{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-1011-382351",
  "citation": "Res. 00191-2025 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Potestad disciplinaria de órganos distintos a la Contraloría en faltas que afectan la Hacienda Pública",
  "title_en": "Disciplinary Powers of Bodies Other Than the Comptroller for Offenses Affecting Public Funds",
  "summary_es": "La sentencia del Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda resuelve un recurso donde se discutía si únicamente la Contraloría General de la República (CGR) podía instruir procedimientos disciplinarios contra un funcionario por faltas que pudieran perjudicar la Hacienda Pública. El tribunal determinó que la potestad disciplinaria en estos casos no es exclusiva de la CGR. Aunque la Contraloría posee competencia para investigar y recomendar sanciones en el ámbito de control y fiscalización de la Hacienda Pública, el tribunal interpretó que el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense (incluyendo la Ley General de Control Interno, la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, y la Ley de Administración Financiera) también faculta a los superiores jerárquicos de cada administración pública para iniciar esos procedimientos. La decisión enfatizó que limitar esa potestad únicamente a la CGR generaría impunidad si esta no interviniera, y que interpretar lo contrario atentaría contra los fines de los sistemas de control de la Hacienda Pública. En el caso, se confirmó la improcedencia de los argumentos del recurrente.",
  "summary_en": "The ruling by the Contentious-Administrative and Public Finance Court of Appeals addresses whether only the Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR) can initiate disciplinary proceedings against an official for misconduct that could harm public finances. The court held that the disciplinary power in such cases is not exclusive to the CGR. While the Comptroller has the authority to investigate and issue binding recommendations on sanctioning in matters of control and oversight of public funds, the Costa Rican legal framework—including the General Internal Control Law, the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment, and the Law on Financial Administration—also empowers the hierarchical superiors of each public entity to commence such proceedings. The decision stressed that limiting this power solely to the CGR would result in impunity if the CGR failed to act, and that a contrary interpretation would undermine the purpose of public finance control systems. The appeal was dismissed on these grounds.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda",
  "date": "19/12/2025",
  "year": "2025",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "Hacienda Pública",
    "potestad disciplinaria",
    "Contraloría General de la República",
    "recomendación vinculante",
    "Ley General de Control Interno",
    "Ley contra la Corrupción"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política",
      "article": "183",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política 0",
      "article": "183",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política",
      "article": "184",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política 0",
      "article": "184",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "article": "10",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 6227",
      "article": "10",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7428",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "article": "68",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7428",
      "article": "68",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8292",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "article": "8",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8292",
      "article": "8",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "potestad disciplinaria",
    "Hacienda Pública",
    "Contraloría General de la República",
    "procedimiento disciplinario",
    "competencia concurrente",
    "Ley General de Control Interno",
    "Ley contra la Corrupción",
    "Ley de Administración Financiera",
    "recomendación vinculante",
    "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "disciplinary power",
    "public treasury",
    "Comptroller General of the Republic",
    "disciplinary procedure",
    "concurrent jurisdiction",
    "General Internal Control Law",
    "Anti-Corruption Law",
    "Financial Administration Law",
    "binding recommendation",
    "Contentious-Administrative Court of Appeals"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "“Adviértase, lo que se extrae de la normativa aludida es que, en lo que respecta a las faltas vinculadas al control de la Hacienda Pública, la corrupción y enriquecimiento ilícito, la Contraloría también resulta competente para investigarlas, sin que esto excluya las atribuciones de los órganos con potestad disciplinaria de cada Administración. En exactamente el mismo sentido, el ordinal 113 de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, establece: 'De conformidad con las causales del artículo 110, las sanciones administrativas podrán ser impuestas por el órgano de la entidad que ostente la potestad disciplinaria. Asimismo, la Contraloría General de la República podrá sustanciar el procedimiento administrativo y requerirá, en forma vinculante, a la entidad respectiva, aplicar la sanción que determine'.”",
