able to avail themselves of the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; and, for this, it introduced a specific set of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with such regulatory modification, the necessary requirements to obtain that pension are the following: a) For a full one, having contributed for thirty years, at minimum, in any of the pension regimes and being at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional one, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required, and for women, fifty-five; in which case the pension amount would be granted proportionally in relation to the effective and actual years contributed; requirements that, in light of constitutional Voto No. 1633, at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993, which was the date of the dimensioning of the ruling, which did not occur because by that date he had not reached the age or the time of service for a full or proportional contribution since he was only 49 years and 6 months old and had twenty-nine years and six months of public services, so he never came to acquire any right to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directly under the aforementioned Law No. 148 and its reforms, including the reform introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992.
The judgments the appellant cites in his support are not relevant because they were based on different factual and normative assumptions. Thus, Resolution 33-2003 at 10:30 hours on January 31, 2003, was not based on Law 7007, as in the present case, but on standard 48 of Law No. 6700 of December 14, 1981, which reformed paragraph 2 of Article 14 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943. Note, moreover, that in this judgment it was stated that:
In the specific case, the plaintiff did not meet, prior to August 23, 1991 (the date of the first publication mentioned in said dimensioning), the requirements established in Law No. 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to the pension on the date of the first publication of the constitutional complaint (acción de inconstitucionalidad), to which reference is made in the operative part of the ruling. However, according to the indicated proofs, the plaintiff has been contributing to the Fondo de Pensiones de Hacienda since the month of February 1982; that is, before the enactment of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling. Consequently, he maintained his right to remain in the Regime in attention to the dimensioning of the effects of the annulment made in that resolution, regarding the right of belonging. Having analyzed the point, the conclusion is reached that the annulment subsequently made of Law 7013 by Voto of the Sala Constitucional No. 1633, at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, cannot be linked to effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that it varied the protection of acquired rights already provided in that first pronouncement No. 2136, because it was not so ordered in those precise terms and, furthermore, because this other ruling referred to a different question than the one that motivated that resolution.- III.- Law No. 7302, of July 8, 1992, cited as the basis of the lawsuit and invoked by the appellant, created the Régimen General de Pensiones, charged to the National Budget. Through the enactment of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the different special pension regimes charged to that Budget. In its Article 1, it establishes that "…henceforth, the granting of all retirement pensions and pensions of the contributory regimes based on service provision to the State, originated prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget, shall be adjusted" to that Regime. Among the regimes contemplated in that Article 1 was the Hacienda regime, provided for in Law No. 148, of August 23, 1943. This was provided in Article 2 of Decree No. 21996, by which the Regulation to that Law was issued, when stating: "The special contributory regimes subject to the Régimen General de Pensiones in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 7.302 are the following: ...f) Hacienda 148 and other employees. Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943." Consequently, in accordance with that first article of the Law, henceforth, the pensions granted based on that special regime had to be adjusted to the new general regime. But, in its Transitory III, it establishes that those who, upon the Law entering into force, lack less than eighteen months to be able to receive a pension or retire according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon meeting them provided they pay the contribution indicated therein. Said regulations entered into force upon their publication on July 15, 1992, meaning the plaintiff could acquire the right to a pension under Law 6700 up to eighteen months after that date, that is, until January 15, 1994, as he indeed did. Note that according to the birth certificate on folio 28, as of January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and, according to the indicated proofs, had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulations on which he bases his claim (Articles 1 and 13 of Law No. 148)." It is inapplicable to the case because the plaintiff could only enter the Hacienda regime through Law 7013, and his claim must be analyzed in light of the dimensioning of the constitutional judgment that annulled it, as was done before, where it was shown that the claimant did not manage to acquire the right to a proportional pension, much less a full one, from the Hacienda regime.
V.Corollary of the foregoing considerations, as none of the objections put forth by the appellant are admissible, the appealed judgment must be confirmed in all its respects.
POR TANTO:
The appealed judgment is confirmed.
[Nombre2] [Nombre3] Julia Varela Araya [Nombre4] Robert María Alexandra Bogantes Rodríguez [Nombre5] 2 Telephones: 295-3671, 295-3676, 295-3675 y 295-4406. Facsimile: 257-55-94. Electronic Mail: [...]. and [...]
The appealed judgment is confirmed as to the grounds of challenge.
**5.** The plaintiff's attorney filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated May thirty-first, two thousand seven, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the recitals section.
**6.** The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings. Drafted by Judge Varela Araya; and, **RECITALS:** **I.-** Mr. [Nombre1] filed a petition before the National Pensions Directorate of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security on January 18, 2001 (folios 1 and 2 of the administrative file) requesting that he be granted a pension under the Hacienda Regime (Régimen de Hacienda), pursuant to Law 7013, arguing that when the term of that law ended, under the terms of Article 29(a) of Convention No. 102 of the International Labour Organization, based on vote number 68742-99 issued by the Constitutional Chamber and on the dimensioning of that law established in vote 1633-93 from 2:33 p.m. on April 13, 1993, to May 19, 1993, he is entitled to receive a pension because he is over fifty years old and has contributed for more than 30 years to the pension and retirement regime. The National Pensions Directorate of said Ministry denied Mr. [Nombre1]'s petition, through Resolution R-DE-DNP-NRE-0179-2001 at 11:45 a.m. on January 26, 2001, indicating that as of May 19, 1993, the petitioner did not meet the combined requirements of 50 years of age and 30 years of service, and that it was not possible to apply Convention No. 102 to him because Law 7013 was in force for less than the twenty years established in Article 29 of said Convention; and that Law 7013 had been repealed in 1991 and declared unconstitutional in 1993, so any recognition of rights must refer solely to what was established in Vote No. 1633 of April 13, 1993 (folios 14 to 20 of the administrative file and 20 to 26 of the case file). Mr. [Nombre1] appealed that resolution (folios 22 and 23 of the administrative file) and his appeal was denied through resolution DMT-CDP-982-01, at 10:04 a.m. on October 1, 2001, exhausting the administrative channel (folios 31 to 35 of the administrative file). Disagreeing with that administrative resolution, the petitioner filed a lawsuit before the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José against the State, basing his claim on Laws Number 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments by laws 6741 of April 20, 1982, 7007 of November 5, 1985, the aforementioned 7013, and Article 29 of Convention No. 102 of the ILO (folios 1 to 15). He requested the granting of a pension under the Hacienda Regime (Régimen de Hacienda) and that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the action. The State's representation filed a negative answer to the lawsuit and raised the defenses of lack of right and the generic defense of *sine actione agit*. It argued that the plaintiff has no right under Law 7013, because when it was in force he worked for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and that law did not cover the Bank's workers because that regulation, according to the provisions of Article 1 bis added to Law 148, covered only “…the servants of the public sector, centralized and decentralized, the State and its institutions,” and since the Banco Popular is defined as “a non-state public law Institution…” according to the amendment to Article 2 of the Organic Law of that Institution, by Law 7031 of April 14, 1986, its personnel are not entitled to opt for that type of pension. In support of that thesis, it cited opinions C-183-95 of August 22, 1995, and C-009-97 of January 17, 1997, in which the Attorney General's Office indicated that personnel serving non-state public entities were not covered by Law 7013, and referring to the legislative background of that rule, it indicated that the legislator's intent was for that law to apply to employees of the various state dependencies. It indicated that although the Second Chamber granted the pension based on that rule to some workers of non-state public entities, in vote 52 at 10:00 a.m. on February 14, 1996, it indicated that said law did not cover an official of a professional association, which is typically a non-state public entity. Regarding the application of Convention No. 102, it indicated that the Second Chamber has stated that this convention is not applicable in the regime of Law 7013, given that the period it was in force was very short and that, furthermore, in vote 1633 at 2:33 p.m. on April 13, 1993, in which Law 7013 was declared unconstitutional, the Constitutional Chamber, when dimensioning the effects of that declaration, defined who was entitled to enjoy the benefits derived from that law. It filed the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho). The Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José declared the lawsuit without merit and upheld the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho); and resolved the dispute without special award of costs (folios 88 to 92). It considered that the plaintiff, as of May 19, 1993, did not meet the legal requirements, age and time of service, to be entitled to a Hacienda Regime (Régimen de Hacienda) pension, since at that date he was forty-nine years and six months old and had worked for a period of six years and twelve months at the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, a period in which he had contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, therefore he could not base his claim on Law No. 7013, nor on Article 29 of Convention No. 102 of the International Labour Organization. The plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment, arguing: 1) that it made no reference to the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in the lawsuit, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the rule, nor did it refer to Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one made by Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, as well as the provisions of Transitory Provision III of the Framework Pensions Law Number 7302 of July 15, 1992. 2) that his request is based on two legal norms, which are Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one enacted through Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, which extended the scope of the law to the entire Public Sector. 3) that Law No. 7007 should be applied to his case as the Second Chamber has done when granting pensions to servants of the Asamblea Legislativa and the Contraloría General de la República based on that Law. The Tribunal dismissed those grounds of grievance and confirmed the judgment of the *a quo* (folios 117 to 125).
