Siquirres mayor's veto against budget amendment for sanitary landfillVeto del alcalde de Siquirres contra modificación presupuestaria para relleno sanitario

**No. 14-2011** **THIRD SECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL.** Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A, Goicoechea, at fourteen hours forty minutes on the twenty-seventh of January two thousand eleven.

This Tribunal hears, in its capacity as improper municipal hierarch, the veto filed by Nombre100982 , of legal age, divorced, identification number CED77727, resident of Siquirres, in his capacity as MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SIQUIRRES, against agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted by the Council of that local corporation, in ordinary session 019, held on the sixteenth of August two thousand ten.

Judge Fernández Brenes writes; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.- PROVEN FACTS.** Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following list is deemed duly credited: 1.) That given "the impossibility of compliance" with resolutions numbers 2006-5980, of fifteen hours nineteen minutes on the third of May two thousand six and 2010-13066, of thirteen hours thirty-four minutes on the thirtieth of July two thousand ten, both of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), which ordered the closure of the garbage dump of the Municipality of Siquirres, as well as, or its implementation of one with compliance with legal requirements, "due to the fact that we do not have land for the implementation of a true sanitary landfill and that no concrete actions have been developed or demonstrated in the search for comprehensive solutions to comply with the Constitutional Chamber, and more than before it; due to the popular mandate that orders us to solve this serious health problem that could generate epidemics, diseases and even the death of some of our citizens"; council members Carlos Isidro Umaña Ellis, Krybell Ríos Myrie, Alexis Hernández Sáenz and Esmeralda Allen Mora make the following motion in the ordinary session held by the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres on the sixteenth of August two thousand ten: "1- For this Council to agree, to vary the destination of the resources donated as solidarity funds from the National Government to the Local Government, with resources provided by the Government of Popular China, and which the administration had allocated for the construction of a park on the soccer plaza in the center of Siquirres.- 2- That due to the incapacity of the Municipality's external advisors with the procedures before SETENA and the Ministry of Health, to date almost three years later said procedures are bogged down and the administrative contracting processes equally failed to such an extent that the awarded company Nombre5544 has filed administrative and judicial claims due to administrative inoperativeness.- 3. Therefore we move that those resources in their entirety be budgeted for the acquisition of a farm and/or the equipping of machinery or equipment to implement it as a sanitary landfill for the Canton of Siquirres.- 4- That the Mayor be ordered to immediately carry out the procedures and steps so that said modification, within a non-extendable period of one week, be presented to the Council.- 5- That the modification be sent to the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory (Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal) and to the Ministry of Finance so that the rigorous administrative procedures be carried out.- 6- That this agreement be communicated in a certified and immediate manner to the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), to the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), and to the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, to the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes) and to the Ministry of Health and be sent to the local media for the knowledge of the citizenry.- 7- That this motion be dispensed from the committee process; be declared definitively and firmly approved" (motion at folios 2 and 3 and agreement, at folios folio 22 to 24); 2.) That once the previous motion was discussed on its merits, the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approved it by agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, of ordinary session 019, held on the sixteenth of August two thousand ten; with dispensation from the committee process and definitively approved, with the sole negative vote of council member Yetty María Quesada Murillo (folios 22 to 24); 3.) That against the prior decision, on the following twentieth of August, Nombre100982 , in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality, filed a veto (folios 26 to 28); 4.) That unanimously, and based on the report of the Legal Affairs Committee, of the twenty-sixth of August two thousand ten, the Council rejects the filed veto and elevates it to the knowledge of the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (report of the Legal Affairs Committee, of the twenty-sixth of August two thousand ten, at folios 51 to 54; agreement at folio 55 to 57).

**II.- GROUNDS FOR THE VETO.** The Mayor of the Municipality of Siquirres vetoes agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted by the Council of that local corporation, in ordinary session 019, held on the sixteenth of August two thousand ten, on grounds of illegality and inopportuneness, for the following reasons: a.) That said decision is contrary to other decisions of the deliberative body, in which the construction of the multiple-use recreational and cultural area of the city of Siquirres was approved, the bidding for its construction was authorized, and it was ratified and authorized to proceed with said administrative steps (agreement 507, Article 4) subsection 2) of ordinary session number 93, of the twenty-fifth of February two thousand eight; agreement 628, article V of ordinary session number 115 of the fourteenth of July two thousand eight and agreement 1172, article II of extraordinary session number 122, of the twelfth of March two thousand ten, respectively); b.) That such projects cannot be modified, nor revoked, except solely through the review procedure, but the deadline for that has already expired; just as it is not appropriate through ordinary challenge. In this sense, he warns that the project in question was financed with solidarity funds with a deadline for its approval, with the intervention of the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory (Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal) and the Ministry of Finance, duly approved by executive decree, which was published; hence the Council cannot modify its destination unilaterally; c.) That the Council, when adopting the vetoed decision, did not substantiate the urgency, emergency, or necessity; and d.) That there are procedural defects, since, first the merits of the motion were approved and then it was dispensed from the committee process; being that Article 46 of the Municipal Code is also infringed, since the matter does not have an administrative file. (Folios 26 to 28.)

**III.- CONTENT OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.** Through agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted in ordinary session 019, held on the sixteenth of August two thousand ten, the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approves a budget modification, to change the destination of the funds allocated for the construction of the multiple-use recreational and cultural area of the canton, in order to acquire a farm or the equipping of machinery or equipment to implement it as a sanitary landfill for the canton, the foregoing, to give "full" compliance to constitutional judgment 2006-5980. Note that the decision for the budget modification is definitively adopted, while what is required of the Mayor is to carry out the pertinent administrative steps to make it effective; so it is ordered to communicate to the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory (Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal) and to the Ministry of Finance, as well as to other institutions, namely, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, the Ombudsman's Office (Defensoría de los Habitantes), and the Ministry of Health.

**IV.- THE MUNICIPAL VETO AND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, ACTING AS IMPROPER MUNICIPAL HIERARCH.** Pursuant to the provisions of numeral 173 of the Political Constitution, the jurisdiction conferred upon the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, according to the development of the law (articles 153, 156, and the final paragraph of 158 of the Municipal Code and 189 of the Administrative Litigation Procedural Code), is to act as an improper hierarch, which, pursuant to numeral 181 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), limits it to exercising an eminently legality control over municipal administrative decisions, prior to jurisdictional control; therefore, such grounds of "opportuneness" or "discretion" are not susceptible to being reviewed in this instance, but only in their parameters or control elements, such as the purpose of the Administration, respect for fundamental rights, the reasonableness of the actions ("interdiction of arbitrariness"), and the rules of science and technique, which pursuant to Article 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), integrate the legality block, as analyzing such valuations would imply, not only denaturing the figure of the improper hierarch, but also, an overflow of the constitutionally and legally assigned jurisdictions of the judges hearing this matter, becoming, because it is a matter proper and exclusive to the "active Administration". (In the same sense this Tribunal previously ruled, in resolutions number 425-2010, of twelve hours ten minutes on the eighth of February and 947-2010, of fifteen hours forty minutes on the eleventh of March, both of two thousand ten.) Therefore, the examination made on this occasion is constrained to the legality of the vetoed agreement; no element of "opportuneness" or "convenience," raised by the Mayor in his objection, may be considered. It is the Law -Municipal Code-, that regulates the municipal appeal regime, both regarding the appeals and challenges that citizens may file - the ordinary ones of revocation and appeal and the extraordinary one of review -, as well as the objections of council members and the Mayor, the latter, through the veto. And it is by legal provision, that the legality control exercised by this Tribunal is constrained to certain acts, while, in the specific case of the veto, it is excluded by express mandate of 160 of the cited legal body, regarding the following agreements:

"a) Those not definitively approved.

• b)Those in which the municipal mayor has a personal, direct or indirect interest.
• c)Derogated by Article 202 subsection 5) of the Administrative Litigation Procedural Code, number 8508, of the twenty-second of June two thousand six.
• d)Those that must be approved by the Comptroller General of the Republic or the Legislative Assembly or those authorized by it.
• e)Those appealable before the Comptroller General of the Republic.
• f)Those that are mere formalities or those of ratification, confirmation or execution of previous ones." To this list, we can add the provisions of Article 19 of the Code on the matter, according to which the decision taken by the Municipal Council, regarding the calling of a plebiscite, where the removal or not of the Mayor will be decided, which, for obvious reasons, is beyond the possibility of veto by this official.

**V.-** In numeral 12 of the Regulation on Variations to the Budget of public entities and bodies, municipalities and municipal entities, Trusts and private subjects R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, promulgated by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) in exercise of the superior oversight competences of the public treasury, constitutionally assigned pursuant to the provisions in numerals 183 and 184, expressly excludes budget modifications from a priori control by literally stating:

"Budget modifications do not require being submitted to the prior approval process by the Comptroller General of the Republic, except for the exceptions that it may establish through a reasoned resolution of the Management of the Division of Operative and Evaluative Oversight." With which, it is clear that this is not the situation contemplated in subsection d) of the transcribed numeral 160 of the Municipal Code. And on the other hand, it is true that in the legal system that governs the matter, namely, neither in the Municipal Code, nor in the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic nor in the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets, does there exist any administrative procedure provision pursuant to which, the Mayor may file an appeal before the oversight body of the public treasury, to submit his challenge of the budget modifications approved by the Council. Thus, this is not the situation contemplated in subsection e) of the cited numeral 160 either. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that the filed veto, despite being a budgetary matter, is susceptible to control before this legality instance.

**VI.- LEGAL AND REGULATORY PROCEDURE FOR BUDGET MODIFICATIONS:** The subject of budget modifications is regulated at the local level, in Article 100 of the Municipal Code, a norm that attributes that power to the Municipal Council, on the condition that it be done by a qualified majority of the total of its members and in a specific manner, from one program to another.- So expressly states that provision, which literally reads:

"Article 100.- Within the same budgeted program, modifications to the current budgets shall proceed when agreed by the Council. The Council’s approval of the modification from one program to another shall require the vote of two-thirds of its members.

