{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-61072",
  "citation": "Res. 00139-2004 Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Requisito de actualidad para ingreso al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda",
  "title_en": "Contemporaneity Requirement for Admission to the Hacienda Pension Regime",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte, en un proceso ordinario por pensión, analiza si el actor —quien prestó servicios en varias dependencias estatales (IFAM, Presidencia, JAPDEVA, Banco Central y Dirección General de Estadística y Censos)— tiene derecho a ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda (Ley N° 148). El tribunal determina que no, porque el artículo 13 de esa ley, incluso en sus múltiples reformas, exige un “requisito de actualidad”: a la fecha de cada reforma, el funcionario debía estar prestando servicios en alguna de las dependencias que la propia reforma incorporaba al régimen, o en la Asamblea Legislativa o Contraloría. El actor dejó de laborar en Estadística y Censos en 1963, por lo que las reformas posteriores no le dieron cobertura. La Ley N° 7007 (1985), citada por el recurrente, no le otorgó ingreso, pues esa ley amplió la cobertura pero sin eliminar el requisito de actualidad. Solo la Ley N° 7013 (1985) habría podido darle acceso, pero el actor no cumplió los requisitos de edad y cotización requeridos antes del dimensionamiento del voto constitucional que la anuló (19/05/1993). La Sala rechaza la pretensión del actor, señalando que tampoco la Ley N° 7302 (1992) le ampara, pues no cumplía los requisitos originales. La sentencia establece el alcance del requisito de actualidad y la intransitividad de la cobertura entre reformas legales del régimen hacendario.",
  "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, in an ordinary pension proceeding, analyzed whether the plaintiff —who had worked in various state entities (IFAM, Presidency, JAPDEVA, Central Bank, and the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses)— was entitled to join the Hacienda Pension Regime (Law No. 148). The court ruled negatively, holding that Article 13 of that law, even in its many amendments, requires a 'contemporaneity requirement': at the date of each amendment, the employee had to be working in one of the entities that the amendment itself incorporated into the regime, or in the Legislative Assembly or the Comptroller's Office. The plaintiff left Statistics and Censuses in 1963, so subsequent amendments did not cover him. Law No. 7007 (1985), cited by the appellant, did not grant him entry, as that law broadened coverage but did not eliminate the contemporaneity requirement. Only Law No. 7013 (1985) could have given him access, but the plaintiff did not meet the age and contribution requirements before the constitutional ruling that annulled it (May 19, 1993) took effect. The Chamber rejected the plaintiff's claim, also noting that Law No. 7302 (1992) did not protect him, as he did not fulfill the original requirements. The judgment defines the scope of the contemporaneity requirement and the non-transitivity of coverage across amendments to the Hacienda pension regime.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte",
  "date": "2004",
  "year": "2004",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "pensión de hacienda",
    "requisito de actualidad",
    "artículo 13 de la Ley 148",
    "derecho de pertenencia al régimen",
    "dimensionamiento de efectos de la inconstitucionalidad",
    "cotización al fondo de pensiones de hacienda",
    "Ley 7007",
    "Ley 7013"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 13",
      "law": "Ley 148"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 14",
      "law": "Ley 148"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 5",
      "law": "Ley 7007"
    },
    {
      "article": null,
      "law": "Ley 7013"
    },
    {
      "article": null,
      "law": "Ley 7302"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "pensión de hacienda",
    "requisito de actualidad",
    "artículo 13 Ley 148",
    "cambio de régimen pensional",
    "inconstitucionalidad pensión",
    "derecho adquirido pensión"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "Hacienda pension",
    "contemporaneity requirement",
    "Article 13 Law 148",
    "pension regime change",
    "pension unconstitutionality",
    "acquired pension right"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Ahora bien, el actor no quedó cobijado por dicha normativa; siendo evidente que la misma hacía referencia a los empleados y funcionarios que, en aquél momento –requisito de actualidad- estuvieran prestando servicios en la Asamblea Legislativa y la Contraloría General de la República, así como, Laborando en otras dependencias e instituciones del Estado que, a esa misma fecha, hubiesen sido puntualmente incorporados, por distintas leyes, al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda. No siendo el caso, a la sazón, del IFAM., Presidencia de la República; JAPDEVA, ni del Banco Central, donde prestó servicios el actor. Tampoco por el hecho de haberse desempeñado en la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos pues, aunque esa dependencia hubiese quedado incorporada al régimen de hacienda, el actor carece del elemento o requisito de actualidad, indispensable para que pudiera quedar amparado por la susodicha reforma legal, toda vez que, a la fecha de su promulgación ya no laboraba para la misma pues tan solo lo hizo del 1 de noviembre al 30 de diciembre de 1963. En consecuencia, bajo dicha Ley N° 7.007, el actor no ingresó al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente. Por esa razón, sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1.985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; pues fue la que abrió la posibilidad para que todos los servidores del Sector Público del Estado y sus Instituciones –con excepción de los trabajadores cubiertos por los regímenes especiales de pensiones y jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional y del Poder Judicial– de poder acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; y, para ello, introdujo una serie determinada de requisitos. En efecto, de conformidad con tal modificación normativa, los requerimientos necesarios, para lograr esa pensión, son los siguientes: a) Para una completa, haber cotizado durante treinta años, como mínimo, en cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones y contar, por lo menos, con cincuenta años de edad. b) Para una proporcional, en el caso de los hombres, se les exigía una edad mínima de cincuenta y siete años y, en el de las mujeres, de cincuenta y cinco; caso éste en el cual, el monto de la pensión, se les otorgaría proporcionalmente en relación con los años efectiva y realmente cotizados; requisitos que, a la luz del Voto constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1.993, que declaró inconstitucional dicha Ley N° 7.013, debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1.993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo.",
  "excerpt_en": "Now, the plaintiff was not covered by that regulation; it is evident that it referred to employees and officials who, at that time —contemporaneity requirement— were providing services in the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, as well as working in other state dependencies and institutions that, at that same date, had been specifically incorporated, by different laws, into the Hacienda pension regime. This was not the case, at that time, of IFAM, the Presidency of the Republic, JAPDEVA, or the Central Bank, where the plaintiff provided services. Nor by the fact of having worked in the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, because although that dependency had been incorporated into the hacienda regime, the plaintiff lacks the contemporaneity element or requirement, indispensable to be covered by the aforementioned legal amendment, since at the date of its enactment he was no longer working there, having only done so from November 1 to December 30, 1963. Consequently, under said Law No. 7,007, the plaintiff did not enter the Hacienda Pension Regime, as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law No. 7,013 of November 18, 1985, gave him access to said regime; because it opened the possibility for all public sector servants of the State and its institutions —with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the National Teachers' Union (Magisterio Nacional) and the Judiciary— to join the Hacienda Pension Regime; and, to that end, it introduced a specific set of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with that normative modification, the necessary requirements to achieve that pension are the following: a) For a full pension, having contributed for at least thirty years in any of the pension regimes and being at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional pension, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven was required, and for women, fifty-five; in which case, the pension amount would be granted proportionally to the years actually and effectively contributed; requirements that, in light of Constitutional Vote No. 1,633 of 2:33 p.m. on April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7,013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993, which was the date of the ruling's temporal dimensioning.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Second Chamber affirmed the lower court's judgment and denied the plaintiff admission to the Hacienda pension regime, as he never met the contemporaneity requirement under Article 13 of Law No. 148 and its amendments.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda confirmó la sentencia de primera instancia y denegó al actor el ingreso al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda, pues este nunca cumplió el requisito de actualidad exigido por el artículo 13 de la Ley N° 148 y sus reformas."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "Now, the plaintiff was not covered by that regulation; it is evident that it referred to employees and officials who, at that time —contemporaneity requirement— were providing services in the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic...",
      "quote_es": "Ahora bien, el actor no quedó cobijado por dicha normativa; siendo evidente que la misma hacía referencia a los empleados y funcionarios que, en aquél momento –requisito de actualidad- estuvieran prestando servicios en la Asamblea Legislativa y la Contraloría General de la República..."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "Consequently, under said Law No. 7,007, the plaintiff did not enter the Hacienda Pension Regime, as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law No. 7,013 of November 18, 1985, gave him access to said regime...",
      "quote_es": "En consecuencia, bajo dicha Ley N° 7.007, el actor no ingresó al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente. Por esa razón, sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1.985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen..."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "The judgments cited in support by the appellant are not applicable, as they were based on different factual and normative assumptions.",
      "quote_es": "Las sentencias que en su apoyo cita la recurrente no vienen al caso por haber estado fundadas en supuestos de hecho y normativos distintos."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-61072",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-32652",
      "norm_num": "",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda",
      "tipo_norma": "",
      "norm_fecha": ""
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-36522",
      "norm_num": "7018",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto de la República para 1986",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "20/12/1985"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-38800",
      "norm_num": "6963",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "30/07/1984"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-4707",
      "norm_num": "6406",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto Nacional para 1980",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "18/12/1979"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-5513",
      "norm_num": "",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto para 1982",
      "tipo_norma": "",
      "norm_fecha": ""
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-6149",
      "norm_num": "6995",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "22/07/1985"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-8453",