**II.-** The plaintiff's representative appeals the ruling of the Labor Tribunal, First Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. She points out that the *ad quem* omitted to rule on what the Contraloría General de la República stated regarding cases analogous to that of her client; as well as on the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in his pension request, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the rule; likewise, she points out that the Tribunal omitted to refer to the scope of Transitory Provision III of Law 7302 of July 15, 1992, applicable to the plaintiff because he worked for the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (Public Administration), and for the Banco Popular (non-state public entity), therefore at the time of filing the lawsuit he had more than 37 years of service, and is 55 years old, requirements established by the cited transitory provision, so Law 148 should have been applied to him, since that rule is included in the Framework Pensions Law number 7302. She argues that both administrative and judicial jurisprudence have indicated that the right to receive a pension under the Hacienda Regime (Régimen de Hacienda) is acquired by simply having worked for one year for an entity protected by that regime and that upon meeting the requirements, the pension must be granted. Based on those arguments, she requests that the Tribunal's resolution be reversed, that the lawsuit be granted and her client be given a Hacienda Regime (Régimen de Hacienda) pension as provided for in Transitory Provision Three of the Framework Pensions Law (folios 134 to 143).
**III.-** From the evidence provided in the case file, it appears that Mr. [Nombre1] rendered services at the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones from January 13, 1964, to December 31, 1970, during which time he contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (folios 4, 5, and 9 of the administrative file). Subsequently, starting October 16, 1970, he began working for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal (folios 7 and 8 of the administrative file). He currently does not receive any pension and was born on November 14, 1943 (folio 78).
**IV.** From the analysis of the agencies where the plaintiff rendered his services, it is concluded that he could not have joined the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended repeatedly. Law number 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in Article 13, established: “The provisions of this law shall also apply to officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, in terms of services rendered in agencies or for prior services in other functions. In these cases, the final decision shall be the authority of the Congress Directorate.” This numeral 13 underwent various modifications, in the manner and order to be stated. By Law number 2417, of September 14, 1959 (Article 1), it was amended as follows: “Officials or employees of the Asamblea Legislativa, the Contraloría General de la República, and the former Control Center may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy to the Asamblea Legislativa shall be computed towards those served to the Public Administration.” Subsequently, by Law number 2493 of May 11, 1960 (Article 1), the following paragraph was added: “This pension regime shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to it, when they notify the Directorate of the Asamblea Legislativa that they do not wish to belong to that regime.” The Directorate shall communicate those exclusions to the National Treasury, so that in those cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not applied.
In 1974, by law N° 5664, of December 27, 1974 (Article 9), the following paragraph was added:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over seventy years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month." By law N° 5696 of May 14, 1975 (Article 14), it was amended as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month." In Article 9, of law N° 5875, of December 26, 1975, it was again modified:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum." Subsequently, it was again amended by law N° 6025, of December 20, 1976 (Article 9):
"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum." Later it was also amended by law N° 6191, of December 12, 1977, (Article 9), in the following sense:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum." By Article 20 of law number 6256, of April 28, 1978, it was again modified, adding a new paragraph, which provided:
"Likewise, former members of the Supreme Powers not protected by other pension regimes, who meet the indicated requirements, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article." In that same year, it was amended, adding a new paragraph, by Article 9 of law N° 6305, of December 21 (1978), in the following sense:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this regime who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum." By law 6406, of December 17, 1979 (Article 9), it was again modified:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, covered by this regime, or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum." By law N° 6542, of December 22, 1980 (Article 9), said Article 13 was modified as follows:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢ 6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice-presidents and their surviving spouses, as the case may be, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of necessity, shall also have the right to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in N° 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of spousal support. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this rule. The National Department of Pensions of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio in the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule." It was again modified by law number 6700 of December 23, 1981 (Article 9), providing:
"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
'Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice-presidents and their surviving spouses, as the case may be, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of spousal support. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this rule. The National Department of Pensions of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio in the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule'.
A final paragraph is added to Article 13 of law Nº 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, which shall read: 'This rule modifies the laws, articles, and subsections that oppose it.'" By law N° 6811, of September 10, 1982 (Article 8, rule 183), it was modified in the following sense:
"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ten thousand colones (¢10,000).
Those former ministers of the Supreme Branches (Supremos Poderes), including the vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not covered by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected; or those under sixty years of age, shall also be entitled to a pension no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in article 10 of this law and in law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those regarding contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony (pensión alimenticia). The Ministerio de Hacienda is authorized to vary budget appropriations in order to cover the obligations arising from this provision. The Departamento Nacional de Pensiones of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social must make, ex officio, the necessary adjustments to bring them into conformity with the provisions of this rule.” Subsequently, an attempt was again made to reform it, through law number 6831, of December 23, 1982 (article 54); however, with respect to that and other provisions, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Poder Ejecutivo.
Through law N° 6914, of November 28, 1983 (article 10), it was again modified, as follows:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Asamblea Legislativa and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who render their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement (jubilación), with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age.
When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for the deputies (diputados) and former deputies, whereby they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorio of the Asamblea Legislativa in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime.
The Directorio shall notify the corresponding office of these exclusions, so that the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made in those cases.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement (jubilación) shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed along with the other years served in the Administración Pública, so that a minimum of ten years of service can thus be proven.
The former members of the supreme branches (supremos poderes), including the vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement (jubilación) no less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to the years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diem or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for commission and plenary sessions of the Asamblea Legislativa.
The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony (pensión alimenticia).
Transitory: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety as of the month of January 1983.
The Ministerio de Hacienda is authorized to vary the corresponding budget appropriations, in order to cover the obligations herein established.
The Departamento Nacional de Pensiones of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social must make, ex officio, in the corresponding payrolls, the necessary adjustments to the retirements (jubilaciones) and pensions already granted, to bring them into conformity with the provisions of this law." Through law N° 6963, of July 30, 1984 (article 46), it was modified as follows:
"Article 46. Paragraph 5 of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda N° 148 of August 23, 1943 and its reforms, reformed by article 10 of law number 6914, is reformed in the following manner: The former members of the supreme branches (supremos poderes), including the vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement (jubilación) no less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or invalid daughters shall have the same right." Then, it underwent a new reform, through law N° 6995 (article 123), of July 22, 1985, which provided:
Article 123.- Paragraph five of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 of August 23, 1948 and its reforms is reformed, the text of which shall read:
"The former members of the Supreme Branches (Supremos Poderes), including the vice presidents and vice ministers..." (The rest of the paragraph is the same). It is authentically interpreted that the former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretario and Subsecretario de Estado. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister." The cited article was also reformed by the law that the appellant cites in support, N° 7007, of November 5, 1985 (article 5), which indicated:
“Article 5.- Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 of August 23, 1943 and its reforms is modified, the text of which shall read:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Asamblea Legislativa and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who render their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement (jubilación), with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for the deputies and former deputies, whereby they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorio of the Asamblea Legislativa in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime.
The Directorio shall notify the corresponding office of these exclusions, so that the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made in those cases.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement (jubilación) shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed along with the other years served in the Administración Pública, so that a minimum of ten years of service can thus be proven.
The former members of the Supreme Branches (Supremos Poderes), including the vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement (jubilación) no less than ten thousand colones per month.
It is authentically interpreted that the former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretario and Subsecretario de Estado. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister.
The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or invalid daughters shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to the years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diem or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for commission and plenary sessions of the Asamblea Legislativa.
The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony (pensión alimenticia).
The Ministerio de Hacienda shall disburse, to each regime, the sum necessary so that it can cover the increase established by this law, for which it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions." Finally, that numeral was reformed through law number 7018, of December 13, 1985 (article 14), in the following sense:
“38. Paragraph three of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, N° 148 of August 23, 1943 and its reforms is modified, the text of which shall read:
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement (jubilación) shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.” Some of those reforms, specifically those introduced by laws numbers 6191 of 1977 (article 9); 6542 of 1980 (article 9), 6700 of 1981 (article 9), 6811 of 1982 (article 8, provision 183) and 7018 of 1985 (article 14, provisions 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional, through vote number 2136, of 2:00 p.m., of October 23, 1991, which declared the nullity of those provisions, without prejudice to acquired rights and establishing, moreover, the following: “In like manner, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, in the sense that all those persons who had entered and contributed to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda prior to the entry into force of Law # 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary provisions that are declared null and that said law contemplates had permitted it, shall have the right to remain in it. As for the employees who had entered the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda after the enactment of Law N° 7013 of November 18, 1985 and those who had done so in the communications pension regime (pensiones de comunicaciones), because any of the provisions that are annulled had permitted it, they shall have the right to have the contributions they had paid transferred, at their request, to the special retirement or pension regime that they indicate, provided they had contributed to it or had been legally empowered to do so, and if they had not contributed to any, or had not been legally empowered to do so, they may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served and they shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding contributions, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern it”. According to that text, the employees who had the right to avail themselves of the benefits of Law N° 148 were entitled to a full pension when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and, at the same time, were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of receiving a pension, proportional to the number of years served, in the event they had worked less than thirty but more than ten and, in this case, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; the obligatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the fondo de pensiones de Hacienda being necessary in both cases. However, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulation; it being evident that it referred to the employees and officials who, at that time—a requirement of currency—were rendering services in the Asamblea Legislativa and the Contraloría General de la República, as well as working in other dependencies and institutions of the State that, at that same date, had been promptly incorporated, by different laws, into the Régimen de pensiones de Hacienda. This not being the case, at that time, of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, nor of the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, institutions in which the plaintiff rendered services. Consequently, under said Law N° 7007, the plaintiff did not enter the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law N° 7013, of November 18, 1985, was the one that gave him access to said regime; since it was the one that opened the possibility for all the employees of the Public Sector of the State and its Institutions, with the exception of the workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the Magisterio Nacional and the Poder Judicial, to be able to avail themselves of the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; and, for this, it introduced a specific series of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with that regulatory modification, the necessary requirements to obtain that pension are the following: a) For a full one, to have contributed for thirty years, at minimum, in any of the pension regimes and to be at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional one, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required and, in the case of women, of fifty-five; in which case, the amount of the pension would be granted to them proportionally in relation to the years effectively and actually contributed; requirements that, in light of constitutional vote N° 1633, of 2:33 p.m., of April 13, 1993, which declared said Law N° 7013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the dimensioning of the ruling, which did not occur because at that date he had not reached the age nor the time of service for a full contribution nor for a proportional one since he was only 49 years and 6 months old and had twenty-nine years and six months of public services, such that he never acquired any right to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directly through the aforementioned Law N° 148 and its reforms, among them the reform introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law N° 7302 of July 8, 1992. The judgments that the appellant cites in support are not pertinent because they were based on different factual and regulatory assumptions. Thus, resolution 33-2003 of 10:30 a.m. of January 31, 2003, was not based on law 7007, as in the present case, but on provision 48 of Law number 6700 of December 14, 1981, which reformed paragraph 2 of article 14 of Law number 148 of August 23, 1943. It should be noted, moreover, that in this judgment it was indicated that:
In the specific case, the plaintiff did not meet, prior to August 23, 1991 (date of the first publication alluded to in said dimensioning), the requirements established in Law N° 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to the pension by the date of the first publication of the action of unconstitutionality, to which reference is made in the operative part of the ruling. However, according to the evidence indicated, the claimant has been contributing to the fondo de Pensiones de Hacienda since the month of February 1982; that is, since before the enactment of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling. Consequently, he maintained his right to remain in the Regime in accordance with the dimensioning of the effects of the annulment that was made in that resolution, regarding the right of belonging.