The ordinary budget may not be modified to increase salaries or create new positions, except when dealing with adjustments by application of the salary decree or by collective bargaining conventions or agreements, in the first case if new employees are required because of the expansion of services or the presentation of a new one, in the second case.

The adjustments produced by the arrangement of collective bargaining conventions or agreements or any others that imply modifying the ordinary budgets shall only proceed when it is proven, during the processing of conflicts or in the pertinent procedures, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Central Bank of Costa Rica and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses." Likewise, for the concrete exercise of this power, compliance is mandatory with the standards, procedures and conditions established by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), an organ that, according to Article 183 of the Political Constitution, exercises the oversight of the Public Treasury and serves as the governing body of the Superior Control and Oversight System of the Public Treasury, in the terms of Article 12 of its Organic Law (number 7248 and its amendments). All the municipalities in the country are subject to its authority in this matter, including, of course, that of the canton of Siquirres. Thus, in exercise of its constitutional powers, the Comptroller General's Office issued, on the twenty-eighth of August two thousand six, Regulation number R-CO-67-2006, denominated Regulation on Variations to the Budget of public entities and bodies, municipalities and municipal entities, Trusts and private subjects R-1-2006-CO- DFOE, effective since its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 170, of the fifth of September two thousand six, which contains the basic rules on whose compliance the validity of any agreed modification depends.

According to its text, budget modifications, understood as any variation made in budgeted expenditures and whose purpose is to decrease or increase the different concepts thereof or incorporate others not previously considered, without altering the total amount of the approved budget, "must be duly justified and incorporate as part of the supporting information, the relationship of the budget variations with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operational plan" (article 8). Such changes do not require, in general, approval from the oversight body, but the hierarch - in this case the Council -, must make them "through a reasoned act and considering the nature, amount and origin of the resources and the effect of the variations on the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operational plan", and may even delegate that competence to other local instances, in accordance with what the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes to that effect (article 13 of the Regulation), but in any case, it is up to the deliberative body to establish the formal mechanisms and procedures, so that, prior to the internal process of formulation and approval of modifications, the following aspects are provided for:

"a. The quantity of budget modifications that, in a reasonable manner, adjusts to institutional needs.

b. The level of detail required as well as the procedure for its approval, as corresponds to the hierarch or the internal instance designated for this purpose.

c. The detail of the responsibilities of the units and officials involved in the internal budget approval process of budget modifications that do not require submission to the hierarch, as well as the coordination procedure to follow.

d. Define the periodicity and means by which the units and officials indicated in the previous subsection must inform the hierarch about the approvals or rejections of budget modifications under their charge.

e. The mechanisms that ensure that the budget modification conforms to the procedures established by the administration and the rest of the applicable legality block.

f. The mechanisms that allow verifying that those programs or activities financed with resources for a specific purpose or that are committed by laws, bids or contracts, are only varied in accordance with what is established by the legal regulations governing them, which must be recorded in the respective approval agreement that must be included in the corresponding file.

g. The measures so that each budget modification has its respective file and its own numbering, as well as the designation of the unit and official responsible for its custody.

h. Establish mechanisms so that the information and results generated, feed back the process of formulation and internal budget approval of budget modifications on a permanent, consistent and timely basis.

i. Develop controls that guarantee that the procedure used in the formulation, approval and execution of budget modifications generates reliable and timely information, in pursuit of the protection and conservation of the patrimony against loss, waste, improper use, irregularity or illegal act.

j. Evaluate and review periodically, in a timely and express manner, the mechanisms and procedures used in the formulation and internal budget approval of budget modifications. Evidence of the foregoing shall be left in the respective file.

k. Maintain information systems that allow access, identification and registration of reliable, relevant, pertinent and timely information, based on which the analysis of variations to the budget is made possible, transparency in management is promoted and accountability is facilitated.

l. Establish technological and communication means that facilitate the exchange of data and documents with the budget information systems that have been established by the competent external instances" (article 14).

Additionally, to the extent relevant, the cited Regulation of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) provides that prior to any budget modification, at least the following aspects must be considered: a) comply with what is established in the current legality block; b) take into account its relationship with the established objectives and goals, and proof thereof must be left in the respective file; c) verify the existence of the corresponding budgetary content of the sub-items to be reduced and d) assign its own and consecutive numbering to each budget modification, also they must be available to the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), by means of the respective file (article 15). Of all the foregoing, it must be recorded in a file or archive opened for this purpose, "separate where this type of agreements are recorded accessible both to internal control instances and to the Comptroller General of the Republic for its subsequent oversight functions", demands the final paragraph of article 13 of the cited regulation.

**VII. OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.** After contrasting the actions taken by the Municipality of Siquirres, the conclusion is reached that there is an illegality that must be remedied; but not for the reasons stated by the Mayor in his veto; but for the infringement of the provisions and principles that condition the exercise of the power of budget modification of public entities and, in particular, of local corporations. In effect, as indicated, the power granted in this matter to the Municipal Council is not left to the entire freedom of that organ, nor can it be exercised arbitrarily. As has been explained, any modification proposal must be subjected to a careful assessment, which diligently determines the correct motive and purpose of that act, so that in each case it must be evaluated, necessarily, what is the order of priorities that the local government intends to satisfy, without which, any decision would be spurious. In that sense, it is considered that the minimum requirements for the valid issuance of the questioned modification were not met; for the following reasons:

a.- An unmotivated agreement was adopted. In the vetoed agreement, the Council limited itself to laconically approving a motion by several of its council members, in which it is simply indicated that the destination of some funds donated to the Municipality of Siquirres, budgeted for a different project, in this case, the construction of a multiple-use recreational and cultural project in the city of Siquirres, would be modified. The foregoing was done without any technical support or prior study, in the face of evidence of two judgments of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) - the first, 2006-5980, which ordered the closure of the canton's garbage dump, or its due implementation, and the second 2010-1306, which ordered the certification of documents for the disobedience of what was ordered in the first resolution -. In the file there is no record of the previous actions regarding the supposed awarding of a bid to the company Navarro, in that not only is the object of that bid not discernible, just as the supposed administrative delays with SETENA and the Ministry of Health are not recorded. Neither is the incidence on the agreement with the canton's public health discernible; it being evident that in any case the situation originates from the delay in compliance with the cited constitutional judgments. Finally, none of the requirements foreseen in numeral 14 of the Regulation of the Comptroller (supra transcribed) are met either.

b.- No administrative file was opened for this purpose. The foregoing makes evident the non-compliance with the requirement foreseen in the cited final paragraph of article 13 of the Regulation on variations to the Budget of public entities and bodies, municipalities and municipal entities, Trusts and private subjects R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, since, as the Mayor points out, there is no municipal file or archive regarding this "budget modification"; but only a motion by several council members, as indicated. This requirement does not constitute a mere formality, but rather, precisely, it is the support for the decision, in that it must contain not only the actions of the local Authority, but also the justifications motivating the decision; in that its existence is provided, fully, for subsequent internal control (internal audit of the local corporation) and for the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), superior comptroller of the public treasury.

c.- This is not a modification within the same program, in the terms foreseen in numeral 100 of the Municipal Code; but rather the change of destination of an allocation for a project, emptying of budgetary content that related to the construction of the multiple-use recreational and cultural area of the canton of Siquirres.

**VIII.- CONCLUSIONS.** It is, in short, a modification taken "in the abstract", which completely lacks substantiation and which flagrantly breaches the guidelines of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), which always require making the due justification and incorporating as part of the supporting information, the relationship of the budget variations with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operational plan, all of which is missed in this matter. Under such circumstances, there is no alternative but to uphold this veto, as the objections raised are receivable and must be so declared.

**IX.- FINAL WARNING.** Notwithstanding what has been said, this Collegiate Body deems it opportune to point out that, should one be in a real and imminent situation of urgency, as the solution to the problem of the canton's garbage deposit would be imperative, to avoid serious harm to persons or irreparable harm to property (evidence of which is not in the file), the Municipal Administration must immediately take the necessary measures to that effect, for which it may even create a special substitute procedure, in the terms of articles 219 and 226 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), all with the purpose of confronting, if so required, that exceptional juncture, given that in this type of situations, as the national doctrine and jurisprudence unanimously recognize, the principle of legality is displaced by that of necessity. On the other hand, it is recalled that the lack of timely municipal action, in this type of cases, could even generate liability for the local entity, if due to inertia in attending to the matter, patrimonial or extra-patrimonial detriments were caused to any person, all in the terms of numerals 190 and following of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública).- **WHEREAS:** The filed veto is upheld.- Nombre625