      "norm_num": "6831",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Presupuesto para 1983",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "23/12/1982"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"IV.- SOBRE EL DERECHO DE PERTENENCIA AL RÉGIMEN DE PENSIONES DE HACIENDA: Analizadas las dependencias donde el actor prestó sus servicios, está claro que no pudo ingresar al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda con base en el artículo 13 de la ley 148. Ese artículo ha sido modificado en reiteradas ocasiones. La ley número 148, del 23 de agosto de 1.943, originalmente, en el artículo 13, establecía: “Las disposiciones de esta ley se aplicarán también a los funcionarios y empleados del Congreso Constitucional y los del Centro de Control, en cuanto a los servicios prestados en dependencias o por servicios anteriores en otras funciones. En estos casos, será atribución del Directorio del Congreso su conocimiento definitivo.” Este numeral 13 fue sufriendo diversas modificaciones, en la forma y en el orden que se dirá. Por la ley número 2.417, del 14 de setiembre de 1.959 (artículo 1°), se modificó en el siguiente sentido: “Los funcionarios o empleados de la Asamblea Legislativa, de la Contraloría General de la República y del antiguo Centro de Control, podrán pedir su jubilación con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en el momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad. Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. En el caso de los diputados la pensión será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años. Los años desempeñados como diputado a la Asamblea Legislativa se computarán a los servidos a la Administración Pública.” Posteriormente, con la ley número 2.493 del 11 de mayo de 1.960 (artículo 1°), se le adicionó el siguiente párrafo: “Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los Diputados. En consecuencia, éstos no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el mismo, cuando comuniquen al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no desean pertenecer a ese régimen. El Directorio comunicará a la Tesorería Nacional esas exclusiones, para que en esos casos no se haga la deducción señalada en esta misma ley.” En 1.974, por la ley N° 5.664, del 27 de diciembre de 1.974 (artículo 9), se le adicionó el siguiente párrafo: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de setenta años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales.” Por la ley N° 5.696 del 14 de mayo de 1.975 (artículo 14), se reformó así: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta y cinco años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales.” En el artículo 9, de la ley N° 5.875, del 26 de diciembre de 1.975, nuevamente se modificó: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta y cinco años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Luego, nuevamente se reformó por la ley N° 6.025, del 20 de diciembre de 1.976 (artículo 9): “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de dos mil quinientos colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Más adelante también fue reformado mediante la ley N° 6.191, del 12 de diciembre de 1.977, (artículo 9), en el siguiente sentido: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, protegidos por este Régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de tres mil quinientos colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.”Por el artículo 20 de la ley número 6.256, del 28 de abril de 1.978 nuevamente se modificó, agregándosele un nuevo párrafo, que disponía: “Igualmente podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes no protegidos por otros regímenes de pensión, que cumplan con los indicados requisitos.” En ese mismo año, fue reformado, adicionándosele un nuevo párrafo, mediante el artículo 9 de la ley N° 6.305, del 21 de diciembre (1.978), en el siguiente sentido: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, protegidos por este régimen que tengan una edad mayor de sesenta años o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de cinco mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Por la ley 6.406, del 17 de diciembre de 1.979 (artículo 9), nuevamente fue modificado: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, acogidos a este régimen o sus viudas, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de cinco mil colones mensuales, siempre que no dispongan de otros ingresos que les permitan vivir con decoro.” Mediante la ley N° 6.542, del 22 de diciembre de 1.980 (artículo 9), dicho artículo 13 se modificó así: “Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de ¢ 6.000,00 (seis mil colones). Aquellos ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos vicepresidentes y sus cónyuges sobrevivientes en su caso, mayores de sesenta años, no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubieren cumplido o no totalmente del período para el que fueron electos, o de menos de sesenta años en caso de necesidad, tendrán derecho también a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones, a que se refiere ese párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la N° 3.808 del 22 de noviembre de 1.966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda, a variar las partidas de presupuesto, para cubrir las obligaciones que de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberá hacer, de oficio en las planillas, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma.” Nuevamente fue modificado por la ley número 6.700. del 23 de diciembre de 1.981 (artículo 9), disponiéndose: “Refórmase el párrafo cuarto del artículo 13 de la misma ley, de modo que el texto de los párrafos cuarto y quinto digan: \"Artículo 13.- Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de ¢ 8.000,00 (ocho mil colones). Aquellos ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos vicepresidentes y sus cónyuges, sobrevivientes en su caso mayores de sesenta años no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubiesen cumplido o no totalmente el período para el que fueron electos, o de menos de sesenta años tendrán derecho también a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones, a que se refiere este párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la ley número 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda a variar las partidas de presupuesto, para cubrir las obligaciones que de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberá hacer, de oficio en las planillas, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma\". Agrégase un último párrafo al artículo 13 de la ley Nº 148 del 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, que dirá: \"Esta norma modifica las leyes, artículos e incisos que se lo opongan.\" Por la ley N° 6.811, del 10 de setiembre de 1.982 (artículo 8, norma 183), se modificó en el siguiente sentido: “Refórmase el párrafo cuarto del artículo 13 de la misma ley de modo que el texto de los párrafos cuarto y quinto digan: Artículo 13: Los ex ministros de los Supremos Poderes o sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, protegidos por este régimen, tendrán derecho a una pensión no menor de diez mil colones (¢ 10.000). Aquellos ex ministros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vice presidentes y sus cónyuges sobrevivientes, en su caso, mayores de sesenta años, no protegidos por este régimen de pensiones, que hubiesen cumplido o no totalmente el período para el que fueron electos; o de menos de sesenta años, también tendrán derecho a una pensión no inferior a dicho monto. Las pensiones a que se refiere este párrafo, no estarán sujetas a ninguna clase de deducciones, excepto las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley y en la ley número 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966, así como las referentes a las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social y la proporción correspondiente, en caso de pensión alimenticia. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda para variar las partidas de presupuesto, a fin de cubrir las obligaciones de esta norma se deriven. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social deberán hacer, de oficio, los reajustes necesarios para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente norma.” Luego, trató nuevamente de reformarse, por la ley número 6.831, del 23 de diciembre de 1.982 (artículo 54); no obstante, en cuanto a esa y otras normas, la ley fue devuelta sin la correspondiente sanción del Poder Ejecutivo. Por la ley N° 6.914, del 28 de noviembre de 1.983 (artículo 10), fue nuevamente modificado, de la siguiente manera: \"Artículo 13.- Los empleados y funcionarios de la Asamblea Legislativa y de la Contraloría General de la República, y los que presten sus servicios en dependencias e instituciones del Estado, que tengan derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la presente ley, podrán pedir su jubilación, con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en la institución al momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad. Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los diputados y ex diputados, por lo que no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el fondo respectivo, cuando comuniquen por escrito al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no desean pertenecer al régimen.El Directorio comunicará a la oficina correspondiente esas exclusiones, para que en esos no se hagan las deducciones señaladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley. En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales. Los años desempeñados como diputados se computarán a los otros años servidos a la Administración Pública, para que así se puedan demostrar diez año de servicio como mínimo. Los ex miembros de los supremos poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes, podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación, siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de diez años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de diez mil colones mensuales. Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios tendrán el mismo derecho. La pensión de los ex diputados se incrementará cada año en un treinta por ciento sobre el monto de la pensión de que disfruten, sin sujeción a los años de servicio y, en ningún caso, el monto total de la pensión podrá ser mayor a la remuneración total de las dietas o salarios que devengue mensualmente un diputado, por concepto de sesiones de comisión y de plenario de la Asamblea Legislativa. Las pensiones a que se refiere este régimen estarán sujetas a las siguientes deducciones: a) Las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley. b) Las que indica la ley Nº 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966. c) Las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Las que indique el beneficiario de la pensión a la Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, y la proporción correspondiente en caso de pensión alimenticia. Transitorio: El incremento de las pensiones de los ex diputados, a que se refiere el párrafo cuarto de este artículo 13, se reconocerá en su totalidad a partir del mes de enero de 1983. Se autoriza al Ministerio de Hacienda para variar las partidas del presupuesto correspondiente, con el fin de cubrir las obligaciones aquí establecidas. El Departamento Nacional de Pensiones del Ministerio de Trabajo y Seguridad Social, deberá hacer de oficio, en las planillas correspondientes, los reajustes necesarios a las jubilaciones y pensiones ya otorgadas, para adecuarlas a lo dispuesto en la presente ley.” Por la ley N° 6.963, del 30 de julio de 1.984 (artículo 46), fue modificado así: “Artículo 46. Refórmase el párrafo 5° del artículo 13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda N° 148 del 23 de agosto de 1.94 y sus reformas, reformado por el artículo 10 de la ley número 6914 de la siguiente forma: Los ex miembros de los supremos poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de 10 años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de 10 mil colones mensuales. Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios y las hijas no casadas o inválidas tendrán el mismo derecho.” Luego, sufrió una nueva reforma, mediante la ley N° 6.995 (artículo 123), del 22 de julio de 1.985, donde se dispuso: Artículo 123.- Refórmase el párrafo quinto del artículo 13 de la ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 del 23 de agosto de 1948 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá: \"Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes y viceministros...\" (El resto del párrafo igual). Se interpreta auténticamente que los ex ministros y los ex viceministros también son aquellos que ocuparon cargos de Secretario y Subsecretario de Estado. Asimismo aquellas personas a quienes se les dio el rango de ministro o viceministro.\" Fue reformado también por la ley que en su apoyo cita la recurrente, o sea la N° 7007, del 5 de noviembre de 1.985 (artículo 5), disponiéndose: “Artículo 5º.