Upon analyzing the point, we reach the conclusion that the annulment subsequently made of Law 7013 by vote of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) No. 1633, at 2:33 p.m., on April 13, 1993, cannot be linked to effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that it thereby varied the protection of acquired rights (derechos adquiridos) already provided in that first pronouncement number 2136, because it was not so ordered in those precise terms and, furthermore, because this other ruling addressed a different challenge than the one that motivated that resolution.- III.- Law No. 7302, of July 8, 1992, cited as a basis for the claim and invoked by the appellant, created the General Pension Regime (Régimen General de Pensiones), charged to the National Budget (Presupuesto Nacional). Through the enactment of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the various special pension regimes charged to that Budget. Article 1 establishes that this Regime "...shall govern, henceforth, the granting of all retirement benefits and pensions of contributory regimes (regímenes contributivos) based on service to the State, originating prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget." Among the regimes contemplated in that Article 1 was the Hacienda regime, provided for in Law No. 148, of August 23, 1943.
Thus it was ordered in Article 2 of Decree No. 21996, by which the Regulation to said Law was issued, stating:
"The following are special contributory regimes subject to the General Pension Regime in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 7,302: ...f) Hacienda 148 and other employees. Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943." Consequently, pursuant to that first article of the Law, henceforth, the pensions granted based on that special regime had to conform to the new general regime.
However, Transitory Provision (Transitorio) III establishes that those who, upon the Law’s entry into force, lack less than eighteen months to be able to retire or obtain a pension according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon fulfilling them, provided that the contribution indicated therein is made. Said regulation came into force upon its publication, on July 15, 1992; therefore, the plaintiff could acquire the right to a pension under Law 6700 up to eighteen months after that date, that is, until January 15, 1994, as he indeed did. Note that according to the birth certificate on folio 28, by January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and according to the evidence indicated had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulation on which he bases his claim (Articles 1 and 13 of Law number 148)." It is inapplicable to the case because the plaintiff could only enter the Hacienda regime through Law 7013, and his claim must be analyzed in light of the dimensioning of the constitutional judgment that annulled it, as was done previously, where it was demonstrated that the petitioner failed to acquire the right to either a proportional pension (pensión proporcional), much less a full one, from the Hacienda regime.
V.Corollary of the preceding considerations, since none of the objections raised by the appellant are admissible, the contested judgment must be confirmed in all its aspects.
POR TANTO:
The appealed judgment is confirmed.
[Nombre2] [Nombre3] Julia Varela Araya [Nombre4] Robert María Alexandra Bogantes Rodríguez [Nombre5] 2 **III.-** From the evidence provided in the case file, it is clear that Mr. [Name1] rendered services at the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones from January 13, 1964, until December 31, 1970, a period during which he contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime (Régimen de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte) of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (folios 4, 5, and 9 of the administrative file). Subsequently, starting on October 16, 1970, he began working for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal (folios 7 and 8 of the administrative file). He currently does not receive any pension and was born on November 14, 1943 (folio 78). **IV.** From the analysis of the offices where the plaintiff rendered his services, it is concluded that he could not have entered the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended on repeated occasions. Law Number 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in Article 13, established: *"The provisions of this law shall also apply to the officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, regarding services rendered in dependencies or for previous services in other functions. In these cases, final determination shall be the purview of the Directorate of the Congress."* This numeral 13 underwent various modifications, in the form and order that will be stated. By Law Number 2417, of September 14, 1959 (Article 1), it was amended in the following sense: *"The officials or employees of the Legislative Assembly, of the Contraloría General de la República, and of the former Control Center, may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy to the Legislative Assembly shall be computed toward those served in the Public Administration."* Subsequently, with Law Number 2493 of May 11, 1960 (Article 1), the following paragraph was added: *"This pension regime shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to it, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that they do not wish to belong to that regime. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the National Treasury, so that in those cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not made."* In 1974, by Law No. 5664, of December 27, 1974 (Article 9), the following paragraph was added: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over seventy years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month."* By Law No. 5696 of May 14, 1975 (Article 14), it was reformed as follows: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month."* In Article 9 of Law No. 5875, of December 26, 1975, it was again modified: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum."* Later, it was again reformed by Law No. 6025, of December 20, 1976 (Article 9): *"Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum."* Further on, it was also amended through Law No. 6191, of December 12, 1977, (Article 9), in the following sense: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum."* By Article 20 of Law Number 6256, of April 28, 1978, it was again modified, adding a new paragraph, which provided: *"Likewise, former members of the Supreme Powers not protected by other pension regimes, who meet the indicated requirements, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article."* In that same year, it was reformed, adding a new paragraph, by means of Article 9 of Law No. 6305, of December 21 (1978), in the following sense: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum."* By Law 6406, of December 17, 1979 (Article 9), it was again modified: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers, covered by this regime or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum."* Through Law No. 6542, of December 22, 1980 (Article 9), said Article 13 was modified as follows: *"Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢ 6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses in their case, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have or have not fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of need, shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio in the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to bring them into line with the provisions of this norm."* It was again modified by Law Number 6700 of December 23, 1981 (Article 9), providing: *"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is reformed, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: "Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, in their case over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have or have not fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law Number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio in the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to bring them into line with the provisions of this norm." A final paragraph is added to Article 13 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, which shall read: "This norm modifies the laws, articles, and subsections that oppose it."* By Law No. 6811, of September 10, 1982 (Article 8, norm 183), it was modified in the following sense: *"The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is reformed so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ten thousand colones (¢10,000). Those former ministers of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, in their case, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have or have not fully completed the period for which they were elected; or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law Number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items, in order to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio, the necessary adjustments to bring them into line with the provisions of this norm."* Subsequently, an attempt was again made to reform it, by Law Number 6831, of December 23, 1982 (Article 54); however, regarding that and other norms, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Executive Branch. By Law No. 6914, of November 28, 1983 (Article 10), it was again modified, in the following manner: *"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who render their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, and therefore they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed toward the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies shall increase each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the allowances or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in Article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) The contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Technical Mechanized Office, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony. Transitory: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this Article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety starting from the month of January 1983. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary the corresponding budget items, in order to cover the obligations established herein. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio, in the corresponding payrolls, the necessary adjustments to the retirement pensions and pensions already granted, to bring them into line with the provisions of this law."* By Law No. 6963, of July 30, 1984 (Article 46), it was modified as follows: *"Article 46. The 5th paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, amended by Article 10 of Law Number 6914, is reformed in the following form: Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right."* Later, it underwent a new reform, through Law No. 6995 (Article 123), of July 22, 1985, where it was provided: *Article 123.- The fifth paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1948, and its amendments is reformed, the text of which shall read: "Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers..." (The remainder of the paragraph the same). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers also include those who held the positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister."* The cited article was also reformed by the law cited in support by the appellant, No. 7007, of November 5, 1985 (Article 5), in which it was indicated: *"Article 5.- Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments is modified, the text of which shall read: "Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who render their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, and therefore they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed toward the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers also include those who held the positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State.
Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice-minister. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and their unmarried or invalid daughters shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being bound to years of service, and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diem allowances or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for sessions of commission and plenary of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
**6.-** The requirements of the law have been observed in the proceedings.
**Drafted by Magistrate Varela Araya; and,** **CONSIDERING:** **I.-** Mr. [Name1] filed a petition with the National Pension Directorate of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security on January 18, 2001 (folios 1 and 2 of the administrative file) requesting that he be granted a pension under the Hacienda Regime, pursuant to Law 7013, alleging that when the validity of that law ended, under the terms of Article 29, Section a) of Convention 102 of the International Labor Organization, based on vote number 68742-99 issued by the Constitutional Chamber, and on the scoping of that law established in vote 1633-93 at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, to May 19, 1993, he has the right to receive a pension for being over fifty years of age and having contributed for more than 30 years to the pension and retirement regime. The National Pension Directorate of the said Ministry denied Mr. [Name1]'s petition, through Resolution R-DE-DNP-NRE-0179-2001 at 11:45 hours on January 26, 2001, stating that as of May 19, 1993, the petitioner did not meet the combined requirements of 50 years of age and 30 years of service, and that it was not possible to apply Convention 102 to him because Law 7013 had a validity period of less than the twenty years established by Article 29 of said Convention; and that Law 7013 had been repealed in 1991 and declared unconstitutional in 1993, so any recognition of rights must refer solely to what was established in Vote No. 1633 of April 13, 1993 (folios 14 to 20 of the administrative file and 20 to 26 of the case file). Mr. [Name1] appealed that resolution (folios 22 and 23 of the administrative file) and his appeal was denied through resolution DMT-CDP-982-01, at 10:04 hours on October 1, 2001, thus exhausting administrative remedies (folios 31 to 35 of the administrative file). Disagreeing with that administrative resolution, the petitioner filed a lawsuit before the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José against the State, basing his claim on Laws Number 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments by laws 6741 of April 20, 1982, 7007 of November 5, 1985, the aforementioned 7013, and Article 29 of ILO Convention 102 (folios 1 to 15). He requested the granting of a pension under the Hacienda Regime and that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the action. The State's representation answered the lawsuit in the negative and raised the defenses of lack of right and the generic defense of *sine actione agit*. It argued that the plaintiff has no right under Law 7013, because when it was in force he was working for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and that law did not cover the Bank's workers because that regulation, according to Article 1 bis added to Law 148, covered only *“…servants of the public sector, centralized and decentralized, the State and its institutions,”* and given that the Banco Popular is defined as *“a non-state public law institution…”* according to the amendment to Article 2 of the Organic Law of that Institution, through Law 7031 of April 14, 1986, its personnel do not have the right to opt for that type of pension. In support of this thesis, it cited opinions C-183-95 of August 22, 1995, and C-009-97 of January 17, 1997, in which the Attorney General's Office indicated that personnel serving non-state public entities were not covered by Law 7013, and referring to the legislative history of that norm, it indicated that the legislator's will was for that law to apply to employees of the various state dependencies. It indicated that although the Second Chamber granted the pension based on that norm to some workers of non-state public entities, in vote 52 at 10:00 on February 14, 1996, it stated that this law did not cover an official of a professional association, which is typically a non-state public entity. Regarding the application of Convention 102, it indicated that the Second Chamber has stated that this convention is not applicable in the regime of Law 7013, given that the period it was in force was very short, and that furthermore, in vote 1633 at 14:33 hours on April 13, 1993, in which Law 7013 was declared unconstitutional, the Constitutional Chamber, when scoping the effects of that declaration, defined those who were entitled to enjoy the benefits derived from that law; it raised the defense of lack of right. The Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José dismissed the lawsuit and upheld the defense of lack of right; and resolved the dispute without special condemnation in costs (folios 88 to 92). It considered that the plaintiff, as of May 19, 1993, did not meet the legal requirements, age and time of service, to be entitled to a pension under the Hacienda Regime, since on that date he was forty-nine years and six months of age and had worked for a period of six years and twelve months at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, a period in which he had contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, therefore he could not support his claim under Law No. 7013, nor under Article 29 of Convention 102 of the International Labor Organization. The plaintiff appealed the first-instance judgment, arguing: 1) that no reference was made to the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in the lawsuit, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the norm, nor did it refer to Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one made by Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, as well as the provisions of Transitory Provision III of the Framework Pensions Law Number 7302 of July 15, 1992. 2) that his request is based on two legal norms, which are Law 148 of August 1943 and its amendments, mainly the one enacted through Law 7007 of November 5, 1985, which broadened the scope of the law to the entire Public Sector. 3) that Law No. 7007 should be applied to his case, as the Second Chamber has done in granting pensions to servants of the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic based on that Law. The Tribunal dismissed those grounds of grievance and confirmed the judgment of the *a quo* (folios 117 to 125).
**II.-** The plaintiff's representative rises against the ruling of the Labor Tribunal, First Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José. She points out that the *ad quem* failed to rule on what the Comptroller General of the Republic stated in relation to cases analogous to that of her client; as well as the fundamental constitutional principles invoked in his pension application, such as equality before the law and non-retroactivity of the norm; likewise, she points out that the Tribunal failed to refer to the scope of Transitory Provision III of Law 7302 of July 15, 1992, applicable to the plaintiff because he worked for the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Public Administration), and for the Banco Popular (non-state public entity), so at the time of filing the lawsuit he had more than 37 years of service, and is 55 years old, requirements that the cited transitory provision establishes, meaning that Law 148 should have been applied to him, since that norm is included in the Framework Pensions Law number 7302. She argues that both administrative and judicial case law have indicated that the right to retire under the Hacienda Regime is acquired with only having worked for one year for an entity protected by that regime and that upon meeting the requirements, the pension must be granted to him. Based on these arguments, she requests that the Tribunal's resolution be revoked, the lawsuit be granted with merit, awarding her client a pension under the Hacienda Regime as provided by the Third Transitory Provision of the Framework Pensions Law (folios 134 to 143).
**III.-** From the evidence provided to the case file, it is clear that Mr. [Name1] rendered services at the Supreme Electoral Tribunal from January 13, 1964, until December 31, 1970, a period during which he contributed to the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (folios 4, 5, and 9 of the administrative file). Subsequently, starting October 16, 1970, he began working for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal (folios 7 and 8 of the administrative file). He currently does not enjoy any pension and was born on November 14, 1943 (folio 78).
**IV.** From the analysis of the dependencies where the plaintiff rendered his services, it is concluded that he could not enter the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended on repeated occasions. Law number 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in Article 13, established: *“The provisions of this law shall also apply to the officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, with respect to services rendered in dependencies or for prior services in other functions. In these cases, it shall be the responsibility of the Directorate of the Congress to hear them definitively.”* This numeral 13 underwent various modifications, in the form and order that will be stated. By law number 2417, of September 14, 1959 (Article 1), it was modified as follows:
*“The officials or employees of the Legislative Assembly, the Comptroller General of the Republic, and the former Control Center, may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy to the Legislative Assembly shall be counted towards those served in the Public Administration.”* Subsequently, with law number 2493 of May 11, 1960 (Article 1), the following paragraph was added:
*“This pension regime shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to it, when they inform the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that they do not wish to belong to this regime.”* The Board shall communicate those exclusions to the National Treasury, so that in those cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not made.
In 1974, by Law No. 5664 of December 27, 1974 (Article 9), the following paragraph was added:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over seventy years of age shall have the right to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month.” By Law No. 5696 of May 14, 1975 (Article 14), it was amended as follows:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month.” In Article 9 of Law No. 5875 of December 26, 1975, it was again amended:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall have the right to a pension of not less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with dignity.” Subsequently, it was again amended by Law No. 6025 of December 20, 1976 (Article 9):
“Former members of the Supreme Powers protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age shall have the right to a pension of not less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with dignity.” Later, it was also amended by Law No. 6191 of December 12, 1977 (Article 9), as follows:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of not less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with dignity.” By Article 20 of Law No. 6256 of April 28, 1978, it was again amended, adding a new paragraph, which provided:
“Likewise, former members of the Supreme Powers not protected by other pension regimes, who meet the indicated requirements, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article.” In that same year, it was amended, adding a new paragraph, by Article 9 of Law No. 6305 of December 21 (1978), as follows:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers, protected by this regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of not less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with dignity.” By Law 6406 of December 17, 1979 (Article 9), it was again amended:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers, covered by this regime or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of not less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with dignity.” By Law No. 6542 of December 22, 1980 (Article 9), said Article 13 was amended as follows:
“Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of not less than ¢6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice-presidents and their surviving spouses where applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, whether or not they fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of need, shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions for the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this rule. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule.” It was again amended by Law No. 6700 of December 23, 1981 (Article 9), providing:
“The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
"Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of not less than ¢8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice-presidents and their surviving spouses where applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, whether or not they fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions for the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this rule. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule".
A final paragraph is added to Article 13 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, which shall read: "This rule amends the laws, articles, and subsections that oppose it." By Law No. 6811 of September 10, 1982 (Article 8, rule 183), it was amended as follows:
“The fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law is amended so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads:
Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Powers or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of not less than ten thousand colones (¢10,000).” Those former ministers of the Supreme Powers, including the vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not covered by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the term for which they were elected; or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension not less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law Number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those relating to contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministerio de Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items in order to cover the obligations arising from this provision. The Departamento Nacional de Pensiones of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social must make, ex officio, the necessary adjustments to bring them into line with the provisions of this rule." Later, an attempt was again made to reform it, through Law Number 6831 of December 23, 1982 (Article 54); however, with respect to that and other provisions, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Poder Ejecutivo.
By Law No. 6914 of November 28, 1983 (Article 10), it was again amended, as follows:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Asamblea Legislativa and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who provide their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age.
When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorio of the Asamblea Legislativa in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime.
The Directorio shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made in those cases.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed together with the other years served in the Administración Pública, so that a minimum of ten years of service can thus be demonstrated.
Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of not less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent on the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for committee and plenary sessions of the Asamblea Legislativa.
The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony.
Transitional: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this Article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety as of the month of January 1983.
The Ministerio de Hacienda is authorized to vary the corresponding budget items, in order to cover the obligations established herein.