I. Rocío Rojas Morales Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes

Veto Nombre100982 against the Municipality of Siquirres Drafted by Judge **Fernández Brenes**; and, **CONSIDERING:** **I.- REGARDING THE PROVEN FACTS.**- Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following list is deemed duly accredited: **1.)** That in light of "the impossibility of compliance" with rulings number 2006-5980, at three nineteen p.m. on May third, two thousand six, and 2010-13066, at one thirty-four p.m. on July thirtieth, two thousand ten, both from the Constitutional Chamber, which ordered the closure of the Municipality of Siquirres' garbage dump, as well as, or its implementation of one in compliance with legal requirements, "because we do not have land for the implementation of a true sanitary landfill and because no concrete actions have been developed or demonstrated in the search for comprehensive solutions to comply with the Constitutional Chamber, and more than before it; due to the popular mandate that orders us to solve this serious health problem that could generate epidemics, diseases, and even the death of some of our citizens"; council members Carlos Isidro Umaña Ellis, Krybell Ríos Myrie, Alexis Hernández Sáenz, and Esmeralda Allen Mora made the following motion in the ordinary session held by the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres on August sixteenth, two thousand ten: "1- For this Council to agree to change the destination of the resources donated as solidarity funds from the National Government to the Local Government, with resources provided by the Government of Popular China, and which the administration had allocated for the construction of a park on the soccer field in downtown Siquirres.- 2- That due to the incapacity of the Municipality's external advisors with the proceedings before Setena and the Ministry of Health, to date almost three years later said proceedings are bogged down and the administrative contracting processes equally failed to the point that the awarded company Nombre5544 has filed administrative and judicial lawsuits for administrative inoperativeness.- 3. Therefore, we motion for those resources in their entirety to be budgeted for the acquisition of a property and or the equipment of machinery or equipment to implement it as a sanitary landfill for the Canton of Siquirres.- 4- That the Mayor be ordered to immediately carry out the procedures and efforts so that said modification, within a non-extendable period of one week, is presented to the Council.- 5- That the modification be sent to the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory and the Ministry of Finance so that the rigorous administrative procedures are carried out.- 6- That this agreement be communicated in a certified and immediate manner to the Constitutional Chamber, to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, to the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, to the Ombudsman's Office, and to the Ministry of Health and be sent to the local media for the citizenry's knowledge.- 7- That this motion be dispensed from the commission process; be declared firmly and definitively approved" (motion at folios 2 and 3 and agreement, at folios 22 to 24); **2.)** That once the previous motion was discussed on its merits, the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approved it by agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, of ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten; with dispensation from the commission process and definitively approved, with the negative vote solely from council member Yetty María Quesada Murillo (folios 22 to 24); **3.)** That against the previous decision, on the following August twentieth, Nombre100982, in their capacity as Mayor of the Municipality, filed a veto (folios 26 to 28); **4.)** That unanimously, and based on the report of the Legal Affairs Commission, of August twenty-sixth, two thousand ten, the Council rejects the filed veto and elevates it to the knowledge of the Administrative Litigation Court (report of the Legal Affairs Commission, of August twenty-sixth, two thousand ten, at folios 51 to 54; agreement at folio 55 to 57).

**II.- REGARDING THE GROUNDS FOR THE VETO.-** The Mayor of the Municipality of Siquirres vetoes agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted by the Council of that local corporation, in ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten, on grounds of illegality and inopportuneness, for the following reasons: **a.)** That said decision is contrary to other decisions of the deliberative body, in which the construction of the multipurpose recreational and cultural area of the city of Siquirres was approved, the tender for its construction was authorized, and it was ratified and authorized to proceed with said administrative proceedings (agreement 507, Article 4) subsection 2) of ordinary session number 93, of February twenty-fifth, two thousand eight; agreement 628, article V of ordinary session number 115 of July fourteenth, two thousand eight and agreement 1172, article II of extraordinary session number 122, of March twelfth, two thousand ten, respectively); **b.)** That such projects cannot be modified, nor revoked, except through the review procedure, but the deadline for that has already expired; nor is it possible through ordinary challenge. In this sense, it warns that the project in question was financed with solidarity funds with a deadline for its approval, with the intervention of the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory and the Ministry of Finance, duly approved by executive decree, which was published; whereupon the Council cannot unilaterally modify its destination; **c.)** That the Council, when adopting the vetoed decision, did not justify the urgency, emergency, or need; and **d.)** That there are procedural defects, insofar as the motion's merits were first approved, and then the commission process was dispensed; being that it also infringes article 46 of the Municipal Code, since the matter does not have an administrative file. (Folios 26 to 28.)

**III.- REGARDING THE CONTENT OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.-** Through agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted in ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten, **the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approves a budget modification, to change the destination of the funds allocated for the construction of the multipurpose recreational and cultural area of the canton, in order to acquire a property or the equipment of machinery or equipment to implement it as a sanitary landfill for the canton**, the foregoing, to give "full" compliance to constitutional ruling 2006-5980. Note that the budget modification decision is definitively adopted, while what is required of the Mayor is to make the pertinent administrative efforts to make it effective; such that it is ordered to communicate to the Institute for Municipal Development and Advisory and the Ministry of Finance, as well as to other institutions, namely, to the Constitutional Chamber, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, the Ombudsman's Office, and the Ministry of Health.

**IV.- REGARDING THE MUNICIPAL VETO AND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, ACTING AS IMPROPER MUNICIPAL HIERARCH.-** Pursuant to the provisions of numeral 173 of the Political Constitution, the jurisdiction conferred upon the Administrative Litigation Court, according to the development of the law (articles 153, 156, and the final paragraph of 158 of the Municipal Code, and 189 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code), is to act as **improper hierarch**, which, in accordance with numeral 181 of the General Public Administration Act, **circumscribes it to exercising an eminently legality control over municipal administrative decisions, prior to jurisdictional control**; therefore, such grounds of "opportunity" or "discretion" are not susceptible to being reviewed in this instance, but only in their parameters or elements of control, such as the purpose of the Administration, the respect for fundamental rights, the reasonableness of actions ("prohibition of arbitrariness"), and the rules of science and technique, which pursuant to article 16 of the General Public Administration Act, make up the legality block, insofar as entering to analyze such assessments would imply, not only denaturalizing the figure of the improper hierarch, but also, an overflow of the constitutional and legally assigned jurisdictions to the judges who hear this matter, becoming, because it is a matter proper and exclusive to the "**active Administration**". (This Court previously ruled in the same sense, in resolutions number 425-2010, at twelve hours ten minutes on February eighth, and 947-2010, at fifteen hours forty minutes on March eleventh, both of two thousand ten.) Therefore, the examination conducted on this occasion is constrained to the legality of the vetoed agreement; no element of "opportunity" or "convenience" argued by the Mayor in his objection can be considered. It is the Law -Municipal Code- that regulates the municipal appeals regime, both regarding the appeals and challenges that can be filed by the administered parties -the ordinary ones of revocation and appeal and the extraordinary one of review-, as well as the objections of the council members and the Mayor, the latter, through the veto. And it is by legal provision that the legality control exercised by this Court is constrained to certain acts, insofar as, in the specific case of the veto, it is excluded by express mandate of article 160 of the cited legal body, regarding the following agreements:

"*a) Those not definitively approved.* *b) Those in which the municipal mayor has a personal, direct, or indirect interest.* *c) Repealed by article 202 subsection 5) of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, number 8508, of June twenty-second, two thousand six.* *d) Those that must be approved by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic or the Legislative Assembly or those authorized by the latter.* *e) Those appealable before the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic.* *f) Those of mere procedure or those of ratification, confirmation, or execution of previous ones.*" To this list, we can add what is provided in article 19 of the Code of the matter, according to which the decision taken by the Municipal Council, regarding the call for a plebiscite, where the dismissal or non-dismissal of the Mayor will be decided, for obvious reasons, is beyond the possibility of veto by this official.

**V.-** In numeral 12 of the **Regulation on Budget Variations for Public Entities and Bodies, Municipalities and Municipal Entities, Trusts, and Private Subjects R-1-2006-CO-DFOE**, promulgated by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic in exercise of the constitutionally assigned powers as superior comptroller of the public treasury, pursuant to the provisions of numerals 183 and 184, it expressly excludes from a priori control of budget modifications when it literally states:

"*Budget modifications do not need to be submitted to the prior approval process by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, except for the exceptions that the latter may establish through a reasoned resolution from the Management of the Operative and Evaluative Oversight Division.*" With which it is clear that this is not a case under subsection d) of the transcribed numeral 160 of the Municipal Code. And on the other hand, it is true that in the legal system governing the matter, namely, neither the Municipal Code, nor the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, nor the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets, is there any provision for an administrative procedure pursuant to which the Mayor can file an appeal before the comptroller body of the public treasury, to submit their challenge to the budget modifications approved by the Council. Thus, this is also not a case under the provision of subsection e) of the cited numeral 160. Therefore, this Court considers that the filed veto, despite being a budgetary matter, is susceptible to control before this legality instance.

**VI.- LEGAL AND REGULATORY PROCEDURE FOR BUDGET MODIFICATIONS:** The matter of budget modifications is regulated at the local level, in article 100 of the Municipal Code, a norm that attributes this power to the Municipal Council, on the condition that it is done by a qualified majority of the total of its members and concretely, from one program to another.- The provision expressly states as follows, literally indicating:

"***Article 100.- Within the same budgeted program**, modifications to the current budgets will proceed, when agreed upon by the Council. It will be required that the Council approve the modification from one program to another, with the vote of two-thirds of its members.* *The ordinary budget may not be modified to increase salaries or create new positions, except when dealing with readjustments due to the application of the salary decree or due to collective bargaining conventions or agreements, in the first case if new employees are required because of the expansion of services or the provision of a new one, in the second case.* *Readjustments produced by the conclusion of collective bargaining conventions or agreements or any others that imply modifying the ordinary budgets, will only proceed when it is proven, in the course of processing conflicts or in the pertinent proceedings, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Central Bank of Costa Rica and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses.*" Likewise, for the concrete exercise of this power, the norms, procedures, and conditions established by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic must be strictly observed, an organ that according to article 183 of the Political Constitution, exercises the vigilance of the Public Treasury and serves as the rector of the Superior System of Control and Oversight of the Public Treasury, under the terms of article 12 of its Organic Law (number 7248 and its reforms). All the country's municipalities are subject to its authority in this matter, including, of course, that of the canton of Siquirres. Thus, in exercise of its constitutional powers, the Office of the Comptroller General issued, on August twenty-eighth, two thousand six, Regulation number R-CO-67-2006, called **Regulation on Budget Variations for Public Entities and Bodies, Municipalities and Municipal Entities, Trusts, and Private Subjects R-1-2006-CO-DFOE**, in force since its publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 170, of September fifth, two thousand six, which contains the basic rules upon whose compliance the validity of any agreed modification depends.