- Modifícase el artículo 13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, Nº 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá: \"Artículo 13.-Los empleados y funcionarios de la Asamblea Legislativa y de la Contraloría General de la República, y los que presten sus servicios en dependencias e instituciones del Estado, que tengan derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la presente ley, podrán pedir su jubilación, con derecho a recibir una pensión igual al sueldo promedio devengado en la institución al momento de jubilarse, siempre que hayan servido más de treinta años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad. Cuando hayan servido menos de treinta años pero más de diez, la pensión será proporcional al número de años servidos. Este régimen de pensiones será facultativo para los diputados y ex diputados, por lo que no quedarán protegidos por sus beneficios ni obligados a contribuir económicamente para el fondo respectivo, cuando comuniquen por escrito al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa que no se desean pertenecer al régimen. El Directorio comunicará a la oficina correspondiente esas exclusiones, para que en esos casos no se hagan las deducciones señaladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley. En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al sueldo promedio devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales.Los años desempeñados como diputados se computarán a los otros años servidos a la Administración Pública, para que así se puedan demostrar diez años de servicio como mínimo. Los ex miembros de los Supremos Poderes, incluidos los vicepresidentes y viceministros podrán acogerse a los derechos establecidos en este artículo, si no están protegidos por otros regímenes de jubilación, siempre que hayan servido a la Administración Pública por un mínimo de diez años y tengan más de cincuenta años de edad, en cuyo caso tendrán derecho a una jubilación no menor de diez mil colones mensuales. Se interpreta auténticamente que los ex ministros y los ex viceministros también son aquellos que ocuparon cargos de Secretario y Subsecretario de Estado.Asimismo aquellas personas a quienes se les dio el rango de ministro o viceministro. Los cónyuges sobrevivientes de los mencionados ex funcionarios y las hijas no casadas o inválidas tendrán el mismo derecho. La pensión de los ex diputados jubilados por cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones se incrementará cada año en su treinta por ciento sobre el monto de la pensión de que disfruten, sin sujeción a los años de servicio y, en ningún caso, el monto total de la pensión podrá ser mayor a la remuneración total de las dietas o salarios que devengue mensualmente un diputado, por concepto de sesiones de comisión y de plenario de la Asamblea Legislativa. Las pensiones a que se refiere este régimen estarán sujetas a las siguientes deducciones: a) Las contempladas en el artículo 10 de esta ley. b) Las que indica la ley Nº 3808 del 22 de noviembre de 1966. c) Las cuotas para la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Las que indique el beneficiario de la pensión de la Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, y la proporción correspondiente en caso de pensión alimenticia.El Ministerio de Hacienda girará, a cada régimen, la suma necesaria para que pueda cubrir el incremento fijado por esta ley, para lo cual hará las previsiones presupuestarias correspondientes\". Finalmente fue reformado por la ley número 7.018, del 13 de diciembre de 1.985 (artículo 14), en el siguiente sentido: “38. Modifícase el párrafo tercero del artículo13 de la Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, N° 148 el 23 de agosto de 1.943 y sus reformas, cuyo texto dirá: En el caso de los diputados y ex diputados, la jubilación será igual al mejor sueldo devengado en los últimos cinco años, al servicio de la Administración Pública, y en ningún caso podrá ser menor de diez mil colones mensuales.” Algunas de esas reformas, específicamente las introducidas por las leyes números 6.191 de 1.977 (artículo 9), 6.542 de 1.980 (artículo 9), 6.700 de 1.981 (artículo 9), 6.811 de 1.982 (artículo 8, norma 183) y 7.018 de 1.985 (artículo 14, normas 37 y 38), fueron declaradas inconstitucionales, mediante el voto número 2.136, de las 14:00 horas, del 23 de octubre de 1.991, disponiéndose la nulidad de esas normas, sin perjuicio de los derechos adquiridos y disponiéndose, además, lo siguiente: “De igual forma, se dimensionan los efectos de la presente declaratoria, en el sentido de que todas aquellas personas que hubieren ingresado y cotizado para el Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley # 7013 de 18 de noviembre de 1985, por haberlo permitido así cualquiera de las normas presupuestarias que se declaran nulas y que esa ley contemple, tendrán derecho a permanecer en él. En cuanto a los servidores que hubieren ingresado al régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda con posterioridad a la promulgación de la Ley N° 7013 de 18 de noviembre de 1985 y aquellos que lo hubieran hecho en el de pensiones de comunicaciones, por haberlo permitido así cualquiera de las normas que se anulan, tendrán derecho a que las cuotas que hubieran pagado sean trasladadas, a su solicitud, al régimen especial de jubilaciones o pensiones que él indique, siempre que hubiese cotizado para él o hubiera estado legalmente facultado para hacerlo y si no lo hubiera hecho en ninguno, o no hubiese estado legalmente facultado para ello, podrá seguir cotizando para la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, la que deberá reconocerle el tiempo servido y tendrá derecho a exigir el traslado de las cuotas correspondientes, de acuerdo con las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias que lo regulan”. Según ese texto, los servidores que tuvieran derecho a acogerse a los beneficios de la Ley N 148, tenían derecho a una pensión completa, cuando hubiesen laborado un mínimo de treinta años y, a la vez, contaran con cincuenta años de edad. El párrafo segundo de ese artículo, establecía la posibilidad de disfrutar de una pensión, proporcional al número de años servidos, en el caso en que hubiesen laborado menos de treinta pero más de diez y, en este supuesto, se requería también aquella edad mínima de cincuenta años; siendo necesario, en ambos casos, el obligado y natural requisito de haber cotizado para el fondo de pensiones de Hacienda. Ahora bien, el actor no quedó cobijado por dicha normativa; siendo evidente que la misma hacía referencia a los empleados y funcionarios que, en aquél momento –requisito de actualidad- estuvieran prestando servicios en la Asamblea Legislativa y la Contraloría General de la República, así como, Laborando en otras dependencias e instituciones del Estado que, a esa misma fecha, hubiesen sido puntualmente incorporados, por distintas leyes, al régimen de pensiones de Hacienda. No siendo el caso, a la sazón, del IFAM., Presidencia de la República; JAPDEVA, ni del Banco Central, donde prestó servicios el actor. Tampoco por el hecho de haberse desempeñado en la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos pues, aunque esa dependencia hubiese quedado incorporada al régimen de hacienda, el actor carece del elemento o requisito de actualidad, indispensable para que pudiera quedar amparado por la susodicha reforma legal, toda vez que, a la fecha de su promulgación ya no laboraba para la misma pues tan solo lo hizo del 1 de noviembre al 30 de diciembre de 1963. En consecuencia, bajo dicha Ley N° 7.007, el actor no ingresó al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente. Por esa razón, sólo la Ley N° 7013, del 18 de noviembre de 1.985, fue la que le dio acceso a dicho régimen; pues fue la que abrió la posibilidad para que todos los servidores del Sector Público del Estado y sus Instituciones con excepción de los trabajadores cubiertos por los regímenes especiales de pensiones y jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional y del Poder Judicial de poder acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; y, para ello, introdujo una serie determinada de requisitos. En efecto, de conformidad con tal modificación normativa, los requerimientos necesarios, para lograr esa pensión, son los siguientes: a) Para una completa, haber cotizado durante treinta años, como mínimo, en cualquiera de los regímenes de pensiones y contar, por lo menos, con cincuenta años de edad. b) Para una proporcional, en el caso de los hombres, se les exigía una edad mínima de cincuenta y siete años y, en el de las mujeres, de cincuenta y cinco; caso éste en el cual, el monto de la pensión, se les otorgaría proporcionalmente en relación con los años efectiva y realmente cotizados; requisitos que, a la luz del Voto constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1.993, que declaró inconstitucional dicha Ley N° 7.013, debían cumplirse antes del 19 de mayo de 1.993; que fue la fecha del dimensionamiento del fallo. Así tenemos que, como expresó el A quo, en el subjúdice, se trata de un trabajador que al 19 de mayo de 1993, había cotizado 17 años, 2 meses y 9 días para el régimen de invalidez, Vejez y Muerte y tenía 48 años, 6 meses y 5 días, por lo que no cumplía con los requisitos. No solo por no haber cotizado con anterioridad ni con posterioridad a la Ley 7013 al fondo de pensiones de hacienda pues siempre lo hizo para el Régimen de pensiones administrado por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, sino además porque no contaba, en la fecha indicada, con 50 años de edad. Por lo que nunca llegó a adquirir derecho alguno al Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directamente por la Ley No. 148 aludida y sus reformas, entre ellas la reforma introducida por la citada Ley 7007, derogada por la Ley No. 7302 del 8 de julio de 1992. Las sentencias que en su apoyo cita la recurrente no vienen al caso por haber estado fundadas en supuestos de hecho y normativos distintos. Así, la resolución 33-2003 de las 10:30 horas del 31 de enero del 2003, no estuvo sustentada en la ley 7007, como en el presente caso, sino en la norma 48, de la Ley número 6700 del 14 de diciembre de 1981, que reformó el párrafo 2 del artículo 14 de la Ley número 148 del 23 de agosto de 1943. Nótese, por lo demás, que en esta sentencia se señaló que: En el caso concreto, el actor no cumplió, con anterioridad al 23 de agosto de 1991 (fecha de la primera publicación aludida en dicho dimensionamiento), con los requisitos establecidos en la Ley N° 148. De ahí que, no adquirió derecho a la pensión a la fecha de la primera publicación de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, a la que se hace referencia en la parte dispositiva del fallo. Sin embargo, de acuerdo con las probanzas indicadas, el demandante cotiza para el fondo de Pensiones de Hacienda desde el mes de febrero de 1982; es decir, desde antes de la promulgación de la Ley 7013 mencionada en aquel fallo. En consecuencia, mantuvo su derecho a permanecer en el Régimen en atención al dimensionamiento de los efectos de la anulación que se hiciera en esa resolución, en lo referente al derecho de pertenencia. Analizado el punto, se arriba a la conclusión que la anulación que luego se hace de la Ley 7013 por el Voto de la Sala Constitucional N° 1633, de las 14:33 horas, del 13 de abril de 1993, no se le pueden ligar efectos más allá de los que en ella se indican, interpretando que con ella se varió la protección de los derechos adquiridos ya dispuesta en aquel primer pronunciamiento número 2136, porque en esos precisos términos no se dispuso y, además, en virtud de que este otro fallo se refirió a un cuestionamiento distinto al que motivó aquella resolución.- III.- La Ley N° 7302, del 8 de julio de 1992, citada como fundamento de la demanda e invocada por el recurrente, creó el Régimen General de Pensiones, con cargo al Presupuesto Nacional. Mediante la promulgación de esta Ley, el legislador procuró unificar los distintos regímenes especiales de pensiones, con cargo a ese Presupuesto. En su artículo 1° establece que a ese Régimen “...se ajustará, en lo sucesivo, el otorgamiento de todas las jubilaciones y pensiones de los regímenes contributivos que tengan como base la prestación de servicio al Estado, originada con anterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de esta Ley y cuyo pago esté a cargo del Presupuesto Nacional”. Dentro de los regímenes que se contemplaban en ese artículo 1° estaba el de Hacienda, previsto en la Ley N° 148, del 23 de agosto de 1943. Así se dispuso en el artículo 2, del Decreto N° 21996, por el cual se dictó el Reglamento a esa Ley, al indicarse: “Son regímenes especiales contributivos sometidos al Régimen General de Pensiones de acuerdo con el artículo 1 de la Ley N° 7.302, los siguientes: ...f) Hacienda 148 y otros empleados. Ley N° 148 de 23 de agosto de 1943.”