  "excerpt_en": "“Observe that what is deduced from the aforementioned legislation is that, regarding offenses related to the control of the Public Treasury, corruption, and illicit enrichment, the Comptroller is also competent to investigate them, without this excluding the powers of the bodies with disciplinary authority in each Administration. In exactly the same vein, Article 113 of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets states: 'In accordance with the grounds under Article 110, administrative sanctions may be imposed by the body of the entity that holds disciplinary power. Likewise, the Comptroller General of the Republic may conduct the administrative procedure and shall require, in a binding manner, the respective entity to apply the determined sanction.'”",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Denied",
    "label_es": "Sin lugar",
    "summary_en": "The appeal was denied, affirming that disciplinary authority over offenses affecting public funds is not exclusive to the Comptroller General but is held concurrently by each administrative entity's own disciplinary bodies.",
    "summary_es": "Se rechaza el recurso de casación presentado por el demandante, confirmando que la potestad disciplinaria por faltas que afectan la Hacienda Pública no es exclusiva de la Contraloría General de la República, sino que corresponde a los órganos de cada administración, de manera concurrente."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "these powers are in no way exclusive of the power held by the respective Administration, of which the allegedly offending official is a part, to pursue disciplinary cases that may relate to such matters.",
      "quote_es": "estas potestades no son, en modo alguno, excluyentes de la que tiene la Administración respectiva, de la que forme parte la persona funcionaria que sea presuntamente infractora, para seguir causas disciplinarias que puedan relacionarse a dicha temática."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "the disciplinary power under the public treasury control framework […] is not exclusive, as the plaintiff erroneously argues.",
      "quote_es": "la potestad disciplinaria del ordenamiento de control de la Hacienda Pública […] no es exclusiva, como erróneamente lo alega la parte actora."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "Understanding the opposite would entail a serious detriment to the public treasury control systems, as it would mean that administrative superiors would lack disciplinary power with respect to offenses that harm the treasury.",
      "quote_es": "Entender lo contrario supondría un grave detrimento a los sistemas de control de la Hacienda Pública, pues conllevaría que los superiores administrativos carecerían de potestad disciplinaria, con respecto a faltas que lesionen el erario."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-871",
      "citation": "Constitución Política 0 (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 07/11/1949)",
      "title_en": "Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment — Article 50 of the Political Constitution",
      "title_es": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política",
      "doc_type": "constitution",
      "date": "07/11/1949",
      "year": "1949"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-13231",
      "citation": "Ley 6227",
      "title_en": "General Law of Public Administration",
      "title_es": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "02/05/1978",
      "year": "1978"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-49185",
      "citation": "Ley 8292",
      "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "31/07/2002",
      "year": "2002"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "norm-13231",
      "citation": "Ley 6227",
      "title_en": "General Law of Public Administration",
      "title_es": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "02/05/1978",
      "year": "1978"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-21629",
      "citation": "Ley 7428",
      "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "07/09/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-49185",
      "citation": "Ley 8292",
      "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "31/07/2002",
      "year": "2002"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-871",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Constitución Política"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-13231",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de la Administración Pública"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-21629",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-49185",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de Control Interno"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-1011-382351",
  "tier": 2,
  "is_environmental": false,
  "_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": [
    {
      "art_num": "183",
      "art_scij": "5031",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "norm_fecha": "02 Sep 2025",
      "norm_name": "Constitución Política",
      "norm_num": "0",
      "norm_ver": "147492",
      "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "184",
      "art_scij": "5032",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "norm_fecha": "02 Sep 2025",
      "norm_name": "Constitución Política",
      "norm_num": "0",
      "norm_ver": "147492",
      "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "10",
      "art_scij": "77078",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_fecha": "05 Nov 2024",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_ver": "143668",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "194101",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_fecha": "17 Jun 2024",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_ver": "141199",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "68",