According to its text, budget modifications, understood as any variation made to the budgeted expenditures aimed at decreasing or increasing the different concepts thereof or incorporating others that had not been considered, without altering the total amount of the approved budget, "*must be duly justified and incorporate, as part of the supporting information, the relationship of the budget variations with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operating plan*" (article 8). Such changes do not, in general, require approval from the comptroller body, but the hierarch -in this case the Council-, must make them "*through a reasoned act and considering the nature, amount, and origin of the resources and the effect of the variations on the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operating plan*", and may even delegate that competence to other local instances, in accordance with what the General Public Administration Act establishes to that effect (article 13 of the Regulation), but in any case, it is up to the deliberative body to establish the formal mechanisms and procedures, so that, ***prior to the internal process of formulation and approval of the modifications***, the following aspects are foreseen:

"***a.** *The number of budget modifications that, in a reasonable manner, conform to the institutional needs.* ***b.** *The level of detail required as well as the procedure for its approval, as applicable to the hierarch or the internal instance designated for that purpose.* ***c.** *The detail of the responsibilities of the units and officials involved in the internal budget approval process for budget modifications that do not need to be submitted to the hierarch, as well as the coordination procedure to be followed.* ***d.** *Define the frequency and means by which the units and officials indicated in the previous subsection must inform the hierarch about the approvals or rejections of budget modifications under their charge.* ***e.** *The mechanisms that ensure that the budget modification conforms to the procedures established by the administration and the rest of the applicable legality block.* ***f.** *The mechanisms that allow verifying that those programs or activities financed with resources for a specific purpose or that are committed by laws, tenders, or contracts, are only varied in accordance with the provisions of the legal regulations governing them, which must be recorded in the respective approval agreement that must be included in the corresponding file.* ***g.** *The measures so that each budget modification has its respective file and its own numbering, as well as the designation of the unit and official responsible for its custody.* ***h.** *Establish mechanisms so that the information and results generated provide feedback to the internal budget formulation and approval process for budget modifications on a permanent, consistent, and timely basis.* ***i.** *Develop controls that guarantee that the procedure used in the formulation, approval, and execution of budget modifications generates reliable and timely information, in pursuit of the protection and conservation of the patrimony against loss, waste, improper use, irregularity, or illegal act.* ***j.** *Evaluate and review periodically, in a timely and express manner, the mechanisms and procedures used in the internal budget formulation and approval of budget modifications. Evidence of the foregoing shall be kept in the respective file.* ***k.** *Maintain information systems that allow them to access, identify, and record reliable, relevant, pertinent, and timely information, from which the analysis of budget variations is made possible, transparency in management is promoted, and accountability is facilitated.* ***l.** * Establish the technological and communication means that facilitate the exchange of data and documents with the budget information systems that have been established by the competent external bodies" (article 14).

Additionally, as relevant, the aforementioned Regulation of the Comptroller General of the Republic provides that prior to any budget modification (modificación presupuestaria), at least the following aspects must be considered: a) comply with the provisions of the current legal framework; b) take into account its relationship with the established objectives and goals, which must be recorded in the respective file (expediente); c) verify the existence of the corresponding budget content of the sub-items to be reduced; and d) assign a unique and consecutive number for each budget modification, and they must also be available to the Comptroller General of the Republic, through the respective file (expediente) (article 15). Of all the foregoing, a record must be kept in a file (expediente) or archive opened for that purpose, "separate file where this type of agreements are recorded, accessible to both internal control bodies and the Comptroller General of the Republic for its subsequent oversight functions," requires the final paragraph of article 13 of the cited regulated code.

**VII. OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.-** After contrasting the actions taken by the Municipality of Siquirres, **the conclusion is reached that there is an illegality that must be remedied;** but not for the reasons indicated by the Mayor in his veto; rather, due to the **infringement of the provisions and principles that condition the exercise of the budget modification power of public entities, and in particular, of local corporations.** Indeed, as indicated, the power granted in this matter to the Municipal Council **is not left to the complete freedom of that body, nor can it be exercised arbitrarily.** As has been explained, any modification proposal must be subject to careful assessment, which zealously determines the correct motive and purpose of that act, so that in each case, it must necessarily be evaluated what is the order of priorities that the local government intends to satisfy, without which, any decision would be spurious. In that sense, it is considered that the minimum requirements for the valid issuance of the questioned modification were not met; for the following reasons:

**a.- An unmotivated agreement was adopted.** In the vetoed agreement, the Council **merely approved, in a laconic manner, a motion from several of its council members (regidores),** which simply indicated that the destination of some funds donated to the Municipality of Siquirres, budgeted for a different project, in this case, the construction of a multi-use recreational and cultural project in the city of Siquirres, would be modified. The foregoing was done **without any technical support or prior study,** in the face of evidence of two rulings of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) -the first, 2006-5980, which ordered the closure of the canton's garbage dump, or its due implementation, and the second 2010-1306, which ordered certifying documents for the disobedience of what was ordered in the first resolution-. The record does not show a record of the previous actions regarding the alleged awarding of a tender (licitación) with the company Navarro, insofar as not only is the object of that tender not discernible, but neither are the alleged administrative delays with Setena and the Ministry of Health recorded. The impact on the canton's public health in the agreement is also not discernible; it being evident that in any case the situation originates in the delay in compliance with the cited constitutional rulings. Finally, none of the requirements provided for in numeral 14 of the Comptroller's Regulation (transcribed above) are met either.

**b.- No administrative file (expediente administrativo) was opened for this purpose.** The foregoing makes evident the non-compliance with the requirement provided for in the cited final paragraph of article 13 of the **Regulation on variations to the Budget of public entities and bodies, municipalities and municipal entities, Trusts and private subjects R-1-2006-CO-DFOE,** since as the Mayor points out, there is no municipal file (expediente) or archive regarding this "budget modification (modificación presupuestaria)"; but only a motion from several council members (regidores), as indicated. This requirement does not constitute a mere formality, but rather, it is precisely the support for the decision, as it must contain not only the actions of the local Authority, but also the justifications that motivate the decision; since its existence is provided for, precisely, for subsequent internal control (internal audit of the local corporation) and by the Comptroller General of the Republic, superior comptroller of the public treasury.

**c.- It is not a modification within the same program, under the terms provided in numeral 100 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal);** but rather the change of destination of a provision for a project, emptying of budget content the one related to the construction of the multi-use recreational and cultural area of the canton of Siquirres.

**VIII.- CONCLUSIONS.-** It is, in short, a modification taken "in the abstract," which completely lacks substantiation and which flagrantly violates the guidelines of the Comptroller General of the Republic, which always require that due justification be made and that the relationship of budget variations with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operational plan be incorporated as part of the information supporting them, all of which is lacking in this matter. Under such circumstances, there is no alternative but to uphold this veto, as the objections raised are well-founded and must be so declared.

**IX.- FINAL WARNING.-** Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Collegiate Body deems it appropriate to note that, should there be a real and imminent emergency situation, because solving the problem of the canton's garbage deposit is imperative to avoid serious harm to persons or irreparable damage to property (of which there is no evidence in the record), the Municipal Administration must **immediately** take the necessary measures to that effect, for which it may even create a special substitute procedure (procedimiento sustitutivo), under the terms of articles 219 and 226 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), all in order to face, if applicable, that exceptional situation, given that in this type of situation, as unanimously recognized by national doctrine and jurisprudence, the principle of legality is displaced by that of necessity. On the other hand, it is recalled that the lack of timely municipal action, in this type of case, could even generate liability for the local entity, if due to inertia in attending to the matter, any person were to suffer patrimonial or non-patrimonial damages, all under the terms of numerals 190 and following of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública).- **POR TANTO:** The veto filed is upheld.- **Name625** **I. Rocío Rojas Morales Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** Veto Name100982 against the Municipality of Siquirres Therefore, we move that those resources in their entirety be budgeted for the acquisition of a property and/or the equipment of machinery or gear to implement it as a sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) for the Canton of Siquirres.- 4- That the Mayor be ordered to immediately carry out the procedures and steps so that said modification is presented to the Council within a non-extendable period of one week.- 5- That the modification be sent to the Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal and the Ministry of Finance so that the rigorous administrative procedures are carried out.- 6- That this agreement be communicated in certified and immediate form to the Sala Constitucional, to the Contraloría General de la República, and to the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, to the Defensoría de los Habitantes and to the Ministry of Health, and be sent to local media for the knowledge of the citizenry.- 7- That this motion be dispensed from committee procedure; be declared firmly and definitively approved" (motion at folios 2 and 3 and agreement, at folios 22 to 24); 2.) That once the previous motion was discussed on its merits, the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approved it by agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, of ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten; with dispensation of committee procedure and definitively approved, with the sole negative vote of councilmember Yetty María Quesada Murillo (folios 22 to 24); 3.) That against the previous decision, on the following August twentieth, Nombre100982, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality, interposed a veto (folios 26 to 28); 4.) That unanimously, and based on the report of the Legal Affairs Committee, of August twenty-sixth, two thousand ten, the Council rejects the interposed veto and elevates it to the knowledge of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (report of the Legal Affairs Committee, of August twenty-sixth, two thousand ten, at folios 51 to 54; agreement at folios 55 to 57).