. En consecuencia, de conformidad con ese artículo primero de la Ley, en lo sucesivo, las pensiones concedidas con base en ese régimen especial, debían ajustarse al nuevo régimen general.Mas, en su Transitorio III establece que quienes al entrar en vigencia la Ley les falten menos de dieciocho meses para poder pensionarse o jubilarse según los requisitos originales de la legislación que se deroga, pueden hacerlo al cumplirlos siempre que se aporte la cotización que ahí se indica.Dicha normativa entró en vigencia a partir de su publicación, el 15 de julio de 1992, por lo que el actor podía adquirir derecho a pensión al amparo de la Ley 6700, hasta dieciocho meses después de esa data, o sea hasta el 15 de enero de 1994, como en efecto lo hizo. Nótese que de conformidad con la certificación de nacimiento de folio 28, para el 3 de enero de ese año, el demandante ya había alcanzado los 50 años de edad y según las probanzas indicadas tenía más de diez años de servicio; requisitos exigidos por la normativa en que apoya su pretensión (artículos 1° y 13 de la Ley número 148).”. La cual resulta inaplicable al caso del señor [Nombre1] , no solo por no haber cotizado para el régimen de hacienda, sino incluso porque, aunque tuviese más de 10 años de servicio, no había alcanzado los 50 años de edad al 15 de julio de 1994, sino que los cumplió hasta el 14 de noviembre de ese mismo año pues nació el 14 de noviembre de 1944 (documento de folio 11 del expediente administrativo). Por lo que, con menos razón todavía, habría podido tener derecho alguno a una pensión proporcional pues, como indica la misma recurrente, para ello es necesario contar con 55 años de edad. La otra sentencia que cita, a saber el voto No. 622-02 de las 9:50 horas del 11 de diciembre del 2002, tampoco resulta aplicable, por analogía. En ese caso quedó establecido el derecho de pertenencia al régimen de hacienda por haber laborado el actor para la Asamblea Legislativa, continuamente, a partir de marzo de 1978 y continuar haciéndolo sin solución de continuidad en octubre de 1999, según la última certificación de autos. Así como por haber cotizado a partir de marzo de 1985 –igualmente sin solución de continuidad- para el régimen especial de hacienda. Por lo que sí pudo ingresar al régimen con base en el numeral 13 de la Ley No. 148 puesto que dicho numeral siempre contempló, desde su promulgación, específicamente a los funcionarios y empleados de ese Poder de la República, como lo era, en ese caso, el actor. Situación que, como se explicó, no es igual a la del señor [Nombre1] , quien no solo no cotizó para el régimen especial de hacienda sino que, además, no ingresó al régimen por virtud del citado artículo 13.\"",
  "body_en_text": "IV.- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO BELONG TO THE HACIENDA PENSION REGIME: Having analyzed the offices where the plaintiff rendered services, it is clear that he could not have entered the Hacienda pension regime based on Article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended on repeated occasions. Law No. 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in Article 13, established: “The provisions of this law shall also apply to the officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, regarding services rendered in offices or for previous services in other functions. In these cases, the final decision shall be the purview of the Directorate of the Congress.” This numeral 13 underwent various amendments, in the form and order set forth below. By Law No. 2.417, of September 14, 1959 (Article 1), it was amended in the following sense: “The officials or employees of the Legislative Assembly, the Comptroller General of the Republic, and the former Control Center may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy to the Legislative Assembly shall be computed towards those served in the Public Administration.” Subsequently, with Law No. 2.493 of May 11, 1960 (Article 1), the following paragraph was added: “This pension regime shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall neither be protected by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to it when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that they do not wish to belong to that regime. The Directorate shall notify the National Treasury of those exclusions, so that in those cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not made.” In 1974, by Law No. 5.664, of December 27, 1974 (Article 9), the following paragraph was added: “Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over seventy years of age shall be entitled to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month.” By Law No. 5.696 of May 14, 1975 (Article 14), it was amended as follows: “Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall be entitled to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month.” In Article 9 of Law No. 5.875, of December 26, 1975, it was again modified: “Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over sixty-five years of age shall be entitled to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income allowing them to live with decorum.” Then, it was again amended by Law No. 6.025, of December 20, 1976 (Article 9): “Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age shall be entitled to a pension of no less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income allowing them to live with decorum.” Later, it was also amended by Law No. 6.191, of December 12, 1977, (Article 9), in the following sense: “Former members of the Supreme Branches, protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income allowing them to live with decorum.” By Article 20 of Law No. 6.256, of April 28, 1978, it was again modified, adding a new paragraph, which provided: “Equally, former members of the Supreme Branches not protected by other pension regimes may avail themselves of the rights established in this article if they meet the indicated requirements.” In that same year, it was amended, adding a new paragraph, through Article 9 of Law No. 6.305, of December 21 (1978), in the following sense: “Former members of the Supreme Branches, protected by this regime who are over sixty years of age, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income allowing them to live with decorum.” By Law 6.406, of December 17, 1979 (Article 9), it was again modified: “Former members of the Supreme Branches, covered by this regime, or their widows, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income allowing them to live with decorum.” Through Law No. 6.542, of December 22, 1980 (Article 9), said Article 13 was modified as follows: “Former members of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than ¢ 6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have fully completed or not the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of need, shall also be entitled to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3.808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must, ex officio on the payrolls, make the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm.” It was again modified by Law No. 6.700. of December 23, 1981 (Article 9), providing: “Amend the fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: \\\"Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than ¢ 8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have fully completed or not the term for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age, shall also be entitled to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must, ex officio on the payrolls, make the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm\\\". Add a final paragraph to Article 13 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943, and its amendments, which shall read: \\\"This norm amends the laws, articles, and clauses that oppose it.\\\" By Law No. 6.811, of September 10, 1982 (Article 8, norm 183), it was modified in the following sense: “Amend the fourth paragraph of Article 13 of the same law so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall be entitled to a pension of no less than ten thousand colones (¢ 10,000). Those former ministers of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, as applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who have fully completed or not the term for which they were elected; or under sixty years of age, shall also be entitled to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any kind of deductions, except those contemplated in Article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary budget items, in order to cover the obligations arising from this norm. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must, ex officio, make the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this norm.” Then, an attempt was made to amend it again, by Law No. 6.831, of December 23, 1982 (Article 54); however, regarding that and other norms, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Executive Branch. By Law No. 6.914, of November 28, 1983 (Article 10), it was again modified, in the following manner: \\\"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those providing their services in offices and institutions of the State, who are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, therefore they shall neither be protected by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall notify the corresponding office of those exclusions, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed towards the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the supreme branches, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without regard to years of service, and in no case may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of per diems or salaries earned monthly by a deputy for committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in Article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) Quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. d) Those indicated by the pension beneficiary to the Mechanized Technical Office, and the corresponding proportion in case of alimony. Transitory: The increase in pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this Article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety beginning in January 1983. The Ministry of Hacienda is authorized to vary the corresponding budget items in order to cover the obligations here established. The National Pension Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must, ex officio, in the corresponding payrolls, make the necessary adjustments to retirements and pensions already granted, to conform them to the provisions of this law.” By Law No. 6.963, of July 30, 1984 (Article 46), it was modified as follows: “Article 46. Amend the 5th paragraph of Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, amended by Article 10 of Law No. 6914 in the following manner: Former members of the supreme branches, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of no less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right.” Then, it underwent a new amendment, through Law No. 6.995 (Article 123), of July 22, 1985, where it was provided: Article 123.- Amend the fifth paragraph of Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1948 and its amendments, whose text shall read: \\\"Former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and vice ministers...\\\" (The rest of the paragraph unchanged). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister.\\\" It was also amended by the law that the appellant cites in her support, namely Law No. 7007, of November 5, 1985 (Article 5), providing: “Article 5.- Modify Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, whose text shall read: \\\"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those providing their services in offices and institutions of the State, who are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, therefore they shall neither be protected by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall notify the corresponding office of those exclusions, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in Article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed towards the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister. The surviving spouses of the mentioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without regard to years of service, and in no case may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of per diems or salaries earned monthly by a deputy for committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in Article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) Quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. d) Those indicated by the pension beneficiary to the Mechanized Technical Office, and the corresponding proportion in case of alimony. The Ministry of Hacienda shall transfer, to each regime, the sum necessary so that it can cover the increase established by this law, for which purpose it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions.\\\" Finally, it was amended by Law No. 7.018, of December 13, 1985 (Article 14), in the following sense: “38. Modify the third paragraph of Article 13 of the Hacienda Pension Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, whose text shall read: In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.” Some of those amendments, specifically those introduced by Laws No. 6.191 of 1977 (Article 9), 6.542 of 1980 (Article 9), 6.700 of 1981 (Article 9), 6.811 of 1982 (Article 8, norm 183), and 7.018 of 1985 (Article 14, norms 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional, by means of Vote No. 2.136, at 14:00 hours, of October 23, 1991, ordering the nullity of those norms, without prejudice to acquired rights and also ordering the following: “Likewise, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, in the sense that all those persons who had entered and contributed to the Hacienda Pension Regime prior to the entry into force of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary norms that are declared null and that said law contemplates had permitted it, shall have the right to remain in it. As for the servants who had entered the Hacienda Pension Regime after the promulgation of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, and those who had done so in the communications pension regime, because any of the norms that are annulled had permitted it, they shall have the right to have the quotas they had paid transferred, at their request, to the special retirement or pension regime he indicates, provided he had contributed to it or been legally authorized to do so, and if he had not done so in any, or had not been legally authorized to do so, he may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served, and he shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding quotas, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that regulate it.” According to that text, the servants who were entitled to the benefits of Law No. 148 were entitled to a full pension when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and simultaneously were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of enjoying a pension, proportional to the number of years served, in the event they had worked less than thirty but more than ten and, in this case, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; the mandatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the Hacienda pension fund being necessary in both cases. Now, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulation; it being evident that it referred to the employees and officials who, at that moment – requirement of currency – were providing services in the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, as well as working in other offices and institutions of the State that, at that same date, had been punctually incorporated, by different laws, into the Hacienda pension regime. Not being the case, at that time, of IFAM, the Presidency of the Republic, JAPDEVA, nor the Central Bank, where the plaintiff rendered services. Nor due to the fact of having worked in the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses because, although that office had been incorporated into the Hacienda regime, the plaintiff lacks the element or requirement of currency, indispensable to be covered by the aforementioned legal amendment, given that, at the date of its promulgation, he was no longer working there since he only did so from November 1 to December 30, 1963. Consequently, under said Law No. 7.007, the plaintiff did not enter the Hacienda Pension Regime, just as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law No. 7013, of November 18, 1985, was what gave him access to said regime; for it was what opened the possibility for all servants of the State Public Sector and its Institutions – with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the National Teachers and the Judicial Branch – to be able to avail themselves of the Hacienda Pension Regime; and, for that, it introduced a determined series of requirements. Indeed, in conformity with said normative modification, the necessary requirements to achieve that pension are the following: a) For a full pension, having contributed for thirty years, at minimum, under any of the pension regimes, and being at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional pension, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required and, for women, fifty-five; in which case, the amount of the pension would be granted proportionally in relation to the years effectively and actually contributed; requirements that, in light of Constitutional Vote No. 1633, at 14:33 hours, of April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7.013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the dimensioning of the ruling. Thus we have that, as the lower court judge expressed, in the case at hand, we are dealing with a worker who as of May 19, 1993, had contributed 17 years, 2 months, and 9 days to the Disability, Old Age, and Death regime and was 48 years, 6 months, and 5 days old, so he did not meet the requirements. Not only for not having contributed before or after Law 7013 to the Hacienda pension fund, since he always did so for the Pension regime administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, but also because he was not, on the indicated date, 50 years of age. Therefore, he never acquired any right to the Hacienda Pension Regime directly by the aforementioned Law No. 148 and its amendments, among them the amendment introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992. The judgments cited by the appellant in her support are not relevant, having been based on different factual and normative assumptions. Thus, resolution 33-2003 at 10:30 hours of January 31, 2003, was not based on Law 7007, as in the present case, but on norm 48 of Law No. 6700 of December 14, 1981, which amended paragraph 2 of Article 14 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943. Note, moreover, that in this judgment it was stated: In the specific case, the plaintiff did not meet, prior to August 23, 1991 (date of the first publication referred to in said dimensioning), the requirements established in Law No. 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to a pension as of the date of the first publication of the constitutional challenge action, referred to in the operative part of the ruling. However, according to the indicated evidence, the plaintiff had been contributing to the Hacienda Pension fund since February 1982; that is, since before the promulgation of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling. Consequently, he maintained his right to remain in the Regime, pursuant to the dimensioning of the effects of the annulment made in that resolution, regarding the right of belonging. Having analyzed the point, we arrive at the conclusion that the annulment later made of Law 7013 by Constitutional Chamber Vote No. 1633, at 14:33 hours, of April 13, 1993, cannot be tied to effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that with it the protection of acquired rights already provided for in that first pronouncement number 2136 was varied, because it was not so ordered in those precise terms, and furthermore, by virtue of the fact that this other ruling referred to a different challenge than the one that motivated that resolution. - III.- Law No. 7302, of July 8, 1992, cited as grounds for the lawsuit and invoked by the appellant, created the General Pension Regime, charged to the National Budget. Through the promulgation of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the different special pension regimes, charged to said Budget. In its Article 1, it establishes that to that Regime “...shall be adjusted, henceforth, the granting of all retirements and pensions of the contributory regimes that are based on the provision of service to the State, originated prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget...”. Among the regimes contemplated in that Article 1 was the Hacienda regime, provided for in Law No. 148, of August 23, 1943. It was so ordered in Article 2 of Decree No. 21996, by which the Regulations for that Law were issued, stating: “The special contributory regimes subject to the General Pension Regime in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 7.302 are the following: ... f) Hacienda 148 and other employees. Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943.” Consequently, in conformity with that first article of the Law, henceforth, the pensions granted based on that special regime had to conform to the new general regime. But, in its Transitory Provision III, it establishes that those who, when the Law enters into force, lack less than eighteen months to be able to obtain their pension or retirement according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon fulfilling them, provided they contribute the quota indicated therein. Said regulation entered into force upon its publication, on July 15, 1992, so the plaintiff could acquire the right to a pension under Law 6700 up to eighteen months after that date, that is, until January 15, 1994, as he effectively did. Note that, in accordance with the birth certificate on page 28, by January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and, according to the indicated evidence, had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulations on which he bases his claim (Articles 1 and 13 of Law No. 148).” Which is inapplicable to Mr. [Nombre1]’s case, not only for not having contributed to the Hacienda regime, but even because, although he had more than 10 years of service, he had not reached 50 years of age by July 15, 1994, but rather he reached that age until November 14 of that same year since he was born on November 14, 1944 (document on page 11 of the administrative file). For which reason, even less could he have had any right to a proportional pension since, as the appellant herself indicates, for that it is necessary to be 55 years of age. The other judgment she cites, namely Vote No. 622-02 at 9:50 hours of December 11, 2002, is also not applicable by analogy.\n\nIn that case, the right of belonging to the treasury regime was established because the plaintiff had worked for the Legislative Assembly, continuously, starting in March 1978 and continuing to do so without interruption in October 1999, according to the latest certification in the record. As well as because he had contributed starting in March 1985 –likewise without interruption– to the special treasury regime. Therefore, he was able to enter the regime based on numeral 13 of Law No. 148, since that numeral always contemplated, from its enactment, specifically the officials and employees of that Branch of the Republic, as was, in that case, the plaintiff. A situation that, as explained, is not the same as that of Mr. [Name1], who not only did not contribute to the special treasury regime but, furthermore, did not enter the regime by virtue of the cited article 13.\"\n\n\"IV.- ON THE RIGHT OF BELONGING TO THE TREASURY PENSION REGIME: Having analyzed the offices where the plaintiff provided his services, it is clear that he could not enter the Treasury pension regime based on article 13 of Law 148. That article has been amended on repeated occasions. Law number 148, of August 23, 1943, originally, in article 13, established: \"The provisions of this law shall also apply to the officials and employees of the Constitutional Congress and those of the Control Center, with regard to services rendered in offices or for prior services in other functions. In these cases, it shall be the authority of the Directorate of the Congress to take definitive cognizance thereof.\" This numeral 13 underwent several modifications, in the form and in the order that will be stated. By Law number 2,417, of September 14, 1959 (article 1), it was amended in the following sense: \"The officials or employees of the Legislative Assembly, of the Comptroller General of the Republic and of the former Control Center, may request their retirement with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the time of retiring, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. In the case of deputies, the pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years. The years served as a deputy to the Legislative Assembly shall be computed toward those served in the Public Administration.\" Subsequently, with Law number 2,493 of May 11, 1960 (article 1), the following paragraph was added: \"This pension regime shall be optional for Deputies. Consequently, they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute economically to it, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly that they do not wish to belong to that regime. The Directorate shall notify the National Treasury of these exclusions, so that in those cases the deduction indicated in this same law is not made.