The Departamento Nacional de Pensiones of the Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, must make ex officio, in the corresponding payrolls, the necessary adjustments to retirement pensions and pensions already granted, to bring them into line with the provisions of this law." By Law No. 6963 of July 30, 1984 (Article 46), it was amended as follows:
"Article 46. The 5th paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, amended by Article 10 of Law Number 6914, is hereby amended as follows: Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of not less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right." Later, it underwent a new amendment, through Law No. 6995 (Article 123) of July 22, 1985, which provided:
Article 123.- The fifth paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1948 and its amendments, is hereby amended, the text of which shall read:
"Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers..." (The rest of the paragraph is the same). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretario and Subsecretario de Estado. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister." The cited article was also amended by the law cited in support by the appellant, No. 7007 of November 5, 1985 (Article 5), which stated:
"Article 5.- Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is hereby modified, the text of which shall read:
"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Asamblea Legislativa and of the Contraloría General de la República, and those who provide their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obliged to contribute financially to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorio of the Asamblea Legislativa in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime.
The Directorio shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made.
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.
The years served as deputies shall be computed together with the other years served in the Administración Pública, so that a minimum of ten years of service can thus be demonstrated.
Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Administración Pública for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of not less than ten thousand colones per month.
It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretario and Subsecretario de Estado. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister.
The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right.
The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent on the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries that a deputy earns monthly, for committee and plenary sessions of the Asamblea Legislativa.
The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions:
ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony.
The Ministerio de Hacienda shall transfer, to each regime, the sum necessary to cover the increase set by this law, for which purpose it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions." Finally, that provision was amended by Law Number 7018 of December 13, 1985 (Article 14), as follows:
"38. The third paragraph of Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is hereby modified, the text of which shall read:
In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Administración Pública, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month." Some of these amendments, specifically those introduced by Laws Number 6191 of 1977 (Article 9); 6542 of 1980 (Article 9), 6700 of 1981 (Article 9), 6811 of 1982 (Article 8, norm 183) and 7018 of 1985 (Article 14, norms 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional, through Vote Number 2136, at 2:00 p.m., on October 23, 1991, which declared the nullity of those provisions, without prejudice to acquired rights and also establishing the following: "In the same manner, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, in the sense that all those persons who had entered and contributed to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda prior to the entry into force of Law # 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary provisions declared null and that said law contemplates so permitted it, shall have the right to remain in it. As for the servants who had entered the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda after the enactment of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985 and those who had done so in the communications pension regime, because any of the provisions that are annulled so permitted it, shall have the right to have the contributions they had paid transferred, at their request, to the special regime of retirement pensions or pensions that they indicate, provided they had contributed to it or had been legally empowered to do so, and if they had not done so in any, or had not been legally empowered to do so, they may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served and they shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding contributions, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern it." According to that text, the servants who had the right to avail themselves of the benefits of Law No. 148, were entitled to a full pension, when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and, at the same time, were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of enjoying a pension, proportional to the number of years served, in the event that they had worked less than thirty but more than ten and, in this case, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; it being necessary, in both cases, the mandatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the fondo de pensiones de Hacienda. Now then, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulation; it being evident that it referred to the employees and officials who, at that time—requirement of currency—were providing services in the Asamblea Legislativa and the Contraloría General de la República, as well as working in other dependencies and institutions of the State that, at that same date, had been specifically incorporated, by different laws, into the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda. This not being the case, at the time, for the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, nor for the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, institutions in which the plaintiff rendered services. Consequently, under said Law No. 7007, the plaintiff did not enter the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, as the appellant intends. For that reason, only Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, was the one that gave him access to said regime; as it was the one that opened the possibility for all servants of the Public Sector of the State and its Institutions, with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the Magisterio Nacional and the Poder Judicial, to be able to avail themselves of the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; and, for this purpose, it introduced a specific set of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with such regulatory modification, the necessary requirements, to achieve that pension, are the following: a) For a full one, to have contributed for thirty years, at a minimum, in any of the pension regimes and to be at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional one, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required and, in the case of women, fifty-five; in which case, the amount of the pension would be granted proportionally in relation to the years effectively and actually contributed; requirements that, in light of constitutional Vote No. 1633, at 2:33 p.m., on April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the dimensioning of the ruling, which did not occur because by that date he had not reached the age nor the time of service for a full contribution nor for a proportional one because he was only 49 years and 6 months of age and had twenty-nine years and six months of public services, so he never acquired any right to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directly through the aforementioned Law No. 148 and its amendments, among them the amendment introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992. The judgments cited in support by the appellant are not pertinent as they were based on different factual and normative circumstances. Thus, Resolution 33-2003 at 10:30 a.m. on January 31, 2003, was not based on Law 7007, as in the present case, but on provision 48 of Law Number 6700 of December 14, 1981, which amended paragraph 2 of Article 14 of Law Number 148 of August 23, 1943. It should be noted, moreover, that this judgment stated that:
In the specific case, the plaintiff did not fulfill, prior to August 23, 1991 (date of the first publication alluded to in said dimensioning), the requirements established in Law No. 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to a pension by the date of the first publication of the unconstitutionality action, to which reference is made in the operative part of the ruling. However, in accordance with the aforementioned evidence, the plaintiff has been contributing to the fondo de Pensiones de Hacienda since the month of February 1982; that is, since before the enactment of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling. Consequently, he retained his right to remain in the Regime pursuant to the dimensioning of the effects of the annulment made in that resolution, regarding the right of membership.
Having analyzed the point, we reach the conclusion that the annulment later made of Law 7013 by ruling of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) N° 1633, at 14:33, on April 13, 1993, cannot be given effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that it varied the protection of acquired rights (derechos adquiridos) already provided for in that first pronouncement number 2136, because it was not so ordered in those precise terms and, moreover, because that other ruling referred to a different challenge than the one that gave rise to that resolution.- III.- Law N° 7302, of July 8, 1992, cited as a basis for the claim and invoked by the appellant, created the General Pension Regime (Régimen General de Pensiones), charged to the National Budget. Through the enactment of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the various special pension regimes, charged to that Budget. Its Article 1 establishes that this Regime "...will, henceforth, govern the granting of all retirements and pensions from contributory regimes based on the rendering of service to the State, originating prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget." Among the regimes contemplated in that Article 1 was the Hacienda regime, provided for in Law N° 148, of August 23, 1943. This was provided in Article 2 of Decree N° 21996, by which the Regulations to that Law were issued, stating: "The special contributory regimes subject to the General Pension Regime in accordance with Article 1 of Law N° 7,302 are the following: ...f) Hacienda 148 and other employees. Law N° 148 of August 23, 1943". Consequently, in accordance with that first article of the Law, henceforth, pensions granted based on that special regime had to conform to the new general regime. However, in its Transitory Provision (Transitorio) III, it establishes that those who, when the Law enters into force, need less than eighteen months to be able to obtain a pension or retirement (pensionarse o jubilarse) according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon fulfilling them, provided the contribution indicated therein is made. Said regulation entered into force upon its publication, on July 15, 1992, meaning the plaintiff could acquire a right to a pension under Law 6700, up to eighteen months after that date, that is, until January 15, 1994, as he indeed did. Note that according to the birth certificate on folio 28, by January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and, according to the indicated evidence, had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulation on which he bases his claim (articles 1 and 13 of Law number 148)." It is inapplicable to the case because the plaintiff could only enter the Hacienda regime through Law 7013, and his claim must be analyzed in light of the dimensioning of the constitutional ruling that annulled it, as done before, where it was evidenced that the claimant failed to acquire the right to either a proportional pension or, less so, a complete one from the Hacienda regime.
V.Corollary to the foregoing considerations, as none of the objections raised by the appellant is procedurally correct, the appealed judgment must be confirmed in all its aspects.
POR TANTO:
The appealed judgment is confirmed.
[Nombre2] [Nombre3] Julia Varela Araya [Nombre4] Robert María Alexandra Bogantes Rodríguez [Nombre5] 2
*020005040166LA* *020005040166LA* Corte Suprema de Justicia SALA SEGUNDA Res: 2008-000086 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas y cuarenta y cinco minutos del ocho de febrero del dos mil ocho.
Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, por [Nombre1] , funcionario público, contra el ESTADO, representado por su procurador el licenciado Ricardo Vargas Vásquez. Figura como apoderada especial judicial del actor la licenciada Olga Dorís Torres Navarro. Todos mayores, casados y vecinos de San José.
RESULTANDO:
1.- El actor, en escrito fechado once de febrero del dos mil dos, promovió la presente acción para que en sentencia se condene al ente demandado a concederle una jubilación por el Régimen de Hacienda en los términos que establece la ley 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, especialmente a la introducida ley 6741, 7007 y 7013, la que deberá ser concedida conforme a lo que dispone dicha normativa para su disfrute y desde el momento de su cese de labores o bien desde que haya cesado de ellas, así como al pago de intereses sobre los montos que correspondan por ese concepto, calculados estos de conformidad con los establecidos por el sistema bancario nacional para los depósitos a plazo fijo y desde el disfrute de la jubilación hasta el efectivo pago que por ello haga la parte demandada y ambas costas.
2.- El representante del demandado contestó la acción en los términos que indicó en el memorial de fecha ocho de octubre del dos mil uno y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho.