II.- OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE VETO.- The Mayor of the Municipality of Siquirres vetoes agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted by the Council of that local corporation, in ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten, on grounds of illegality and inopportuneness, for the following reasons: a.) That said decision is contrary to other decisions of the deliberative body, in which the construction of the multi-use recreational and cultural area of the city of Siquirres was approved, the bidding process for its construction was authorized, and it ratified and authorized proceeding with said administrative steps (agreement 507, Article 4) subsection 2) of ordinary session number 93, of February twenty-fifth, two thousand eight; agreement 628, article V of ordinary session number 115 of July fourteenth, two thousand eight and agreement 1172, article II of extraordinary session number 122, of March twelfth, two thousand ten, respectively); b.) That such projects cannot be modified, nor revoked, except solely through the review procedure, but the deadline for that has already expired; nor is it possible through ordinary challenge. In this sense, he warns that the project in question was financed with solidarity funds with a deadline for its approval, with the intervention of the Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal and the Ministry of Finance, duly approved by executive decree, which was published; wherefore the Council cannot modify its destination unilaterally; c.) That the Council, when adopting the vetoed decision, did not substantiate the urgency, emergency, or need; and d.) That there are procedural defects, in that, first the merits of the motion were approved and then the committee procedure was dispensed with; being that Article 46 of the Código Municipal is also infringed, in that the matter lacks an administrative case file. (Folios 26 to 28.)

III.- OF THE CONTENT OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.- Through agreement 119, Article VII, point 7, adopted in ordinary session 019, held on August sixteenth, two thousand ten, the Council of the Municipality of Siquirres approves a budget modification, to change the destination of the funds planned for the construction of the multi-use recreational and cultural area of the canton, in order to acquire a property or the equipment of machinery or gear to implement it as a sanitary landfill (relleno sanitario) of the canton, the foregoing, to give "full" compliance to constitutional ruling 2006-5980. Note that the decision on the budget modification is definitively adopted, while what is required of the Mayor is to carry out the pertinent administrative steps so that it becomes effective; such that it is ordered to communicate to the Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal and the Ministry of Finance, as well as to other institutions, namely, the Sala Constitucional, the Contraloría General de la República, the Environmental Prosecutor's Office, the Defensoría de los Habitantes, and the Ministry of Health.

IV.- OF THE MUNICIPAL VETO AND THE COMPETENCE OF THIS COURT, ACTING AS AN IMPROPER MUNICIPAL HEAD (JERARCA IMPROPIO MUNICIPAL).- Pursuant to the provisions of numeral 173 of the Constitución Política, the competence conferred upon the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, according to statutory development (articles 153, 156 and the final paragraph of 158 of the Código Municipal and 189 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), is to act as an improper head (jerarca impropio), which, in accordance with numeral 181 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, circumscribes it to exercising an eminently legality review of municipal administrative decisions, prior to jurisdictional review; therefore, such grounds of "inopportuneness" or "discretion" are not susceptible to being reviewed in this instance, but only in their parameters or elements of review, such as the purpose of the Administration, respect for fundamental rights, the reasonableness of the actions ("prohibition of arbitrariness"), and the rules of science and technique, which, pursuant to Article 16 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, make up the legality block, in that examining such evaluations would imply, not only distorting the figure of the improper head, but also, an overflow of the competences constitutionally and legally assigned to the judges who hear this matter, becoming, because it is a matter proper and exclusive to the "active Administration". (In the same sense, this Court previously pronounced itself, in resolutions number 425-2010, of twelve hours ten minutes of February eighth and 947-2010, of fifteen hours forty minutes of March eleventh, both of two thousand ten.) Therefore, the examination carried out on this occasion is constrained to the legality of the vetoed agreement; no element of "inopportuneness" or "convenience" argued by the Mayor in his objection may be considered. It is the Law -Código Municipal-, which regulates the municipal appeals regime, both regarding the remedies and challenges that may be filed by the administered parties -the ordinary ones of revocation and appeal and the extraordinary one of review-, as well as the objections of councilmembers and the Mayor, the latter, through the veto. And it is by legal provision, that the legality review exercised by this Court is constrained to certain acts, in that, in the specific case of the veto, it is excluded by express mandate of Article 160 of the cited legal body, regarding the following agreements:

"a) Those not definitively approved.

• b)Those in which the municipal mayor has a personal interest, direct or indirect.
• c)Repealed by Article 202 subsection 5) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, number 8508, of June twenty-second, two thousand six.
• d)Those that must be approved by the Contraloría General de la República or the Asamblea Legislativa or those authorized by the latter.
• e)Those appealable before the Contraloría General de la República.
• f)Those of mere procedure or those of ratification, confirmation, or execution of previous ones." To this list, we can add the provisions of Article 19 of the Code of the matter, according to which the decision taken by the Municipal Council, regarding the call for a plebiscite, where the dismissal or not of the Mayor will be decided, which for obvious reasons, is beyond the possibility of veto by this official.

V.- In numeral 12 of the Reglamento sobre Variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, promulgated by the Contraloría General de la República in exercise of the competences of superior fiscal supervisor of the public treasury, constitutionally assigned pursuant to provisions of numerals 183 and 184, it expressly excludes from a priori review of budget modifications when literally stating:

"Budget modifications do not require being submitted to the prior approval procedure by the Contraloría General de la República, except for the exceptions that it may establish through a reasoned resolution of the Management of the Operative and Evaluative Audit Division." Whereby, it is clear that this is not under the assumption of subsection d) of the transcribed numeral 160 of the Código Municipal. And on the other hand, it is true that in the legal system governing the matter, namely, neither the Código Municipal, nor the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, nor the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la república y Presupuestos Públicos, is there any provision for an administrative procedure pursuant to which the Mayor may file an appeal before the oversight body of the public treasury, to submit his challenge to the budget modifications approved by the Council. Thus, this is also not under the assumption foreseen in subsection e) of the cited numeral 160. Therefore, this Court considers that the interposed veto, despite being of a budget matter, is susceptible to review before this legality instance.

VI.- LEGAL AND REGULATORY PROCEDURE FOR BUDGET MODIFICATIONS: The subject of budget modifications is regulated at the local level, in Article 100 of the Código Municipal, a norm that attributes that power to the Municipal Council, on condition that it is done by a qualified majority of the total of its members and in a concrete manner, from one program to another.- Thus, that provision expressly indicates it, which literally states:

"Article 100.- Within the same budgeted program, modifications to current budgets shall proceed when agreed upon by the Council. The Council's approval of a modification from one program to another shall be required, with the vote of two-thirds of its members.

The ordinary budget may not be modified to increase salaries nor to create new positions, except when it concerns adjustments due to the application of the salary decree or due to collective labor conventions or agreements, in the first case that new employees are required because of the expansion of services or the presentation of a new one, in the second case.

Adjustments produced by the concertation of collective labor conventions or agreements or any others that imply modifying the ordinary budgets shall only proceed when it is proven, in the course of the processing of conflicts or in the pertinent steps, that the cost of living has increased substantially according to the price indices of the Banco Central de Costa Rica and the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos." Likewise, for the concrete exercise of this power, the norms, procedures, and conditions established by the Contraloría General de la República, an organ that pursuant to Article 183 of the Constitución Política, exercises the vigilance of the Public Treasury and serves as the rector of the System of Superior Control and Audit of the Public Treasury, in the terms of Article 12 of its Ley Orgánica (number 7248 and its amendments). All the municipalities of the country are subject to its authority in this matter, including, of course, that of the canton of Siquirres. Thus, in exercise of its constitutional powers, the Contraloría General issued, on August twenty-eighth, two thousand six, Regulation number R-CO-67-2006, called Reglamento sobre Variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, in force since its publication in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 170, of September fifth, two thousand six, which contains the basic rules upon whose compliance the validity of every agreed modification depends.

According to its text, budget modifications, understood as any variation made in budgeted expenditures and whose purpose is to decrease or increase the different concepts of these or incorporate others that had not been considered, without altering the global amount of the approved budget, "must be duly justified and incorporate, as part of the information that supports them, the relationship of the budget variations with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operative plan" (article 8). Such changes do not generally require the approval of the oversight body, but the hierarchical superior -in this case the Council-, must make them "by means of a reasoned act and considering the nature, amount, and origin of the resources and the effect of the variations on the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operative plan", being able even to delegate that competence to other local instances, in accordance with what the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes to that effect (article 13 of the Regulation), but in any case, it corresponds to the deliberative body to establish the formal mechanisms and procedures, so that, prior to the internal procedure for the formulation and approval of modifications, the following aspects are provided for:

"a. The number of budget modifications that, in a reasonable manner, conforms to the institutional needs.

b. The level of detail required as well as the procedure for its approval, as corresponds to the hierarchical superior or the internal instance designated for that effect.

c. The detail of the responsibilities of the units and officials that intervene in the internal budget approval process for budget modifications that do not require being submitted to the hierarchical superior, as well as the coordination procedure to follow.

d. Define the periodicity and means by which the units and officials indicated in the preceding subsection must inform the hierarchical superior about the approvals or rejections of budget modifications under their charge.

e. The mechanisms that ensure that the budget modification conforms to the procedures established by the administration and the rest of the applicable legality block.

f. The mechanisms that allow verifying that those programs or activities financed with resources for a specific end or that are committed by laws, public tenders, or contracts, are only varied in accordance with what is established by the legal regulations that govern them, which must be recorded in the respective approval agreement that must be included in the corresponding case file.

g. The measures so that each budget modification has its respective case file and its own numbering, as well as the designation of the unit and official responsible for its custody.

h. Establish mechanisms so that the information and results generated feed back into the process of formulation and internal budget approval of budget modifications in a permanent, consistent, and timely manner.

i. Develop controls that guarantee that the procedure used in the formulation, approval, and execution of budget modifications generates reliable and timely information, in pursuit of the protection and conservation of the patrimony against loss, waste, misuse, irregularity, or illegal act.

j. Periodically evaluate and review, in a timely and express manner, the mechanisms and procedures used in the formulation and internal budget approval of budget modifications. Evidence of the foregoing shall be left in the respective case file.

k. Maintain information systems that allow them to access, identify, and record reliable, relevant, pertinent, and timely information, based on which the analysis of variations to the budget is made possible, transparency in management is fostered, and accountability is facilitated.

l. Establish the technological and communication means that facilitate the exchange of data and documents with the budget information systems that have been established by the competent external instances" (article 14).