      "art_scij": "112681",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_fecha": "17 Jun 2024",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_ver": "141199",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "2",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "norm_fecha": "29 Ene 2024",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "norm_num": "8292",
      "norm_ver": "139762",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "8",
      "art_scij": "9",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "norm_fecha": "29 Ene 2024",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "norm_num": "8292",
      "norm_ver": "139762",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    }
  ],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-13231",
      "norm_num": "6227",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "02/05/1978"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-21629",
      "norm_num": "7428",
      "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-49185",
      "norm_num": "8292",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "31/07/2002"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Contraloría General de la República"
        }
      ],
      "id": 4,
      "nombre": "Potestad sancionatoria"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Contraloría General de la República y posibilidad de seguir procedimientos disciplinarios"
        }
      ],
      "id": 3,
      "nombre": "Competencia"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Competencia para seguir procedimientos disciplinarios"
        }
      ],
      "id": 2,
      "nombre": "Contraloría General de la República en materia contencioso-administrativa"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Competencia para seguir procedimientos disciplinarios"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "Contraloría General de la República"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"VI. Improcedencia palmaria, de los argumentos de fondo. Primero. De la potestad disciplinaria de órganos diversos a la Contraloría, ante faltas que puedan perjudicar a la Hacienda Pública. Ya antes se anticipó que, en criterio del casacionista, solo la CGR resultaba competente para instruir el procedimiento seguido en contra del demandante, por vincularse a supuestos fondos públicos. Tal postura es abiertamente contraria a Derecho. Es cierto que la Contraloría tiene competencia para seguir procedimientos disciplinarios por faltas vinculadas a las potestades de control y fiscalización de la Hacienda Pública. Efectivamente, ello emana de sus potestades constitucional y legalmente asignadas. Los cánones 183 y 184 del texto fundamental, le otorgan un amplio ámbito de competencias, en lo que respecta a la vigilancia de la Hacienda Pública, previéndose, además, las que contemple la ley ordinaria. Por otra parte, el precepto 68 de su ley orgánica le asigna la potestad de seguir procedimientos disciplinarios relacionados a sus competencias de control y fiscalización, así como de emitir la recomendación vinculante aplicable en el caso concreto. Sin embargo, estas potestades no son, en modo alguno, excluyentes de la que tiene la Administración respectiva, de la que forme parte la persona funcionaria que sea presuntamente infractora, para seguir causas disciplinarias que puedan relacionarse a dicha temática. De hecho, si se ve con cuidado la redacción de la norma legal aludida, lo que dispone es que dicho órgano constitucional, “…cuando en el ejercicio de sus potestades determine que un servidor de los sujetos pasivos ha cometido infracciones a las normas que integran el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización contemplado en esta Ley o ha provocado lesión a la Hacienda Pública, recomendará al órgano o autoridad administrativa competente, mediante su criterio técnico, que es vinculante, la aplicación de la sanción correspondiente de acuerdo con el mérito del caso…”. El subrayado y énfasis se añaden. Nótese que la norma se refiere a aquellos casos en los que la CGR se percate, en el ejercicio de sus funciones, de posibles faltas. En tales supuestos deberá tramitar el procedimiento correspondiente y emitir la recomendación vinculante que corresponda. Sin embargo, esto no excluye, de ninguna manera, las potestades disciplinarias de otros órganos y entes, cuando sean estos y no la CGR, los que se percaten de faltas que pueden tener repercusión en las arcas públicas. Las mismas normas invocadas por el casacionista así lo evidencian. Veamos. En la Ley General de Control Interno, la que tiene un ligamen directo con la tutela de la Hacienda Pública, se establece lo siguiente, en su artículo primero: “Esta Ley establece los criterios mínimos que deberán observar la Contraloría General de la República y los entes u órganos sujetos a su fiscalización, en el establecimiento, funcionamiento, mantenimiento, perfeccionamiento y evaluación de sus sistemas de control interno”. Por otra parte, el precepto octavo ibídem, ordena a los entes y órganos sujetos a dicho cuerpo normativo a disponer de un sistema de control interno. Esto debe ligarse al concepto de “actividades de control”, previsto en el mandato 2, inciso g, en los siguientes términos: “Políticas y procedimientos que permiten obtener la seguridad de que se llevan a cabo las disposiciones emitidas por la Contraloría General de la República, por los jerarcas y los titulares subordinados para la consecución de los objetivos del sistema de control interno”. A su vez, el canon noveno de ese mismo cuerpo legal define a los órganos del sistema de control interno así: “La administración activa y la auditoría interna de los entes y órganos sujetos a esta Ley, serán los componentes orgánicos del sistema de control interno establecido e