3.- La jueza, licenciada Maureen Jiménez Gómez, por sentencia de las diez horas veintiséis minutos del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil seis, dispuso: "Con fundamento en lo expuesto, citas legales mencionadas y artículo 492 del Código de Trabajo, se declara SIN LUGAR en todos sus extremos petitorios la presente demanda ordinaria laboral establecida por [Nombre1] contra el ESTADO representado por el procurador licenciado Ricardo Vargas Vásquez. Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por el representante del demandado. Se resuelve el presente asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas. Se advierte a las partes que esta sentencia admite el recurso de apelación, el cual deberá interponerse ante este Juzgado en el término de tres días. En ese mismo plazo y ante este órgano jurisdiccional también se deberán exponer, en forma verbal o escrita, los motivos de hecho o de derecho en que la parte recurrente apoya su inconformidad; bajo el apercibimiento de declarar inatendible el recurso (artículos 500 y 501 incisos c) y d) del Código de Trabajo; votos de la Sala Constitucional números 5798 de las 16:21 horas del 11 de agosto de 1998 y 1306 de las 16:27 horas del 23 de febrero de 1999 y voto de la Sala Segunda número 386 de las 14:20 horas del 10 de diciembre de 1999)".
4.- La parte actora apeló y el Tribunal de Trabajo Sección Primera, Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, integrado por los licenciados Luis Fernando Salazar Alvarado, Mayita Ramón Barquero y Eugenie Salas Chavarría, por sentencia de las ocho horas veinte minutos del dieciséis de febrero del dos mil siete, resolvió: "Se declara que en los procedimientos no se observan defectos u omisiones causantes de nulidad o indefensión. Se confirma la sentencia recurrida en lo que es motivo de impugnación".
5.- La apoderada del actor formuló recurso para ante esta Sala en memorial de data treinta y uno de mayo del dos mil siete, el cual se fundamenta en los motivos que se dirán en la parte considerativa.
6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley.
Redacta la Magistrada Varela Araya; y,
CONSIDERANDO:
I.- El señor [Nombre1] presentó gestión ante la Dirección Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social el 18 de enero del 2001 (folios 1 y 2 del expediente administrativo solicitando que se le otorgara una pensión bajo el Régimen de Hacienda, según la Ley 7013, aduciendo que cuando terminó la vigencia de esa ley, al tenor del artículo 29 Inciso a) del Convenio 102 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, con base en el voto número 68742-99 dictado por la Sala Constitucional y en el dimensionamiento de esa ley establecido en el voto 1633-93 de las 14:33 horas del 13 de abril de 1993 al 19 de mayo de 1993, tiene derecho a recibir una pensión por tener más de cincuenta años de edad y haber cotizado por más de 30 años para el régimen de pensiones y jubilaciones. La Dirección Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio dicho, denegó la petición del señor [Nombre1] , mediante Resolución R-DE-DNP-NRE-0179-2001 de las 11:45 horas del 26 de enero de 2001 indicando que al 19 de mayo de 1993, el petente no reunía los requisitos en conjunto, de 50 años de edad y 30 años de servicio, y que no era posible aplicarle el Convenio 102 por cuanto la Ley 7013 tuvo una vigencia inferior a los veinte años que establece el artículo 29 de dicho Convenio; y que la Ley 7013 había sido derogada en 1991 y declarada inconstitucional en 1993, por lo que cualquier reconocimiento de derechos debe remitirse únicamente a lo establecido en el voto N° 1633 de 13 de abril de 1993 (folios 14 al 20 del expediente administrativo y 20 a 26 de los autos). El señor [Nombre1] apeló esa resolución (folios 22 y 23 del expediente administrativo) y su recurso fue denegado mediante resolución DMT-CDP-982-01, de las 10:04 horas del 1 de octubre del 2001, quedando agotaba la vía administrativa (folios 31 a 35 del expediente administrativo). Por estar disconforme con esa resolución administrativa, el gestionante presentó demanda ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José contra el Estado, sustentando la petitoria en las Leyes Números 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas por leyes 6741 de 20 de abril de 1982, 7007 de 5 de noviembre de 1985, 7013 supracitada y el artículo 29 del Convenio 102 de la OIT (folios 1 a 15). Solicitó el otorgamiento de una pensión por el Régimen de Hacienda y que se condene al demandado al pago de ambas costas de la acción. La representación del Estado contestó negativamente la demanda y opuso las defensas de falta de derecho y la genérica de sine actione agit. Argumentó que al actor no le asiste derecho a la luz de la Ley 7013, porque cuando estuvo vigente laboraba para el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal y esa ley no cubría a los trabajadores del Banco porque esa normativa, según lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 bis adicionado a la Ley 148, cubría únicamente a “…los servidores del sector público, centralizado y descentralizado, el Estado y sus instituciones”, y siendo que el Banco Popular se define como “una Institución de derecho público no estatal…” según reforma al artículo 2 de la Ley orgánica de esa Institución, mediante Ley 7031 de 14 de abril de 1986, su personal no tiene derecho a optar por ese tipo de pensión. En apoyo de esa tesis citó los dictámenes C-183-95 de 22 de agosto de 1995 y C-009-97 de 17 de enero de 1997 en los que la Procuraduría señaló que el personal al servicio de los entes públicos no estatales no se encontraba cubierto por la Ley 7013, y haciendo referencia a los antecedentes legislativos de esa norma señaló que la voluntad del legislador fue que esa ley se aplicara a los empleados de las distintas dependencias estatales. Indicó que aunque la Sala Segunda otorgó la pensión con base en esa norma a algunos trabajadores de entes públicos no estatales, en el voto 52 de las 10:00 del 14 de febrero de 1996, señaló que esa ley no cubría a un funcionario de un colegio profesional que típicamente es un ente público no estatal. En cuanto a la aplicación del Convenio 102 indicó que la Sala Segunda ha señalado que ese convenio no es aplicable en el régimen de la Ley 7013, dado el periodo en que estuvo vigente fue muy corto y que además en el voto 1633 de las 14:33 horas del 13 de abril de 1993 en el que se declaró inconstitucional la Ley 7013, la Sala Constitucional al dimensionar los efectos de esa declaratoria, definió a quienes les asistía derecho al disfrute de los beneficios derivados de esa ley; interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho. El Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, declaró sin lugar la demanda y acogió la excepción de falta de derecho; y resolvió la litis sin especial condenatoria en costas (folios 88 a 92). Consideró que el actor, al 19 de mayo de 1993, no contaba con los requisitos legales, edad y tiempo de servicio, para tener derecho a una pensión por Régimen de Hacienda, ya que a esa fecha tenía cuarenta y nueve años y seis meses de edad y había laborado por un lapso de seis años y doce meses en el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, período en el que había cotizado para el Régimen de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, por lo que no pudo amparar su reclamo en la Ley N° 7013, ni en el artículo 29 del Convenio 102 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo. El accionante apeló la sentencia de primera instancia, argumentando: 1) que no se hizo referencia a los principios constitucionales fundamentales invocados en la demanda, tales como el de igualdad ante la ley e irretroactividad de la norma, ni se refirió a la Ley 148 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, principalmente la hecha por Ley 7007 de 5 de noviembre de 1985, así como lo dispuesto en el transitorio III de la Ley Marco de Pensiones Número 7302 de 15 de julio de 1992. 2) que su solicitud se sustenta en dos normas legales como lo son la Ley 148 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, principalmente la dictada mediante Ley 7007 de 5 de noviembre de 1985 que amplió los alcances de la ley a todo el Sector Público. 3) que se debe aplicar a su caso la Ley N° 7007 como lo ha hecho la Sala Segunda al otorgar pensiones a servidores de la Asamblea Legislativa y Contraloría General de la República con base en esa Ley. El Tribunal desestimó esos motivos de agravio y confirmó la sentencia del a quo (folios 117 a 125).
II.- La representante del actor se alza contra el fallo del Tribunal de Trabajo, Sección Primera, del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José. Señala que el ad quem omitió pronunciarse sobre lo dicho por la Contraloría General de la República en relación a casos análogos al de su poderdante; así como a los principios constitucionales fundamentales invocados en su solicitud de pensión como son el de igualdad ante la ley y el de irretroactividad de la norma; asimismo señala que el Tribunal omitió referirse a los alcances del transitorio III de la Ley 7302 de 15 de julio de 1992, aplicables al actor por cuanto laboró para el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones (Administración Pública), y para el Banco Popular (ente público no estatal) por lo que al momento de interponer la demanda contaba con más de 37 años de servicio, y tiene 55 años de edad, requisitos que establece el citado transitorio, de manera que se le debió aplicar la ley 148, ya que esa norma se encuentra incluida en la Ley Marco de Pensiones número 7302. Argumenta que tanto la jurisprudencia administrativa como la judicial han señalado que el derecho a pensionarse por el Régimen de Hacienda se adquiere con solo haber laborado por un año para una entidad protegida por ese régimen y que al cumplir los requisitos se le debe otorgar la pensión. Con base en esos argumentos solicita que se revoque la resolución del Tribunal, se declare con lugar la demanda otorgándole a su representado una pensión por el Régimen de Hacienda según lo supone el Transitorio Tercero de la Ley Marco de Pensiones (folios 134 a 143).
III.- De las probanzas aportadas a los autos se desprende que el señor [Nombre1] prestó servicios en el Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones desde el 13 de enero de 1964 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1970, tiempo en el que cotizó para el Régimen de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (folios 4, 5 y 9 del expediente administrativo). Posteriormente, a partir del 16 de octubre de 1970 comenzó a laborar para el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal (folios 7 y 8 del expediente administrativo). Actualmente no disfruta de ninguna pensión y nació el 14 de noviembre de 1943 (folio 78).