Additionally, in what is of interest, the cited Regulation of the Contraloría General de la República provides that prior to any budget modification, at least the following aspects must be considered: a) comply with what is established in the current legality block; b) take into account its relationship with the established objectives and goals, a record of which must be left in the respective case file; c) verify the existence of the corresponding budget content of the sub-items to be reduced and d) assign proper and consecutive numbering for each budget modification, in addition they must be available to the Contraloría General de la República, through the respective case file (article 15). A record of all the foregoing must be recorded in a case file or archive opened for that effect, "separate where this type of agreements are recorded, accessible both to the internal control instances and to the Contraloría General de la República for its posterior audit functions," demands the final paragraph of article 13 of the cited regulated code.

VII.OF THE ILLEGALITY OF THE VETOED AGREEMENT.- After contrasting what was acted upon by the Municipality of Siquirres, the conclusion is reached that there is an illegality that must be repaired; but not for the reasons indicated by the Mayor in his veto; but rather for the infraction of the provisions and principles that condition the exercise of the power of budget modification of public entities and, in particular, of local corporations. Indeed, as indicated, the power granted in this matter to the Municipal Council is not left to the entire freedom of that body, nor can it be exercised arbitrarily.

As has been explained, any proposed modification must be subject to a careful assessment, which zealously determines the correct purpose and objective of that act, so that in each case it must necessarily be evaluated what order of priorities the local government intends to satisfy, without which any decision would be spurious. In that regard, it is considered that the minimum requirements for the valid issuance of the questioned modification were not met, for the following reasons:

**a.-** ***An unsubstantiated agreement was adopted.*** In the vetoed agreement, the Council **limited itself to laconically approving a motion from several of its council members (regidores),** which simply indicated that the destination of some funds donated to the Municipality of Siquirres, budgeted for a different project, would be modified—in this case, the construction of a multi-use recreational and cultural project in the city of Siquirres. The foregoing was done **without any technical support or prior study,** in the face of evidence of two rulings by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)—the first, 2006-5980, which ordered the closure of the canton’s landfill (botadero de basura), or its proper implementation, and the second, 2010-1306, which ordered that documents be certified as evidence due to the disobedience of what was ordered in the first ruling. There is no record in the case file of prior actions regarding the supposed award of a tender to the company Navarro, as not only is the object of that tender not determinable, but the alleged administrative delays with Setena and the Ministry of Health are also not evident. The impact on the canton's public health from the agreement is also not determinable; it being evident that in any case the situation originates from the delay in complying with the cited constitutional rulings. Finally, none of the requirements set forth in Article 14 of the Comptroller General’s Regulations (supra transcribed) were met either.

**b.-** ***No corresponding administrative file (expediente administrativo) was opened.*** The foregoing makes evident the non-compliance with the requirement set forth in the cited final paragraph of Article 13 of the **Reglamento sobre variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO-DFOE,** inasmuch as, as the Mayor indicates, there is no municipal file or archive regarding this *"budgetary modification (modificación presupuestaria)";* but only a motion from several council members, as indicated. This requirement is not a mere formality, but precisely, it is the support for the decision, as it must contain not only the actions of the local Authority, but also the justifications motivating the decision; as its existence is precisely provided for the subsequent internal control (internal audit of the local corporation) and for the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), the superior comptroller of the public treasury (hacienda pública).

**c.-** ***It is not a modification within the same program,*** in the terms set forth in Article 100 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal); but rather a change of destination of the provision for a project, emptying of budgetary content that relating to the construction of the multi-use recreational and cultural area of the canton of Siquirres.

**VIII.- CONCLUSIONS.-** It involves, in sum, a modification adopted *"in the abstract"*, which completely lacks substantiation and which flagrantly breaches the guidelines of the Comptroller General of the Republic, which always require the proper justification to be made and to incorporate, as part of the supporting information, the relationship of the budgetary variations (variaciones presupuestarias) with the fulfillment of the objectives and goals of the annual operational plan (plan anual operativo), all of which is missing in this matter. Under such circumstances, there is no alternative but to uphold this veto, since the objections raised are admissible and must be so declared.

**IX.- FINAL WARNING.-** Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Collegiate Body deems it appropriate to note that, if a real and imminent situation of urgency were present, because the solution to the canton's waste deposit problem is imperative to avoid serious harm to persons or irreparable damage to property (of which there is no proof in the case file), the Municipal Administration must **immediately** take the necessary measures to that effect, for which it may even create a special substitutive procedure, in the terms of Articles 219 and 226 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), all with the purpose of confronting, if applicable, that exceptional situation, given that in this type of situation, as unanimously recognized by national doctrine and jurisprudence, the principle of legality is displaced by that of necessity. On the other hand, it is recalled that the lack of timely municipal action, in this type of case, could even generate liability for the local entity, if through inertia in addressing the matter, pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages were caused to any person, all in accordance with the terms of Articles 190 and following of the General Public Administration Law.- **POR TANTO:** The veto is upheld.- **Nombre625** **I. Rocío Rojas Morales Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** Veto Nombre100982 against the Municipality of Siquirres

No. 14-2011 SECCIÓN TERCERA DEL TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Goicoechea, a las catorce horas cuarenta minutos del veintisiete de enero del dos mil once.

Conoce este Tribunal, en su condición de jerarca impropio municipal, del veto interpuesto por Nombre100982 , mayor, divorciado, cédula CED77727, vecino de Siquirres, en su condición de ALCALDE MUNICIPAL DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE SIQUIRRES, contra el acuerdo 119, Artículo VII, punto 7, adoptado por el Concejo de esa corporación local, en la sesión ordinaria 019, celebrada el dieciséis de agosto del dos mil diez.

Redacta la Juez Fernández Brenes; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE LOS HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tiene como debidamente acreditado el siguiente elenco: 1.) Que ante "la imposibilidad de cumplimiento" de las resoluciones números 2006-5980, de las quince horas diecinueve minutos del tres de mayo del dos mil seis y 2010-13066, de las trece horas treinta y cuatro minutos del treinta de julio del dos mil diez, ambas de la Sala Constitucional, que ordenó el cierre del botadero de basura de la Municipalidad de Siquirres, así como, o su implementación de uno con el cumplimiento de los requerimientos de ley, "debido a que no contamos con un terreno para la implementación de un verdadero relleno sanitario y que no se han desarrollado ni demostrado acciones concretas en la búsqueda de soluciones integrales para cumplir con la Sala Constitucional, y más que ante ella; por el mandato popular que nos ordena solucionar este grave problema de salud que puede generar epidemias, enfermedades y hasta la muerte de algunos de nuestros ciudadanos"; los regidores Carlos Isidro Umaña Ellis, Krybell Ríos Myrie, Alexis Hernández Sáenz y Esmeralda Allen Mora hacen la siguiente moción en la sesión ordinaria celebrada por el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Siquirres el dieciséis de agosto del dos mil diez: "1- Para que este Concejo acuerde, variar el destino de los recursos donados como fondos de solidaridad del Gobierno Nacional al Gobierno Local, con recursos facilitados por el Gobierno de China Popular, y el cual la administración había destinado para la construcción de un parque en la plaza de futbol del centro de Siquirres.- 2- Que por la incapacidad de los asesores externos de la Municipalidad con los trámites ante Setena y el Ministerio de Salud, a la fecha casi tres años después dichos trámites se encuentran empantanados y los procesos de contratación administrativa igualmente fracasados a tal punto que la empresa adjudicada Nombre5544 ha realizado demandas administrativas y judiciales por la inoperancia administrativa.- 3. Por ello mocionamos para que que esos recursos en su totalidad se presupuesten para la adquisición de una finca y o el equipamiento de maquinaria o equipo para implementarlo como relleno sanitario del Cantón de Siquirres.- 4- Que se ordene al Alcalde para que en forma inmediata haga los trámites y gestiones para que dicha modificación en un plazo improrrogable de una semana, sea presentada en Concejo.- 5- Que se envíe la modificación, al Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal y al Ministerio de Hacienda para que se realicen los trámites administrativos de rigor.- 6- Que este acuerdo sea comunicado en forma certificada e inmediata a la Sala Constitucional, a la Contraloría General de la República, y a la Fiscalía del Ambiente, a la Defensoría de los Habitantes y al Ministerio de Salud y se envíe a los medios de comunicación locales para el conocimiento de la ciudadanía.- 7- Que esta moción se dispense del trámite de comisión; sea declarada aprobada en firme y definitiva" (moción a folios 2 y 3 y acuerdo, a folios folio 22 a 24); 2.) Que una vez discutida la moción anterior por el fondo, el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Siquirres la aprobó por acuerdo 119, Artículo VII, punto 7, de la sesión ordinaria 019, celebrada el dieciséis de agosto del dos mil diez; con dispensa de trámite de comisión y definitivamente aprobado, con el voto negativo únicamente de la regidora Yetty María Quesada Murillo (folios 22 a 24); 3.) Que contra la decisión anterior, el veinte de agosto siguiente, Nombre100982 , en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad, interpuso veto (folios 26 a 28); 4.) Que de manera unánime, y sobre la base del informe de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos, del veintiséis de agosto del dos mil diez, el Concejo rechaza el veto interpuesto y lo eleva a conocimiento del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (informe de la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos, del veintiséis de agosto del dos mil diez, a folios 51 a 54; acuerdo a folio 55 a 57).