integrarán el Sistema de Fiscalización Superior de la Hacienda Pública a que se refiere la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República”. Adviértase como las potestades relacionadas a la fiscalización y control de la Hacienda Pública no se circunscriben, exclusivamente, a la Contraloría. En cambio, se incluye a la totalidad de órganos y entes sujetos a sus potestades que son, en suma, la totalidad de la Administración centralizada y descentralizada, en el tanto forman parte de la Hacienda Pública (precepto 4 de la Ley no. 7428). Así, no queda ninguna duda de cómo es que debe darse lectura al precepto 42 de la Ley General de Control Interno cuando dispone: “Las sanciones previstas en esta Ley serán impuestas por el órgano que ostente la potestad disciplinaria en los entes y órganos sujetos a esta Ley, de acuerdo con la normativa que resulte aplicable” (El subrayado y sombreado de texto se incluyen en la cita). En el mismo sentido, el canon 40 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, dispone: “Las sanciones previstas en esta Ley serán impuestas por el órgano que ostente la potestad disciplinaria en cada entidad pública, de acuerdo con las reglamentaciones aplicables. La Contraloría General de la República también será competente para tramitar el respectivo procedimiento administrativo y requerir a la entidad respectiva, en forma vinculante, la aplicación de la sanción que determine, cuando el caso verse sobre actuaciones regidas por el ordenamiento jurídico de la Hacienda Pública” (subrayado y énfasis se añaden). Adviértase, lo que se extrae de la normativa aludida es que, en lo que respecta a las faltas vinculadas al control de la Hacienda Pública, la corrupción y enriquecimiento ilícito, la Contraloría también resulta competente para investigarlas, sin que esto excluya las atribuciones de los órganos con potestad disciplinaria de cada Administración. En exactamente el mismo sentido, el ordinal 113 de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, establece: “De conformidad con las causales del artículo 110, las sanciones administrativas podrán ser impuestas por el órgano de la entidad que ostente la potestad disciplinaria. Asimismo, la Contraloría General de la República podrá sustanciar el procedimiento administrativo y requerirá, en forma vinculante, a la entidad respectiva, aplicar la sanción que determine”. Esta norma forma parte de un cuerpo legal que tiene por objeto, igualmente, la Hacienda Pública, conforme a sus numerales 1, 2 y 3. Indiscutiblemente, entonces, la potestad disciplinaria del ordenamiento de control de la Hacienda Pública, entonces, no es exclusiva, como erróneamente lo alega la parte actora. Lo que ocurre es que, en aquellos casos en los que el órgano contralor intervenga, con ocasión de sus potestades, su criterio resultará vinculante para la Administración respectiva. Entender lo contrario supondría un grave detrimento a los sistemas de control de la Hacienda Pública, pues conllevaría que los superiores administrativos carecerían de potestad disciplinaria, con respecto a faltas que lesionen el erario. En otras palabras, si la Contraloría no interviene, o bien, no lo hace en tiempo, quedarían impunes una gran cantidad de acciones lesivas del interés público y de los recursos destinados a propiciar la consecución de los fines generales propios de un Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho. Así, es claro que la exégesis que propone el casacionista es inaceptable, conforme a los parámetros hermenéuticos contenidos en el ordinal 10 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en el tanto la aceptación de la lectura que propone de las regulaciones invocadas traicionaría el fin público perseguido con las normas de control y fiscalización de la Hacienda Pública; esto es, resguardar su integridad y no propiciar su desprotección, a raíz del desconocimiento de las potestades de control que deben ejercer oportuna y debidamente las personas funcionarias, en sus respectivos ámbitos de acción, incluido el disciplinario\".",
  "body_en_text": "\"VI. Manifest lack of merit of the substantive arguments. First. On the disciplinary power of bodies other than the Comptroller General's Office, regarding offenses that may harm the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública). It was previously anticipated that, in the appellant's view, only the CGR was competent to conduct the proceeding brought against the plaintiff, as it was linked to alleged public funds. Such a position is openly contrary to law. It is true that the Comptroller General's Office has jurisdiction to pursue disciplinary proceedings for offenses related to its powers of control and oversight of the Public Treasury. Indeed, this stems from its constitutionally and legally assigned powers. Canons 183 and 184 of the fundamental text grant it a broad scope of powers with respect to the supervision of the Public Treasury, also providing for those contemplated in ordinary law. Furthermore, Article 68 of its organic law assigns it the power to pursue disciplinary proceedings related to its control and oversight functions, as well as to issue the binding recommendation applicable in the specific case. However, these powers are in no way exclusive of that held by the respective Administration, of which the allegedly offending public servant is a part, to pursue disciplinary cases that may relate to this subject matter. In fact, if one carefully examines the wording of the aforementioned legal provision, what it provides is that said constitutional body, “…when in the exercise of its powers it determines that a servant of the passive subjects has committed infractions against the rules that make up the control and oversight framework (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización) contemplated in this Law or has caused injury to the Public Treasury, shall recommend to the competent administrative body or authority, through its technical criterion, which is binding, the application of the corresponding sanction according to the merits of the case…”. The underlining and emphasis have been added. Note that the provision refers to those cases in which the CGR becomes aware, in the exercise of its functions, of possible offenses. In such cases, it must process the corresponding proceeding and issue the appropriate binding recommendation. However, this does not, in any way, exclude the disciplinary powers of other bodies and entities, when it is they, and not the CGR, who become aware of offenses that may have an impact on the public coffers. The very rules invoked by the appellant demonstrate this. Let us see. The General Law on Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), which has a direct link with the protection of the Public Treasury, establishes the following in its Article 1: “This Law establishes the minimum criteria that shall be observed by the Comptroller General of the Republic and the entities or bodies subject to its oversight, in the establishment, operation, maintenance, improvement, and evaluation of their internal control systems (sistemas de control interno)”. Furthermore, Article 8 of the same law orders the entities and bodies subject to that regulatory body to have an internal control system. This must be linked to the concept of “control activities,” provided for in Article 2, subsection g, in the following terms: “Policies and procedures that make it possible to obtain assurance that the provisions issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, by the heads (jerarcas) and subordinate heads (titulares subordinados) for the achievement of the objectives of the internal control system are carried out”. In turn, Article 9 of that same legal body defines the bodies of the internal control system as follows: “The active administration and the internal audit of the entities and bodies subject to this Law shall be the organic components of the established internal control system and shall form part of the Superior Oversight System of the Public Treasury (Sistema de Fiscalización Superior de la Hacienda Pública) referred to in the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic”. Observe how the powers related to the oversight and control of the Public Treasury are not limited exclusively to the Comptroller General's Office. Instead, they include all bodies and entities subject to its powers, which are, in sum, the entirety of the centralized and decentralized Administration, insofar as they form part of the Public Treasury (Article 4 of Law No. 7428). Thus, there is no doubt as to how Article 42 of the General Law on Internal Control must be read when it provides: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds the disciplinary power in the entities and bodies subject to this Law, in accordance with the applicable regulations” (The underlining and text shading are included in the quotation). In the same vein, Article 40 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito) provides: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds the disciplinary power in each public entity, in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Comptroller General of the Republic shall also be competent to process the respective administrative proceeding and to require the respective entity, in a binding manner, to apply the sanction it determines, when the case deals with actions governed by the legal framework of the Public Treasury” (underlining and emphasis have been added). Note that what is extracted from the aforementioned regulations is that, with respect to offenses linked to the control of the Public Treasury, corruption, and illicit enrichment, the Comptroller General's Office is also competent to investigate them, without this excluding the powers of the bodies with disciplinary power within each Administration. In exactly the same sense, Article 113 of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos) establishes: “In accordance with the grounds of Article 110, administrative sanctions may be imposed by the body of the entity that holds the disciplinary power. Likewise, the Comptroller General of the Republic may substantiate the administrative proceeding and shall require, in a binding manner, the respective entity to apply the sanction it determines”. This rule forms part of a legal body whose objective is also the Public Treasury, in accordance with its Articles 1, 2, and 3. Unquestionably, then, the disciplinary power within the control framework of the Public Treasury is not exclusive, as the plaintiff erroneously claims. What happens is that, in those cases in which the comptroller body intervenes, on the occasion of its powers, its criterion will be binding on the respective Administration. To understand otherwise would entail a serious detriment to the control systems of the Public Treasury, since it would mean that administrative superiors would lack disciplinary power with respect to offenses that harm the treasury. In other words, if the Comptroller General's Office does not intervene, or does not do so in time, a large number of actions harmful to the public interest and the resources destined to promote the achievement of the general purposes inherent in a Social and Democratic State of Law would go unpunished. Thus, it is clear that the exegesis proposed by the appellant is unacceptable, in accordance with the hermeneutical parameters contained in Article 10 of the General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), insofar as acceptance of the reading it proposes of the regulations invoked would betray the public purpose pursued by the rules of control and oversight of the Public Treasury; that is, to safeguard its integrity and not to foster its vulnerability, as a result of ignoring the control powers that public servants must exercise in a timely and proper manner, in their respective spheres of action, including the disciplinary one\".