\" In 1974, by Law No. 5,664, of December 27, 1974 (article 9), the following paragraph was added: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over seventy years of age, shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month.\" By Law No. 5,696 of May 14, 1975 (article 14), it was amended thus: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this regime who are over sixty-five years of age, shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month.\" In article 9, of Law No. 5,875, of December 26, 1975, it was again amended: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over sixty-five years of age, shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum.\" Later, it was again amended by Law No. 6,025, of December 20, 1976 (article 9): \"Former members of the Supreme Branches protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age, shall have the right to a pension of no less than two thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum.\" Further on it was also amended by Law No. 6,191, of December 12, 1977, (article 9), in the following sense: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches, protected by this Regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than three thousand five hundred colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum.\" By article 20 of Law number 6,256, of April 28, 1978 it was again amended, adding a new paragraph, which provided: \"Likewise, former members of the Supreme Branches not protected by other pension regimes, who meet the indicated requirements, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article.\" In that same year, it was amended, adding a new paragraph, by means of article 9 of Law No. 6,305, of December 21 (1978), in the following sense: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches, protected by this regime who are over sixty years of age or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum.\" By Law 6,406, of December 17, 1979 (article 9), it was again amended: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches, covered by this regime or their widows, shall have the right to a pension of no less than five thousand colones per month, provided they do not have other income that allows them to live with decorum.\" By means of Law No. 6,542, of December 22, 1980 (article 9), said article 13 was amended thus: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢6,000.00 (six thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, where applicable, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age in case of need, shall also have the right to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in article 10 of this law and in Law No. 3,808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items, to cover the obligations deriving from this rule. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule.\" It was again amended by Law number 6,700, of December 23, 1981 (article 9), providing: \"The fourth paragraph of article 13 of the same law is amended, so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: 'Article 13.- Former members of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ¢8,000.00 (eight thousand colones). Those former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their spouses, surviving in their case, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the period for which they were elected, or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in article 10 of this law and in Law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items, to cover the obligations deriving from this rule. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the payrolls, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule.' A final paragraph is added to article 13 of Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, which shall read: 'This rule amends the laws, articles, and subsections that oppose it.'\" By Law No. 6,811, of September 10, 1982 (article 8, rule 183), it was amended in the following sense: \"The fourth paragraph of article 13 of the same law is amended so that the text of the fourth and fifth paragraphs reads: Article 13: Former ministers of the Supreme Branches or their surviving spouses, protected by this regime, shall have the right to a pension of no less than ten thousand colones (¢10,000). Those former ministers of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and their surviving spouses, in their case, over sixty years of age, not protected by this pension regime, who may or may not have fully completed the period for which they were elected; or under sixty years of age, shall also have the right to a pension of no less than said amount. The pensions referred to in this paragraph shall not be subject to any type of deductions, except those contemplated in article 10 of this law and in Law number 3808 of November 22, 1966, as well as those referring to quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social and the corresponding proportion, in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary budget items, in order to cover the obligations deriving from this rule. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio, the necessary adjustments to conform them to the provisions of this rule.\" Later, an attempt was again made to amend it, by Law number 6,831, of December 23, 1982 (article 54); however, with regard to that and other rules, the law was returned without the corresponding sanction of the Executive Branch. By Law No. 6,914, of November 28, 1983 (article 10), it was again amended, in the following manner: \"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who render their services in State offices and institutions, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retiring, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute economically to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall notify the corresponding office of these exclusions, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed toward the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the supreme branches, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries earned monthly by a deputy, for committee sessions and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) The quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony. Transitory: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety starting from the month of January 1983. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary the corresponding budget items, in order to cover the obligations established herein. The National Pensions Department of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must make, ex officio on the corresponding payrolls, the necessary adjustments to the retirements and pensions already granted, to conform them to the provisions of this law.\" By Law No. 6,963, of July 30, 1984 (article 46), it was amended thus: \"Article 46. The 5th paragraph of article 13 of the Treasury Pensions Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, amended by article 10 of Law number 6914, is amended in the following manner: Former members of the supreme branches, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right.\" Later, it underwent a new amendment, by Law No. 6,995 (article 123), of July 22, 1985, where it was provided: Article 123.- The fifth paragraph of article 13 of the Treasury Pensions Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1948 and its amendments is amended, whose text shall read: \"Former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and deputy ministers...\" (The rest of the paragraph the same). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former deputy ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise those persons who were given the rank of minister or deputy minister.\" It was also amended by the law that the appellant cites in her support, that is, Law No. 7007, of November 5, 1985 (article 5), providing: \"Article 5.- Article 13 of the Treasury Pensions Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is amended, whose text shall read: 'Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who render their services in State offices and institutions, who have the right to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned in the institution at the time of retiring, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be protected by its benefits nor obliged to contribute economically to the respective fund, when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall notify the corresponding office of these exclusions, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be computed toward the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the Supreme Branches, including vice presidents and deputy ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not protected by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall have the right to a retirement pension of no less than ten thousand colones per month. It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former deputy ministers are also those who held the positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise those persons who were given the rank of minister or deputy minister. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, without being subject to years of service and, in no case, may the total amount of the pension be greater than the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries earned monthly by a deputy, for committee sessions and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) The quotas for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance shall transfer, to each regime, the sum necessary to cover the increase set by this law, for which it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions'.\" Finally, it was amended by Law number 7,018, of December 13, 1985 (article 14), in the following sense: \"38. The third paragraph of article 13 of the Treasury Pensions Law, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is amended, whose text shall read: In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement pension shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years, in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.\" Some of these amendments, specifically those introduced by Laws numbers 6,191 of 1977 (article 9), 6,542 of 1980 (article 9), 6,700 of 1981 (article 9), 6,811 of 1982 (article 8, rule 183) and 7,018 of 1985 (article 14, rules 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional, by means of vote number 2,136, at 2:00 p.m., of October 23, 1991, ordering the nullity of those rules, without prejudice to acquired rights and also ordering the following: \"In the same manner, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, in the sense that all those persons who had entered and contributed to the Treasury Pensions Regime prior to the entry into force of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary rules that are declared null and that this law contemplates had so permitted, shall have the right to remain in it. As for the servants who had entered the Treasury Pensions Regime after the enactment of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985 and those who had done so in the communications pension regime, because any of the rules that are annulled had so permitted, shall have the right that the quotas they had paid be transferred, at their request, to the special retirement or pension regime they indicate, provided they had contributed to it or had been legally authorized to do so, and if they had not done so to any, or had not been legally authorized to do so, they may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served and they shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding quotas, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern it.