II.- DE LOS MOTIVOS DEL VETO.- El Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Siquirres veta el acuerdo 119, Artículo VII, punto 7, adoptado por el el Concejo de esa corporación local, en la sesión ordinaria 019, celebrada el dieciséis de agosto del dos mil diez, por motivos de ilegalidad e inoportunidad, por los siguientes motivos: a.) Que dicha decisión resulta contraria a otras decisiones del cuerpo deliberativo, en los que se aprobó la construcción del área recreativa y cultural de uso múltiple de la ciudad de Siquirres, se autorizó la licitación para su construcción y ratificó y autorizó proseguir con dichas diligencias administrativas (acuerdo 507, Artículo 4) inciso 2) de la sesión ordinaria número 93, del veinticinco de febrero del dos mil ocho; acuerdo 628, artículo V de la sesión ordinaria número 115 del catorce de julio del dos mil ocho y acuerdo 1172, artículo II de la sesión extraordinaria número 122, del doce de marzo del dos mil diez, respectivamente); b.) Que no se pueden modificar tales proyectos, ni revocarlos, sino únicamente mediante el procedimiento de revisión, pero ya venció el plazo para ello; así como tampoco procede mediante impugnación ordinaria. En este sentido, advierte que el proyecto en cuestión fue financiado con fondos solidarios con plazo para su aprobación, con intervención del Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal y el Ministerio de Hacienda, debidamente aprobadopor decreto ejecutivo, que fue publicado; de donde el Concejo no puede modificar su destino de manera unilateral; c.) Que el Concejo al adoptar la decisión vetada, no fundamentó la urgencia, emergencia o necesidad; y d.) Que hay vicios de procedimiento, por cuanto, primero se aprobó el fondo de la moción y luego se dispensó el trámite de comisión; siendo que también se infringe el artículo 46 del Código Municipal, por cuanto el asunto no tiene expediente administrativo. (Folios 26 a 28.)

III.- DEL CONTENIDO DEL ACUERDO VETADO.- Mediante el acuerdo 119, Artículo VII, punto 7, adoptado en la sesión ordinaria 019, celebrada el dieciséis de agosto del dos mil diez, el Concejo de la Municipalidad de Siquirres aprueba una modificación presupuestaria, para cambiarle el destino a los fondos previstos para la construcción del área recreativa y cultural de uso múltiple del cantón, a fin de adquirir una finca o el equipamiento de maquinaria o equipo para implementarlo como relleno sanitario del cantón, lo anterior, para darle "cabal" cumplimiento al fallo constitucional 2006-5980. Nótese que la decisión de la modificación presupuestaria está definitivamente adoptada, en tanto lo que se requiere al Alcalde es hacer las gestiones administrativas pertinentes a fin de que se haga efectiva; de manera que se ordena comunicar al Instituto de Fomento y Asesoría Municipal y al Ministerio de Hacienda, así como a otras instituciones, a saber, a la Sala Constitucional, la Contraloría General de la República, la Fiscalía Ambiental, la Defensoría de los Habitantes y al Ministerio de Salud.

IV.- DEL VETO MUNICIPAL Y LA COMPETENCIA DE ESTE TRIBUNAL, ACTUANDO COMO JERÁRCA IMPROPIO MUNICIPAL.- Al tenor de lo dispuesto en numeral 173 de la Constitución Política, la competencia que se le confiere al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, según desarrollo de la ley (artículos 153, 156 y párrafo final del 158 del Código Municipal y 189 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), es para que actúe como jerarca impropio, lo cual, conforme al numeral 181 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, lo circunscribe a ejercer un control eminentemente de legalidad de las decisiones administrativas municipales, previo al control jurisdiccional; por lo que, tales motivos de "oportunidad" o "discrecionalidad" no son susceptibles de ser revisados en esta instancia, sino únicamente en sus parámetros o elementos de control, tales como la finalidad de la Administración, el respeto de los derechos fundamentales, la razonabilidad de las actuaciones ("interdicción de la arbitrariedad"), y las reglas de la ciencia y de la técnica, que al tenor del artículo 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, integran el bloque de legalidad, por cuanto entrar a analizar tales valoraciones implicarían, no sólo desnaturalizar la figura del jerarca impropio, sino además, un desbordamiento de las competencias constitucional y legalmente asignadas a los jueces que conocen de esta materia, convirtiéndose, por ser materia propia y exclusiva de la"Administraciòn activa". (En igual sentido se pronunció este Tribunal con anterioridad, en resoluciones número 425-2010, de las doce horas diez minutos del ocho de febrero y 947-2010, de las quince horas cuarenta minutos del once de marzo, ambas del dos mil diez.) Por ello, el examen que se hace en esta ocasión está constreñido a la legalidad del acuerdo vetado; no pudiendo considerarse ningún elemento de "oportunidad" o "conveniencia", esgrimido por el Alcalde en su objeción. Es la Ley -Código Municipal-, la que regula el régimen recursivo municipal, tanto respecto de los recursos e impugnaciones que pueden formular los administrados -los ordinarios de revocatoria y apelación y el extraordinario de revisión-, como las objeciones de los regidores y el Alcalde, este último, a través del veto. Y es por previsión legal, que el control de legalidad ejercido por este Tribunal está constreñido a determinados, actos, en tanto, en el caso concreto del veto, se excluye por mandato expreso del 160 del citado cuerpo legal, respecto de los siguientes acuerdos:

"a) Los no aprobados definitivamente.

• b)Aquellos en que el alcalde municipal tenga interés personal, directo o indirecto.
• c)Derogado por el artículo 202 inciso 5) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, número 8508, del veintidós de junio del dos mil seis.
• d)Los que deban aprobar la Contraloría General de la República o la Asamblea Legislativa o los autorizados por esta.
• e)Los apelables ante la Contraloría General de la República.
• f)Los de mero trámite o los de ratificación, confirmación o ejecución de otros anteriores." A esta lista, podemos agregar lo dispuesto en el artículo 19 del Código de la materia, según el cual la decisión tomada por el Concejo Municipal, en cuanto a la convocatoria a un plebiscito, donde se decidirá sobre la destitución o no del Alcalde, que por razones obvias, está fuera de la posibilidad de veto por parte de este funcionario.

V.- En el numeral 12 del Reglamento sobre Variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, promulgado por la Contraloría General de la República en ejercicio de las competencias de fiscalizador superior de la hacienda pública, constitucionalmente asignadas al tenor de lo dispuesto en los numerales 183 y 184, expresamente excluye del control apriori de las modificaciones presupuestarias al consignar literalmente:

"Las modificaciones presupuestarias no requieren ser sometidas al trámite previo de aprobación por parte de la Contraloría General de la República, salvo las exepciones que ésta llegara a establecer mediante resolución motivada de la Gerencia de la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa." Con lo cual, queda claro que no se está ante el supuesto del incido d) del transcrito numeral 160 del Código Municipal. Y por otra parte, es lo cierto que en el ordenamiento jurídico que rige la materia, a saber, ni el Código Municipal, ni en la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República ni en la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la república y Presupuestos Públicos, no existe ninguna previsión procedimiento administrativo al tenor del cual, el Alcalde pueda formular recurso de apelación para ante el órgano contralor de la hacienda pública, para someterle su impugnación de las modificaciones presupuestarias aprobadas por el Concejo. Así, tampoco se está ante el supuesto previsto en el inciso e) del citado numeral 160. Por ello, estima este Tribunal que el veto interpuesto, no obstante ser de materia presupuestaria, resulta susceptible de control ante esta instancia de legalidad.

VI.- PROCEDIMIENTO LEGAL Y REGLAMENTARIO PARA LAS MODIFICACIONES PRESUPUESTARIAS: El tema de las modificaciones presupuestarias, está regulado a nivel local, en el artículo 100 del Código Municipal, norma que atribuye esa facultad al Concejo Municipal, a condición de que se haga por mayoría calificada del total de sus miembros y de forma concreta, de un programa a otro.- Así lo señala expresamente esa disposición que a letra indica:

"Artículo 100.- Dentro de un mismo programa presupuestado, las modificaciones de los presupuestos vigentes procederán, cuando lo acuerde el Consejo. Se requerirá que el Concejo apruebe la modificación de un programa a otro, con la votación de las dos terceras partes de sus miembros.

El presupuesto ordinario no podrá ser modificado para aumentar sueldos ni crear nuevas plazas, salvo cundo se trate de reajustes por aplicación del decreto de salarios o por convenciones o convenios colectivos de trabajo, en el primer caso que se requieran nuevos empleados con motivo de la ampliación de servicios o la presentación de uno nuevo, en el segundo caso.

Los reajustes producidos por la concertación de convenciones o convenios colectivos de trabajo o cualesquiera otros que impliquen modificar los presupuestos ordinarios, sólo procederán cuando se pruebe, en el curso de la tramitación de los conflictos o en las gestiones pertinentes, que el costo de la vida ha aumentado sustancialmente según los índices de precios del Banco Central de Costa Rica y la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos." Asimismo, para el ejercicio concreto de esta atribución, resultan de obligado acatamiento las normas, procedimientos y condiciones que establezca la Contraloría General de la República, órgano que conforme al artículo 183 de la Constitución Política, ejerce la vigilancia de la Hacienda Pública y funge como rector del Sistema de Control y Fiscalización Superiores de la Hacienda Pública, en los términos del artículo 12 de su Ley Orgánica (número 7248 y sus reformas). A su autoridad, están sometidas todas las municipalidades del país en esta materia, incluida por supuesto, la del cantón de Siquirres, Así, en ejercicio de sus facultades constitucionales, a Contraloría General, emitió el veintiocho de agosto del dos mil seis, el Reglamento número R-CO-67-2006, denominado Reglamento sobre Variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO- DFOE, vigente desde su publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 170, del cinco de setiembre del dos mil seis, que contiene las reglas básicas de cuyo cumplimiento depende la validez de toda modificación que se acuerde.