\n\nHowever, this in no way excludes the disciplinary powers of other bodies and entities, when it is they and not the CGR that become aware of faults that may have repercussions on the public coffers (arcas públicas). The very norms invoked by the appellant on cassation (casacionista) demonstrate this. Let us see. In the General Internal Control Law (Ley General de Control Interno), which has a direct link with the guardianship of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), the following is established in its first article: “This Law establishes the minimum criteria that the Comptroller General of the Republic and the entities and bodies subject to its oversight must observe in the establishment, operation, maintenance, improvement, and evaluation of their internal control systems.” Furthermore, the eighth provision of the same text orders the entities and bodies subject to said regulatory body to have an internal control system. This must be linked to the concept of “control activities (actividades de control),” provided for in mandate 2, subsection g, in the following terms: “Policies and procedures that allow obtaining assurance that the provisions issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, by the heads (jerarcas) and subordinate holders (titulares subordinados) are carried out for the achievement of the objectives of the internal control system.” In turn, the ninth canon of that same legal body defines the bodies of the internal control system as follows: “The active administration (administración activa) and the internal audit (auditoría interna) of the entities and bodies subject to this Law shall be the organic components of the established internal control system and shall integrate the Higher Oversight System of the Public Treasury (Sistema de Fiscalización Superior de la Hacienda Pública) referred to in the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República).” Note how the powers related to the oversight and control of the Public Treasury are not circumscribed exclusively to the Office of the Comptroller General (Contraloría). Instead, the entirety of bodies and entities subject to its powers are included, which are, in sum, the entirety of the centralized and decentralized Administration, insofar as they form part of the Public Treasury (provision 4 of Law no. 7428). Thus, there is no doubt as to how provision 42 of the General Internal Control Law must be read when it states: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds the disciplinary power in the entities and bodies subject to this Law, in accordance with the applicable regulations” (The underlining and text shading are included in the quotation).\n\nIn the same vein, article 40 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito) provides: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds disciplinary authority (potestad disciplinaria) in each public entity, in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) shall also be competent to conduct the respective administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) and to require the respective entity, in a binding manner, to apply the sanction it determines, when the case concerns actions governed by the legal framework of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)” (underlining and emphasis added). It should be noted that what is extracted from the aforementioned regulations is that, with respect to offenses related to the control of the Public Treasury, corruption, and illicit enrichment, the Comptroller General is also competent to investigate them, without this excluding the powers of the bodies with disciplinary authority in each Administration. In exactly the same sense, article 113 of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos) establishes: “In accordance with the grounds of article 110, administrative sanctions may be imposed by the body of the entity that holds disciplinary authority. Likewise, the Comptroller General of the Republic may conduct the administrative procedure and shall require the respective entity, in a binding manner, to apply the sanction it determines.” This provision is part of a legal body whose object is, likewise, the Public Treasury, pursuant to its articles 1, 2, and 3. Unquestionably, then, the disciplinary authority of the legal framework for control of the Public Treasury is not exclusive, as the plaintiff erroneously argues. What occurs is that, in those cases where the auditing body (órgano contralor) intervenes, by reason of its powers, its opinion shall be binding on the respective Administration. Understanding the contrary would imply a serious detriment to the systems of control of the Public Treasury, as it would mean that administrative superiors would lack disciplinary authority with respect to offenses that harm the public treasury (erario).