IV.Del análisis de las dependencias donde el actor prestó sus servicios, se concluye que no pudo ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda con base en el artículo 13 de la ley 148. Ese artículo ha sido modificado en reiteradas ocasiones. La ley número 148, del 23 de agosto de 1943, originalmente, en el artículo 13, establecía: “Las disposiciones de esta ley se aplicarán también a los funcionarios y empleados del Congreso Constitucional y los del Centro de Control, en cuanto a los servicios prestados en dependencias o por servicios anteriores en otras funciones. En estos casos, será atribución del Directorio del Congreso su conocimiento definitivo.” Este numeral 13 fue sufriendo diversas modificaciones, en la forma y en el orden que se dirá. Por la ley número 2417, del 14 de setiembre de 1959 (artículo 1°), se modificó en el siguiente sentido:
“Los funcionarios o empleados de la Asamblea Legislativa, de la Contraloría General de la República y del antiguo Centro de Control, podrán pedir su jubilación con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en el momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad. Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. En el caso de los diputados la pensión será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años. Los años desempeñados como diputado a la Asamblea Legislativa se computarán a los servidos a la Administración Pública.” Posteriormente, con la ley número 2493 del 11 de mayo de 1960 (artículo 1°), se le adicionó el siguiente párrafo:
“Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los Diputados. En consecuencia, éstos no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el mismo, cuando comuniquen al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no desean pertenecer a ese régimen. El Directorio comunicará a la Tesorería Nacional esas exclusiones, para que en esos casos no se haga la deducción señalada en esta misma ley.” En 1974, por la ley N° 5664, del 27 de diciembre de 1974 (artículo 9), se le adicionó el siguiente párrafo:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de setenta años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales.” Por la ley N° 5696 del 14 de mayo de 1975 (artículo 14), se reformó así:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta y cinco años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales.” En el artículo 9, de la ley N° 5875, del 26 de diciembre de 1975, nuevamente se modificó:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta y cinco años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Luego, nuevamente se reformó por la ley N° 6025, del 20 de diciembre de 1976 (artículo 9):
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil quinientos colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro".
Más adelante también fue reformado mediante la ley N° 6191, del 12 de diciembre de 1977, (artículo 9), en el siguiente sentido:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de tres mil quinientos colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Por el artículo 20 de la ley número 6256, del 28 de abril de 1978 nuevamente se modificó, agregándosele un nuevo párrafo, que disponía:
“Igualmente podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes no protegidos por otros regímenes de pensión, que cumplan con los indicados requisitos.” En ese mismo año, fue reformado, adicionándosele un nuevo párrafo, mediante el artículo 9 de la ley N° 6305, del 21 de diciembre (1978), en el siguiente sentido:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, protegidos por este régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de cinco mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Por la ley 6406, del 17 de diciembre de 1979 (artículo 9), nuevamente fue modificado:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, acogidos a este régimen o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de cinco mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Mediante la ley N° 6542, del 22 de diciembre de 1980 (artículo 9), dicho artículo 13 se modificó así:
“Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de ¢ 6.000,00 (seis mil colones). Aquellos ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos vicepresidentes y sus cónyuges sobrevivientes en su caso, mayores de sesenta años, no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubieren cumplido o no totalmente del período para el que fueron electos, o de menos de sesenta años en caso de necesidad, tendrán derecho también a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones, a que se refiere ese párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la N° 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1.966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda, a variar las partidas de presupuesto, para cubrir las obligaciones que de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberá hacer, de oficio en las planillas, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma.” Nuevamente fue modificado por la ley número 6700 del 23 de diciembre de 1981 (artículo 9), disponiéndose:
“Reformase el párrafo cuarto del artículo 13 de la misma ley, de modo que el texto de los párrafos cuarto y quinto digan:
"Artículo 13.- Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de ¢8.000,00 (ocho mil colones). Aquellos ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos vicepresidentes y sus cónyuges, sobrevivientes en su caso mayores de sesenta años no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubiesen cumplido o no totalmente el período para el que fueron electos, o de menos de sesenta años tendrán derecho también a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones, a que se refiere este párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la ley número 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda a variar las partidas de presupuesto, para cubrir las obligaciones que de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberá hacer, de oficio en las planillas, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma".
Agrégase un último párrafo al artículo 13 de la ley Nº 148 del 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, que dirá: "Esta norma modifica las leyes, artículos e incisos que se lo opongan." Por la ley N° 6811, del 10 de setiembre de 1982 (artículo 8, norma 183), se modificó en el siguiente sentido:
“Reformase el párrafo cuarto del artículo 13 de la misma ley de modo que el texto de los párrafos cuarto y quinto digan:
Artículo 13: Los ex ministros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de diez mil colones (¢10.000). Aquellos ex ministros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vice presidentes y sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, en su caso, mayores de sesenta años, no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubiesen cumplido o no totalmente el período para el que fueron electos; o de menos de sesenta años, también tendrán derecho a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones a que se refiere este párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la ley número 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda para variar las partidas de presupuesto, a fin de cubrir las obligaciones de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberán hacer, de oficio, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma.” Luego, trató nuevamente de reformarse, por la ley número 6831, del 23 de diciembre de 1982 (artículo 54); no obstante, en cuanto a esa y otras normas, la ley fue devuelta sin la correspondiente sanción del Poder Ejecutivo.
Por la ley N° 6914, del 28 de noviembre de 1983 (artículo 10), fue nuevamente modificado, de la siguiente manera:
"Artículo 13.- Los empleados y funcionarios de la Asamblea Legislativa y de la Contraloría General de la República, y los que presten sus servicios en dependencias e instituciones del Estado, que tengan derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la presente ley, podrán pedir su jubilación, con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en la institución al momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad.
Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los diputados y ex diputados, por lo que no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el fondo respectivo, cuando comuniquen por escrito al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no desean pertenecer al régimen.
El Directorio comunicará a la oficina correspondiente esas exclusiones, para que en esos no se hagan las deducciones señaladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley.
En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales.
Los años desempeñados como diputados se computarán a los otros años servidos a la Administración Pública, para que así se puedan demostrar diez año de servicio como mínimo.
Los ex miembros de los supremos poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes, podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación, siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de diez años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de diez mil colones mensuales. Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios tendrán el mismo derecho.
La pensión de los ex diputados se incrementará cada año en un treinta por ciento sobre el monto de la pensión de que disfruten, sin sujeción a los años de servicio y, en ningún caso, el monto total de la pensión podrá ser mayor a la remuneración total de las dietas o salarios que devengue mensualmente un diputado, por concepto de sesiones de comisión y de plenario de la Asamblea Legislativa.
Las pensiones a que se refiere este régimen estarán sujetas a las siguientes deducciones:
ch) Las que indique el beneficiario de la pensión a la Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, y la proporción correspondiente en caso de pensión alimenticia.
Transitorio: El incremento de las pensiones de los ex diputados, a que se refiere el párrafo cuarto de este artículo 13, se reconocerá en su totalidad a partir del mes de enero de 1983.
Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda para variar las partidas del presupuesto correspondiente, con el fin de cubrir las obligaciones aquí establecidas.
El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, deberá hacer de oficio, en las planillas correspondientes, los reajustes necesarios a las jubilaciones y pensiones ya otorgadas, para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente ley.” Por la ley N° 6963, del 30 de julio de 1984 (artículo 46), fue modificado así:
“Artículo 46. Refórmase el párrafo 5° del artículo 13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda N° 148 del 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, reformado por el artículo 10 de la ley número 6914 de la siguiente forma: Los ex miembros de los supremos poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de 10 años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de 10 mil colones mensuales. Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios y las hijas no casadas o inválidas tendrán el mismo derecho.” Luego, sufrió una nueva reforma, mediante la ley N° 6995 (artículo 123), del 22 de julio de 1985, donde se dispuso:
Artículo 123.- Refórmase el párrafo quinto del artículo 13 de la ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 del 23 de agosto de 1948 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá:
"Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes y viceministros..." (El resto del párrafo igual). Se interpreta auténticamente que los ex ministros y los ex viceministros también son aquellos que ocuparon cargos de Secretario y Subsecretario de Estado. Asimismo aquellas personas a quienes se les dio el rango de ministro o viceministro." El citado artículo fue reformado también por la ley que en su apoyo cita la recurrente, N° 7007, del 5 de noviembre de 1985 (artículo 5), en el que se indicaba:
“Artículo 5º.- Modifícase el artículo 13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá:
"Artículo 13.-Los empleados y funcionarios de la Asamblea Legislativa y de la Contraloría General de la República, y los que presten sus servicios en dependencias e instituciones del Estado, que tengan derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la presente ley, podrán pedir su jubilación, con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en la institución al momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad. Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los diputados y ex diputados, por lo que no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el fondo respectivo, cuando comuniquen por escrito al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no se desean pertenecer al régimen.
El Directorio comunicará a la oficina correspondiente esas exclusiones, para que en esos casos no se hagan las deducciones señaladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley.
En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales.
Los años desempeñados como diputados se computarán a los otros años servidos a la Administración Pública, para que así se puedan demostrar diez años de servicio como mínimo.
Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes y viceministros podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación, siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de diez años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de diez mil colones mensuales.
Se interpreta auténticamente que los ex ministros y los ex viceministros también son aquellos que ocuparon cargos de Secretario y Subsecretario de Estado. Asimismo aquellas personas a quienes se les dio el rango de ministro o viceministro.
Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios y las hijas no casadas o inválidas tendrán el mismo derecho.
La pensión de los ex diputados jubilados por cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones se incrementará cada año en su treinta por ciento sobre el monto de la pensión de que disfruten, sin sujeción a los años de servicio y, en ningún caso, el monto total de la pensión podrá ser mayor a la remuneración total de las dietas o salarios que devengue mensualmente un diputado, por concepto de sesiones de comisión y de plenario de la Asamblea Legislativa.
Las pensiones a que se refiere este régimen estarán sujetas a las siguientes deducciones:
ch) Las que indique el beneficiario de la pensión de la Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, y la proporción correspondiente en caso de pensión alimenticia.