Según su texto, las modificaciones presupuestarias, entendidas como toda variación que se realice en los egresos presupuestados y que tenga por objeto disminuir o aumentar los diferentes conceptos de estos o incorporar otros que no habían sido considerados, sin que se altere el monto global del presupuesto aprobado, "deberán estar debidamente justificadas e incorporar como parte de la información que las sustenta, la relación de las variaciones presupuestarias con el cumplimiento de los objetivos y metas del plan anual opertativo" (artículo 8). Tales cambios no requieren, en general aprobación del órgano contralor, pero el jerarca -en este caso el Consejo-, debe hacerlos "mediante acto razonado y considerando la naturaleza, cuantía y origen de los recursos y el efecto de las variaciones en el cumplimiento de los objetivos y metas del plan anual operativo", pudiendo incluso delegar esa competencia en otras instancias locales, de acuerdo con lo que al efecto establece la Ley General de la Administración Pública (artículo 13 del Reglamento), pero en todo caso, corresponde al órgano deliberativo establecer los mecanismos y procedimientos formales, para que, de previo al trámite interno de formulación y aprobación de las modificaciones, se prevean los siguientes aspectos:

"a. La cantidad de modificaciones presupuestarias que, de forma razonable, se ajuste a las necesidades institucionales.

b. El nivel de detalle requerido así como el procedimiento para su aprobación, según corresponda al jerarca o a la instancia interna designada al efecto.

c. El detalle de las responsabilidades de las unidades y funcionarios que intervienen en el proceso de aprobación presupuestaria interna de las modificaciones presupuestarias que no requieren ser sometidas al jerarca, así como el procedimiento de coordinación a seguir.

d. Definir la periodicidad y medios en que las unidades y funcionarios indicados en el inciso anterior, deben informar al jerarca sobre las aprobaciones o improbaciones de modificaciones presupuestarias a su cargo.

e. Los mecanismos que aseguren que la modificación presupuestaria se ajusta a los procedimientos establecidos por la administración y el resto del bloque de legalidad aplicable.

f. Los mecanismos que permitan verificar que aquellos programas o actividades financiadas con recursos para un fin específico o que están comprometidos por leyes, licitaciones o contratos, únicamente sean variados de conformidad con lo establecido por la normativa legal que les rige, lo cual debe constar el respectivo acuerdo de aprobación que debe incluirse en el expediente correspondiente.

g. Las medidas para que cada modificación presupuestaria cuente con su respectivo expediente y numeración propia, así como la designación de la unidad y funcionario responsable de su custodia.

h. Establecer mecanismos para que la información y resultados que se generen, retroalimenten el proceso de formulación y aprobación presupuestaria interna de las modificaciones prosupuestarias de forma permanente, consistente y oportuna.

i. Desarrollar controles que garanticen que el procedimiento empleado en la formulación, aprobación y ejecución de las modificaciones presupuestarias genera información confiable y oportuna, en procura de la protección y conservación del patrimonio contra pérdida, despilfarro, uso indebido, irregularidad o acto ilegal.

j. Evaluar y revisar periódicamente, de manera oportuna y expresa, los mecanismos y procedimientos empleados en la formulación y aprobación presupuestaria interna de las modificaciones presupuestarias. De lo anterior se dejará evidencia en el expediente respectivo.

k. Mantener sistemas de información que les permitan acceder, identificar y registrar información confiable, relevante, pertinente y oportuna, a partir de la cual se posibilite el análisis de las variaciones al presupuesto, se fomente la transparencia en la gestión y se facilite la rendición de cuentas.

l. Establecer los medios tecnológicos y de comunicación que faciliten el intercambio de datos y documentos con los sistemas de información presupuestaria que hayan sido establecidos por la instancias externas competentes" (artículo 14).

Adicionalmente, en lo que interesa, dispone el citado Reglamento de la Contraloría General de la República, que de previo a toda modificación presupuestaria, deben considerarse al menos los siguientes aspectos: a) cumplir con lo establecido en el bloque de legalidad vigente; b) tomar en cuenta su relación con los objetivos y metas establecidas y sobre lo cual se deberá de dejar constancia en el expediente respectivo; c) constatar la existencia del correspondiente contenido presupuestario de las sub partidas a rebajar y d) asignar numeración propia y consecutiva para cada modificación presupuestaria, además deben estar a disposición de la Contraloría General de la República, mediante el respectivo expediente (artículo 15). De todo lo anterior, debe quedar consignado en un expediente o archivo abierto al efecto, "separado donde consten este tipo de acuerdos accesibles tanto a las instancias de control interno como a la Contraloría General de la República para sus funciones de fiscalización posterior", exige el párrafo final del artículo 13 del citado códice reglamentado.

VII.DE LA ILEGALIDAD DEL ACUERDO VETADO.- Luego de contrastar lo actuado por la Municipalidad de Siquirres, se arriba a la conclusión de que existe una ilegalidad que debe repararse; pero no por lo motivos señalados por el Alcalde en su veto; sino por la infracción de las disposiciones y principios que condicionan el ejercicio de la facultad de modificación presupuestaria de las entidades públicas y en particular, de las corporaciones locales. En efecto, según se indicó, la atribución que se le otorga en esta materia al Concejo Municipal no está librada a la entera libertad de ese órgano, ni puede ejercerse de manera arbitraria. Como se ha venido explicando, cualquier propuesta de modificación ha de sujetarse a una valoración cuidadosa, que determine celosamente el correcto motivo y fin de ese acto, de modo que en cada caso debe evaluarse, necesariamente, cuál es el orden de prioridades que pretende satisfacer el gobierno local, sin lo cual, cualquier decisión resultaría espuria. En ese sentido, se estima que no se cumplieron con las exigencias mínimas, para la emisión válida de la modificación cuestionada; por los siguientes motivos:

a.- Se adopta un acuerdo inmotivado. En el acuerdo vetado, el Consejo se limitó a aprobar, de forma lacónica, una moción de varios de sus regidores, en la cual se indica simplemente que se modificaría el destino de unos fondos donados a la Municipalidad de Siquirres, presupuestados para un proyecto diverso, en este caso, la construcción de un proyecto recreativo y cultural de uso múltiple en la ciudad de Siquirres. Lo anterior se hizo sin ningún sustento técnico ni estudio previo, ante la evidencia de dos fallos de la Sala Constitucional -el primero, 2006-5980, que ordenó el cierre del botadero de basura del cantón, o se debida implementación, y el segundo 2010-1306, que ordenó testimoniar piezas por la desobediencia de lo ordenado en la primera resolución-. En autos no aparece registro de las actuaciones anteriores respecto de la supuesta adjudicación de una licitación con la empresa Navarro, en tanto no sólo no se logra desprender el objeto de esa licitación como tampoco constan los supuestos atrasos administrativos con la Setena y el Ministerio de Salud. Tampoco se logra desprender la incidencia en el acuerdo con la salud pública del cantón; siendo evidente que en todo caso la situación se origina en la demora en el cumplimiento de los citados fallos constitucionales. Finalmente, tampoco se cumple ninguna de las exigencias previstas en el numeral 14 del Reglamento de la Contraloría (supra transcritas).

b.- No se abrió expediente administrativo al efecto. Lo anterior hace evidente el incumplimiento de la exigencia prevista en el citado párrafo final del artículo 13 del Reglamento sobre variaciones al Presupuesto de los entes y órganos públicos, municipalidades y entidades de carácter municipal, Fideicomisos y sujetos privados R-1-2006-CO-DFOE, por cuanto lo señala el Alcalde, no existe expediente o archivo municipal en torno a esta "modificación presupuestaria"; sino únicamente una moción de varios regidores, según se indicó. Esta exigencia no se constituye en un mero formalismo, sino precisamente, es el soporte de la decisión, en tanto debe contener no sólo las actuaciones de la Autoridad local, sino también las justificaciones que motivan la decisión; en tanto su existencia está prevista, cabalmente, para el posterior control interno (auditoría interna de la corporación local) y de la Contraloría General de la República, contralor superior de la hacienda pública.

c.- No se trata de una modificación dentro de un mismo programa, en los términos previstos en el numeral 100 del Código Municipal; sino del cambio de destino de una previsión de un proyecto, vaciando de contenido presupuestario el relativo a la construcción del área recreativa y cultural de uso múltiple del cantón de Siquirres.

VIII.- CONCLUSIONES.- Se trata, en suma, de una modificación tomada "en abstracto", que carece por completo de fundamentación y que incumple de manera flagrante, los lineamientos de la Contraloría General de la Repúblicas, que obligan siempre a hacer la debida justificación y a incorporar como parte de la información que las sustenta, la relación de las variaciones presupuestarias con el cumplimiento de los objetivos y metas del plan anual operativo, todo lo cual se hecha de menos en este asunto. Tales circunstancias, no queda más alternativa que acoger este veto, pues las objeciones formuladas son de recibo y así debe declararse.

IX.- ADVERTENCIA FINAL.- No obstante lo dicho, este Órgano Colegiado estima oportuno señalar, que de estarse en una situación real e inminente de urgencia,por resultar imperativa la solución del problema del depósito de la basura del cantón, para evitar daños graves a las personal o irreparables a las cosas (de lo que no hay prueba en autos), deberá la Administración Municipal tomar de inmediato las medidas necesarias al efecto, para lo cual puede incluso crear un procedimiento sustitutivo especial, en los términos de los artículos 219 y 226 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, todo con el fin de enfrentar, se es del caso, esa coyuntura excepcional, dado que es este tipo de situaciones, como lo reconoce unánimemente la doctrina y jurisprudencia patrias, el principio de legalidad es desplazado por el de necesidad. Por otra parte, se recuerda que la falta de actuación municipal oportuna, en este tipo de casos, podría incluso generar responsabilidad del ente local, si por la inercia en la atención del asunto, se llegaran a ocasionar a alguna persona, menoscabos patrimoniales o extrapatrimoniales, todo en los términos de los numerales 190 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Publica.-

POR TANTO:

Se acoge el veto interpuesto.- Nombre625

I. Rocío Rojas Morales Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes

Veto Nombre100982 contra la Municipalidad de Siquirres