\" According to that text, the servants who had the right to avail themselves of the benefits of Law No. 148, had the right to a full pension, when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and, at the same time, were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of enjoying a pension, proportional to the number of years served, in the case where they had worked less than thirty but more than ten and, in this scenario, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; it being necessary, in both cases, the obligatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the Treasury pension fund. Now then, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulation; it being evident that it referred to the employees and officials who, at that time –a requirement of contemporaneity– were rendering services in the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, as well as working in other State offices and institutions that, on that same date, had been punctually incorporated, by different laws, into the Treasury pension regime. This not being the case, at that time, of IFAM, Presidency of the Republic; JAPDEVA, nor the Central Bank, where the plaintiff provided services. Nor by the fact of having served in the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos because, although that office had been incorporated into the treasury regime, the plaintiff lacks the element or requirement of contemporaneity, indispensable for him to be covered by the aforementioned legal amendment, since, on the date of its enactment, he no longer worked for it, having only done so from November 1 to December 30, 1963. Consequently, under said Law No. 7,007, the plaintiff did not enter the Treasury Pensions Regime, as the appellant intends. For that reason, only Law No. 7013, of November 18, 1985, was the one that gave him access to said regime; since it was the one that opened the possibility for all the servants of the State Public Sector and its Institutions –with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the Magisterio Nacional and the Judicial Branch– to be able to avail themselves of the Treasury Pensions Regime; and, for that purpose, it introduced a specific set of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with such regulatory modification, the necessary requirements, to achieve that pension, are the following: a) For a full one, to have contributed for thirty years, at a minimum, in any of the pension regimes and to be, at least, fifty years of age.\n\nb) For a proportional one, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required and, in the case of women, fifty-five; in this latter case, the pension amount would be granted proportionally in relation to the years actually and really contributed; requirements that, in light of Constitutional Vote No. 1633, of 14:33 hours, of April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7013 unconstitutional, </span><span style=\\\"font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; text-decoration:underline; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\\\">had to be met before May 19, 1993</span><span style=\\\"font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\\\">; which was the date of the ruling's dimensioning. Thus, we have that, as expressed by the lower court (A quo), in the sub judice, this concerns a worker who, as of May 19, 1993, had contributed 17 years, 2 months, and 9 days to the Disability, Old Age, and Death (invalidez, Vejez y Muerte) regime and was 48 years, 6 months, and 5 days old, and therefore did not meet the requirements. Not only because he had not contributed, either before or after Law 7013, to the Treasury pension fund, as he always contributed to the Pension Regime administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, but also because, on the indicated date, he was not 50 years old. Therefore, he never acquired any right to the Treasury Pension Regime directly by the aforementioned Law No. 148 and its amendments, including the amendment introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992. The judgments cited in support by the appellant are not pertinent because they were based on different factual and normative assumptions. Thus, resolution 33-2003 of 10:30 hours of January 31, 2003, was not based on Law 7007, as in the present case, but on rule 48, of Law number 6700 of December 14, 1981, which reformed paragraph 2 of Article 14 of Law number 148 of August 23, 1943. Note, moreover, that this judgment stated: *In the specific case, the plaintiff did not meet, prior to August 23, 1991 (date of the first publication alluded to in said dimensioning), the requirements established in Law No. 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to a pension as of the date of the first publication of the unconstitutionality action, referred to in the operative part of the ruling. However, according to the indicated evidence, the plaintiff* **contributes to the Treasury Pension Fund since February 1982; that is, since before the enactment of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling.**  *Consequently, he maintained his right to remain in the Regime in consideration of the dimensioning of the effects of the annulment made in that resolution, with regard to the right of membership (pertenencia). Having analyzed the point, the conclusion is reached that the annulment later made of Law 7013 by Vote of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) No. 1633, of 14:33 hours, of April 13, 1993, cannot be linked to effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that it thereby varied the protection of acquired rights already provided in that first pronouncement number 2136, because in those precise terms it was not so provided and, furthermore, because this other ruling referred to a different challenge than the one that motivated that resolution.-* **III.-**  *Law No. 7302, of July 8, 1992, cited as a basis for the claim and invoked by the appellant, created the General Pension Regime, charged to the National Budget. Through the enactment of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the various special pension regimes, charged to that Budget. Its Article 1 establishes that to that Regime “...shall be adjusted, in the future, the granting of all pensions and retirements of the contributory regimes that are based on the provision of service to the State, originating prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget”. Among the regimes contemplated in that Article 1 was the Treasury one, provided for in Law No. 148, of August 23, 1943. This was provided for in Article 2, of Decree No. 21996, by which the Regulation to that Law was issued, when indicating: “The special contributory regimes subject to the General Pension Regime in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 7,302 are the following: ...f) Treasury (Hacienda) 148 and other employees. Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943.” Consequently, in accordance with that first article of the Law, in the future, the pensions granted based on that special regime had to be adjusted to the new general regime. However, in its Transitory Provision III it establishes that those for whom, upon the Law's entry into force, less than eighteen months remain to be able to retire or be pensioned according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon fulfilling them provided they make the contribution indicated therein. Said regulation entered into force upon its publication, on July 15, 1992, therefore the plaintiff could acquire the right to a pension under Law 6700, up to eighteen months after that date, that is, until January 15, 1994, as he indeed did. Note that in accordance with the birth certificate on folio 28, by January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and according to the indicated evidence had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulation on which he bases his claim (Articles 1 and 13 of Law number 148).”.* Which is inapplicable to the case of Mr. [Name1] , not only because he did not contribute to the Treasury regime, but even because, although he had more than 10 years of service, he had not reached 50 years of age by July 15, 1994, but rather reached that age on November 14 of that same year since he was born on November 14, 1944 (document on folio 11 of the administrative file). Therefore, even less so could he have had any right to a proportional pension since, as the appellant herself indicates, this requires being 55 years of age. The other judgment cited, namely vote No. 622-02 of 9:50 hours of December 11, 2002, is likewise not applicable by analogy. In that case, the right of membership (pertenencia) to the Treasury regime was established because the plaintiff had worked for the Legislative Assembly, continuously, from March 1978 and continued to do so without interruption in October 1999, according to the last certification in the record. As well as because he had contributed from March 1985 –likewise without interruption– to the special Treasury regime. Therefore, he was able to enter the regime based on numeral 13 of Law No. 148 since that numeral always contemplated, since its enactment, specifically the officials and employees of that Branch of the Republic, as was the plaintiff in that case. A situation which, as explained, is not the same as that of Mr. [Name1] , who not only did not contribute to the special Treasury regime but, moreover, did not enter the regime by virtue of the cited Article 13.\"\n\nBy Law No. 6,914 of November 28, 1983 (article 10), it was again amended, as follows: \"Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who provide their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement amount shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be counted together with the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement amount of not less than ten thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, regardless of the years of service, and in no case may the total amount of the pension exceed the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries that a deputy earns monthly for committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) The contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony. Transitory: The increase in the pensions of former deputies, referred to in the fourth paragraph of this article 13, shall be recognized in its entirety as of the month of January 1983. The Ministry of Finance is authorized to vary the corresponding budget items in order to cover the obligations established herein. The National Department of Pensions of the Ministry of Labor and Social Security must, ex officio, make the necessary adjustments in the corresponding payrolls to the retirements and pensions already granted, to adapt them to the provisions of this law.\" By Law No. 6,963 of July 30, 1984 (article 46), it was amended as follows: \"Article 46. The 5th paragraph of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, amended by article 10 of Law number 6914, is hereby amended as follows: Former members of the supreme powers, including vice presidents, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of 10 years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement amount of not less than 10 thousand colones per month. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right.\" Subsequently, it underwent a new amendment, by Law No. 6,995 (article 123), of July 22, 1985, which provided: \"Article 123.- The fifth paragraph of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1948 and its amendments, is hereby amended, the text of which shall read: 'Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers...' (The rest of the paragraph remains the same). It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister.\" It was also amended by the law cited in support by the appellant, that is, No. 7007 of November 5, 1985 (article 5), providing: \"Article 5.- Article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is hereby modified, the text of which shall read: 'Article 13.- The employees and officials of the Legislative Assembly and of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and those who provide their services in dependencies and institutions of the State, who are entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of this law, may request their retirement, with the right to receive a pension equal to the average salary earned at the institution at the time of retirement, provided they have served more than thirty years and are over fifty years of age. When they have served less than thirty years but more than ten, the pension shall be proportional to the number of years served. This pension regime shall be optional for deputies and former deputies, so they shall not be covered by its benefits nor obligated to contribute financially to the respective fund when they notify the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly in writing that they do not wish to belong to the regime. The Directorate shall communicate these exclusions to the corresponding office, so that in those cases the deductions indicated in article 10 of this law are not made. In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement amount shall be equal to the average salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month. The years served as deputies shall be counted together with the other years served in the Public Administration, so that a minimum of ten years of service can be demonstrated. Former members of the Supreme Powers, including vice presidents and vice ministers, may avail themselves of the rights established in this article, if they are not covered by other retirement regimes, provided they have served the Public Administration for a minimum of ten years and are over fifty years of age, in which case they shall be entitled to a retirement amount of not less than ten thousand colones per month. It is authentically interpreted that former ministers and former vice ministers are also those who held positions of Secretary and Undersecretary of State. Likewise, those persons who were given the rank of minister or vice minister. The surviving spouses of the aforementioned former officials and unmarried or disabled daughters shall have the same right. The pension of former deputies retired under any of the pension regimes shall be increased each year by thirty percent over the amount of the pension they enjoy, regardless of the years of service, and in no case may the total amount of the pension exceed the total remuneration of the per diems or salaries that a deputy earns monthly for committee and plenary sessions of the Legislative Assembly. The pensions referred to in this regime shall be subject to the following deductions: a) Those contemplated in article 10 of this law. b) Those indicated by Law No. 3808 of November 22, 1966. c) The contributions to the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. ch) Those indicated by the beneficiary of the pension to the Oficina Técnica Mecanizada, and the corresponding proportion in the case of alimony. The Ministry of Finance shall transfer to each regime the necessary sum to cover the increase established by this law, for which it shall make the corresponding budgetary provisions'.