El Ministerio de Hacienda girará, a cada régimen, la suma necesaria para que pueda cubrir el incremento fijado por esta ley, para lo cual hará las previsiones presupuestarias correspondientes".
Finalmente ese numeral fue reformado mediante ley número 7018, del 13 de diciembre de 1985 (artículo 14), en el siguiente sentido:
“38. Modifícase el párrafo tercero del artículo13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, N° 148 el 23 de agosto de 1.943 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá:
En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al mejor sueldo devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales.” Algunas de esas reformas, específicamente las introducidas por las leyes números 6191 de 1977 (artículo 9); 6542 de 1980 (artículo 9), 6700 de 1981 (artículo 9), 6811 de 1982 (artículo 8, norma 183) y 7018 de 1985 (artículo 14, normas 37 y 38), fueron declaradas inconstitucionales, mediante el voto número 2136, de las 14:00 horas, del 23 de octubre de 1991, que declaró la nulidad de esas normas, sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos y estableciendo, además, lo siguiente: “De igual forma, se dimensionan los efectos de la presente declaratoria, en el sentido de que todas aquellas personas que hubieren ingresado y cotizado para el Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley # 7013 de 18 de noviembre de 1985, por haberlo permitido así cualquiera de las normas presupuestarias que se declaran nulas y que esa ley contemple, tendrán derecho a permanecer en él. En cuanto a los servidores que hubieren ingresado al régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda con posterioridad a la promulgación de la Ley N° 7013 de 18 de noviembre de 1985 y aquellos que lo hubieran hecho en el de pensiones de comunicaciones, por haberlo permitido así cualquiera de las normas que se anulan, tendrán derecho a que las cuotas que hubieran pagado sean trasladadas, a su solicitud, al régimen especial de jubilaciones o pensiones que él indique, siempre que hubiese cotizado para él o hubiera estado legalmente facultado para hacerlo y si no lo hubiera hecho en ninguno, o no hubiese estado legalmente facultado para ello, podrá seguir cotizando para la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, la que deberá reconocerle el tiempo servido y tendrá derecho a exigir el traslado de las cuotas correspondientes, de acuerdo con las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias que lo regulan”. Según ese texto, los servidores que tuvieran derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la Ley N° 148, tenían derecho a una pensión completa, cuando hubiesen laborado un mínimo de treinta años y, a la vez, contaran con cincuenta años de edad. El párrafo segundo de ese artículo, establecía la posibilidad de disfrutar de una pensión, proporcional al número de años servidos, en el caso en que hubiesen laborado menos de treinta pero más de diez y, en este supuesto, se requería también aquella edad mínima de cincuenta años; siendo necesario, en ambos casos, el obligado y natural requisito de haber cotizado para el fondo de pensiones de Hacienda. Ahora bien, el actor no quedó cobijado por dicha normativa; siendo evidente que la misma hacía referencia a los empleados y funcionarios que, en aquél momento -requisito de actualidad- estuvieran prestando servicios en la Asamblea Legislativa y la Contraloría General de la República, así como, laborando en otras dependencias e instituciones del Estado que, a esa misma fecha, hubiesen sido puntualmente incorporados, por distintas leyes, al Régimen de pensiones de Hacienda. No siendo el caso, a la sazón, del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, ni del Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, instituciones en las que el actor prestó servicios. En consecuencia, bajo dicha Ley N° 7007, el actor no ingresó al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente. Por esa razón, sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; pues fue la que abrió la posibilidad para que todos los servidores del Sector Público del Estado y sus Instituciones con excepción de los trabajadores cubiertos por los regímenes especiales de pensiones y jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional y del Poder Judicial de poder acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; y, para ello, introdujo una serie determinada de requisitos. En efecto, de conformidad con tal modificación normativa, los requerimientos necesarios, para lograr esa pensión, son los siguientes: a) Para una completa, haber cotizado durante treinta años, como mínimo, en cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones y contar, por lo menos, con cincuenta años de edad. b) Para una proporcional, en el caso de los hombres, se les exigía una edad mínima de cincuenta y siete años y, en el de las mujeres, de cincuenta y cinco; caso éste en el cual, el monto de la pensión, se les otorgaría proporcionalmente en relación con los años efectiva y realmente cotizados; requisitos que, a la luz del voto constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1993, que declaró inconstitucional dicha Ley N° 7013, debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo, lo que no se dio porque a esa data no alcanzó la edad ni el tiempo de servicio para una cotización completa ni para una proporcional pues solo tenía 49 años y 6 meses de edad y veintinueve años y seis meses de servicios públicos por lo que nunca llegó a adquirir derecho alguno al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directamente por la Ley N° 148 aludida y sus reformas, entre ellas la reforma introducida por la citada Ley 7007, derogada por la Ley N° 7302 del 8 de julio de 1992. Las sentencias que en su apoyo cita el recurrente no vienen al caso por haber estado fundadas en supuestos de hecho y normativos distintos. Así, la resolución 33-2003 de las 10:30 horas del 31 de enero del 2003, no estuvo sustentada en la ley 7007, como en el presente caso, sino en la norma 48, de la Ley número 6700 del 14 de diciembre de 1981, que reformó el párrafo 2 del artículo 14 de la Ley número 148 del 23 de agosto de 1943. Nótese, por lo demás, que en esta sentencia se señaló que:
En el caso concreto, el actor no cumplió, con anterioridad al 23 de agosto de 1991 (fecha de la primera publicación aludida en dicho dimensionamiento), con los requisitos establecidos en la Ley N° 148. De ahí que, no adquirió derecho a la pensión a la fecha de la primera publicación de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, a la que se hace referencia en la parte dispositiva del fallo. Sin embargo, de acuerdo con las probanzas indicadas, el demandante cotiza para el fondo de Pensiones de Hacienda desde el mes de febrero de 1982; es decir, desde antes de la promulgación de la Ley 7013 mencionada en aquel fallo. En consecuencia, mantuvo su derecho a permanecer en el Régimen en atención al dimensionamiento de los efectos de la anulación que se hiciera en esa resolución, en lo referente al derecho de pertenencia. Analizado el punto, se arriba a la conclusión que la anulación que luego se hace de la Ley 7013 por el voto de la Sala Constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1993, no se le pueden ligar efectos más allá de los que en ella se indican, interpretando que con ella se varió la protección de los derechos adquiridos ya dispuesta en aquel primer pronunciamiento número 2136, porque en esos precisos términos no se dispuso y, además, en virtud de que este otro fallo se refirió a un cuestionamiento distinto al que motivó aquella resolución.- III.- La Ley N° 7302, del 8 de julio de 1992, citada como fundamento de la demanda e invocada por el recurrente, creó el Régimen General de Pensiones, con cargo al Presupuesto Nacional. Mediante la promulgación de esta Ley, el legislador procuró unificar los distintos regímenes especiales de pensiones, con cargo a ese Presupuesto. En su artículo 1° establece que a ese Régimen “...se ajustará, en lo sucesivo, el otorgamiento de todas las jubilaciones y pensiones de los regímenes contributivos que tengan como base la prestación de servicio al Estado, originada con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de esta Ley y cuyo pago esté a cargo del Presupuesto Nacional”. Dentro de los regímenes que se contemplaban en ese artículo 1° estaba el de Hacienda, previsto en la Ley N° 148, del 23 de agosto de 1943. Así se dispuso en el artículo 2, del Decreto N° 21996, por el cual se dictó el Reglamento a esa Ley, al indicarse: “Son regímenes especiales contributivos sometidos al Régimen General de Pensiones de acuerdo con el artículo 1 de la Ley N° 7.302, los siguientes: ...f) Hacienda 148 y otros empleados. Ley N° 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943”. En consecuencia, de conformidad con ese artículo primero de la Ley, en lo sucesivo, las pensiones concedidas con base en ese régimen especial, debían ajustarse al nuevo régimen general. Mas, en su Transitorio III establece que quienes al entrar en vigencia la Ley les falten menos de dieciocho meses para poder pensionarse o jubilarse según los requisitos originales de la legislación que se deroga, pueden hacerlo al cumplirlos siempre que se aporte la cotización que ahí se indica. Dicha normativa entró en vigencia a partir de su publicación, el 15 de julio de 1992, por lo que el actor podía adquirir derecho a pensión al amparo de la Ley 6700, hasta dieciocho meses después de esa data, o sea hasta el 15 de enero de 1994, como en efecto lo hizo. Nótese que de conformidad con la certificación de nacimiento de folio 28, para el 3 de enero de ese año, el demandante ya había alcanzado los 50 años de edad y según las probanzas indicadas tenía más de diez años de servicio; requisitos exigidos por la normativa en que apoya su pretensión (artículos 1° y 13 de la Ley número 148)”.
Es inaplicable al caso porque el actor solo pudo ingresar al régimen de Hacienda por la ley 7013, debiéndose analizarse su pretensión a luz del dimensionamiento de la sentencia consititucional que la anuló, tal y como se hizo antes, donde se evidenció que el petente no logró adquirir el derecho ni a una pensión proporcional menos a una completa del régimen de Hacienda.
V.Corolario de las anteriores consideraciones, al no ser procedente ninguno de los reparos esgrimidos por la recurrente, se debe confirmar en todos sus extremos, el fallo impugnado.
POR TANTO:
Se confirma la sentencia recurrida.
[Nombre2] [Nombre3] Julia Varela Araya [Nombre4] Robert María Alexandra Bogantes Rodríguez [Nombre5] 2
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.