\" Finally, it was amended by Law number 7,018 of December 13, 1985 (article 14), in the following sense: \"'38. The third paragraph of article 13 of the Ley de Pensiones de Hacienda, No. 148 of August 23, 1943 and its amendments, is hereby modified, the text of which shall read: In the case of deputies and former deputies, the retirement amount shall be equal to the best salary earned in the last five years in the service of the Public Administration, and in no case may it be less than ten thousand colones per month.'\" Some of these amendments, specifically those introduced by Laws numbers 6,191 of 1977 (article 9), 6,542 of 1980 (article 9), 6,700 of 1981 (article 9), 6,811 of 1982 (article 8, norm 183), and 7,018 of 1985 (article 14, norms 37 and 38), were declared unconstitutional, through Voto number 2,136, at 2:00 p.m., on October 23, 1991, ordering the nullity of those norms, without prejudice to acquired rights and further ordering the following: \"In the same manner, the effects of this declaration are dimensioned, in the sense that all those persons who had entered and contributed to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda prior to the entry into force of Law # 7013 of November 18, 1985, because any of the budgetary norms that are declared null and that said law contemplates had so permitted, shall have the right to remain in it. As for the employees who had entered the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda after the promulgation of Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, and those who had done so in the communications pension regime, because any of the norms that are annulled had so permitted, they shall have the right to have the contributions they had paid transferred, at their request, to the special retirement or pension regime that they indicate, provided they had contributed to it or had been legally empowered to do so, and if they had not done so in any, or had not been legally empowered for it, they may continue contributing to the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, which must recognize the time served, and they shall have the right to demand the transfer of the corresponding contributions, in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern it.\" According to that text, the employees who were entitled to avail themselves of the benefits of Law No. 148 were entitled to a full pension when they had worked a minimum of thirty years and, at the same time, were fifty years of age. The second paragraph of that article established the possibility of enjoying a pension proportional to the number of years served, in the event that they had worked less than thirty but more than ten years, and in this scenario, that minimum age of fifty years was also required; being necessary, in both cases, the obligatory and natural requirement of having contributed to the Hacienda pension fund. Now then, the plaintiff was not covered by said regulation; it being evident that it referred to the employees and officials who, at that moment—a requirement of currency—were providing services in the Legislative Assembly and the Comptroller General of the Republic, as well as working in other dependencies and institutions of the State that, at that same date, had been punctually incorporated, by different laws, into the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda. Not being the case, at that time, for IFAM, Presidencia de la República, JAPDEVA, nor the Banco Central, where the plaintiff provided services. Nor by the fact of having worked in the Dirección General de Estadística y Censos because, although that dependency had been incorporated into the Hacienda regime, the plaintiff lacks the element or requirement of currency, indispensable to be able to be covered by the aforementioned legal reform, since, at the date of its promulgation, he no longer worked for it, having only done so from November 1 to December 30, 1963. Consequently, under said Law No. 7,007, the plaintiff did not enter the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda, just as the appellant claims. For that reason, only Law No. 7013 of November 18, 1985, was what gave him access to said regime; because it was what opened the possibility for all employees of the State's Public Sector and its Institutions—with the exception of workers covered by the special pension and retirement regimes of the National Teaching Profession and the Judicial Branch—to be able to avail themselves of the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda; and, for this, it introduced a specific series of requirements. Indeed, in accordance with such regulatory modification, the necessary requirements to obtain that pension are the following: a) For a full pension, having contributed for thirty years, at a minimum, in any of the pension regimes and being at least fifty years of age. b) For a proportional pension, in the case of men, a minimum age of fifty-seven years was required, and in the case of women, fifty-five; in which case, the amount of the pension would be granted proportionally in relation to the years effectively and actually contributed; requirements that, in light of Constitutional Voto No. 1633, at 2:33 p.m., on April 13, 1993, which declared said Law No. 7,013 unconstitutional, had to be met before May 19, 1993; which was the date of the ranking of the ruling. Thus we have that, as expressed by the lower court, in the sub judice, this concerns a worker who, as of May 19, 1993, had contributed 17 years, 2 months, and 9 days to the disability, old age, and death regime and was 48 years, 6 months, and 5 days old, meaning he did not meet the requirements. Not only because he had not contributed before or after Law 7013 to the Hacienda pension fund, since he always did so for the pension regime administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, but also because he was not, on the indicated date, 50 years of age. Therefore, he never came to acquire any right to the Régimen de Pensiones de Hacienda directly through the aforementioned Law No. 148 and its amendments, among them the amendment introduced by the cited Law 7007, repealed by Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992. The judgments that the appellant cites in his support are not relevant because they were based on different factual and normative assumptions. Thus, resolution 33-2003 at 10:30 a.m. on January 31, 2003, was not supported by Law 7007, as in the present case, but by norm 48 of Law number 6700 of December 14, 1981, which amended the 2nd paragraph of article 14 of Law number 148 of August 23, 1943. It should further be noted that this judgment stated that: \"In the specific case, the plaintiff did not comply, prior to August 23, 1991 (the date of the first publication alluded to in said ranking), with the requirements established in Law No. 148. Hence, he did not acquire the right to a pension as of the date of the first publication of the unconstitutionality action, referred to in the operative part of the ruling. However, according to the indicated proofs, the plaintiff has been contributing to the Pensiones de Hacienda fund since the month of February 1982; that is, since before the promulgation of Law 7013 mentioned in that ruling. Consequently, he maintained his right to remain in the regime, in consideration of the ranking of the effects of the annulment that was made in that resolution, regarding the right of belonging. Having analyzed the point, the conclusion is reached that the annulment later made of Law 7013 by the constitutional chamber's Voto No. 1633, at 2:33 p.m., on April 13, 1993, cannot be linked to effects beyond those indicated therein, interpreting that it varied the protection of acquired rights already provided in that first ruling number 2136, because it was not so ordered in those precise terms and, furthermore, because this other ruling referred to a different question than the one that motivated that resolution.- III.- Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992, cited as the basis of the complaint and invoked by the appellant, created the General Pensions Regime, charged to the National Budget. Through the promulgation of this Law, the legislator sought to unify the different special pension regimes charged to that Budget. In its article 1, it establishes that to this Regime '... shall conform, henceforth, the granting of all retirements and pensions of the contributory regimes based on the provision of service to the State, originated prior to the entry into force of this Law and whose payment is charged to the National Budget.' Among the regimes contemplated in that article 1 was that of Hacienda, provided for in Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943. This was provided in article 2 of Decree No. 21996, by which the Regulation to that Law was issued, stating: 'The special contributory regimes subject to the General Pensions Regime in accordance with article 1 of Law No. 7,302 are the following: ...f) Hacienda 148 and other employees. Law No. 148 of August 23, 1943.' Consequently, in accordance with that first article of the Law, henceforth, the pensions granted based on that special regime had to conform to the new general regime. However, in its Transitory III, it establishes that those who, when the Law enters into force, lack less than eighteen months to be able to obtain a pension or retirement according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may do so upon fulfilling them, provided they contribute the payment indicated therein. Said regulation entered into force as of its publication, July 15, 1992, so the plaintiff could acquire the right to a pension under Law 6700, up to eighteen months after that date, that is, up to January 15, 1994, as he effectively did. Note that, in accordance with the birth certificate on folio 28, by January 3 of that year, the plaintiff had already reached 50 years of age and, according to the indicated proofs, had more than ten years of service; requirements demanded by the regulation on which he bases his claim (articles 1 and 13 of Law number 148).\" This is inapplicable to the case of Mr. [Name1], not only because he did not contribute to the Hacienda regime, but even because, although he had more than 10 years of service, he had not reached 50 years of age by July 15, 1994, but rather reached it on November 14 of that same year, since he was born on November 14, 1944 (document on folio 11 of the administrative expediente). Therefore, with even less reason, he could have had any right to a proportional pension because, as the appellant herself indicates, for this it is necessary to be 55 years of age. The other judgment she cites, namely Voto No. 622-02 at 9:50 a.m. on December 11, 2002, is also not applicable by analogy. In that case, the right of belonging to the Hacienda regime was established because the plaintiff had worked for the Legislative Assembly continuously from March 1978 and continued to do so without interruption in October 1999, according to the latest certification in the case file. As well as because he had contributed starting in March 1985—likewise without interruption—to the special Hacienda regime. Therefore, he was able to enter the regime based on numeral 13 of Law No. 148, since said numeral always contemplated, since its promulgation, specifically the officials and employees of that Branch of the Republic, as was the plaintiff in that case. A situation that, as was explained, is not the same as that of Mr. [Name1], who not only did not contribute to the special Hacienda regime but, furthermore, did not enter the regime by virtue of the cited article 13.\""
}