\n\nIn other words, if the Office of the Comptroller General (Contraloría) does not intervene, or does not do so in a timely manner, a great number of actions harmful to the public interest and to the resources intended to promote the achievement of the general purposes inherent in a Social and Democratic Rule of Law State would go unpunished. Thus, it is clear that the interpretation proposed by the appellant is unacceptable, according to the hermeneutical parameters contained in Article 10 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública), insofar as accepting the reading he proposes of the invoked regulations would betray the public purpose pursued by the norms of control and oversight (fiscalización) of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública); that is, safeguarding its integrity and not fostering its lack of protection, as a result of the disregard of the control powers that public officials must exercise timely and duly, in their respective spheres of action, including the disciplinary sphere.\"\n\nIn fact, if one carefully examines the wording of the aforementioned legal provision, it states that said constitutional body, “…when in the exercise of its powers determines that a servant of the taxable persons has committed infractions of the rules that make up the control and oversight system contemplated in this Law or has caused harm to the Public Treasury, shall recommend to the competent administrative body or authority, by means of its technical opinion, which is binding, the application of the corresponding sanction according to the merits of the case…”. The underlining and emphasis are added. Note that the provision refers to those cases in which the CGR becomes aware, in the exercise of its functions, of possible misconduct. In such cases, it must process the corresponding procedure and issue the binding recommendation that applies. However, this in no way excludes the disciplinary powers of other bodies and entities, when it is they, and not the CGR, that become aware of misconduct that may have repercussions on the public coffers. The very rules invoked by the appellant demonstrate this. Let us see. The General Law of Internal Control, which has a direct link to the protection of the Public Treasury, establishes the following in its first article: “This Law establishes the minimum criteria that the Contraloría General de la República (CGR) and the entities and bodies subject to its oversight must observe, in the establishment, operation, maintenance, improvement, and evaluation of their internal control systems.” On the other hand, the eighth provision of the same law orders the entities and bodies subject to said regulatory body to have an internal control system. This must be linked to the concept of “control activities,” set forth in mandate 2, subsection g, in the following terms: “Policies and procedures that make it possible to obtain assurance that the provisions issued by the Contraloría General de la República, by the senior officials and subordinate heads for the achievement of the objectives of the internal control system, are being carried out.” In turn, the ninth canon of that same legal body defines the bodies of the internal control system as follows: “The active administration and the internal audit of the entities and bodies subject to this Law shall be the organic components of the established internal control system and shall form part of the Higher Oversight System of the Public Treasury referred to in the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República.”\n\nNote how the powers related to the oversight and control of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) are not circumscribed exclusively to the Contraloría. Instead, they encompass all organs and entities subject to its powers, which are, in sum, the entirety of the centralized and decentralized Administration, insofar as they form part of the Public Treasury (precept 4 of Law no. 7428). Thus, there is no doubt as to how precept 42 of the General Law on Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno) should be read when it states: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds the disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) in the entities and organs subject to this Law, in accordance with the applicable regulations” (The underlining and highlighting of text are included in the quotation). In the same vein, canon 40 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito) states: “The sanctions provided for in this Law shall be imposed by the body that holds the disciplinary power in each public entity (entidad pública), in accordance with the applicable regulations. The Contraloría General de la República shall also be competent to process the respective administrative procedure and bindingly require the respective entity to apply the sanction it determines, when the case concerns actions governed by the legal framework of the Public Treasury” (underlining and emphasis added). Note that what is extracted from the aforementioned regulations is that, regarding offenses linked to the control of the Public Treasury, corruption, and illicit enrichment, the Contraloría is also competent to investigate them, without this excluding the powers of the bodies with disciplinary authority within each Administration. In exactly the same sense, ordinal 113 of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos) establishes: “In accordance with the grounds of article 110, the administrative sanctions may be imposed by the body of the entity that holds the disciplinary power.”\n\nLikewise, the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) may substantiate the administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) and shall bindingly require the respective entity to apply the sanction it determines.” This provision forms part of a body of law whose purpose is likewise the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), in accordance with its numerals 1, 2, and 3. Indisputably, then, the disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) within the framework of control of the Public Treasury is therefore not exclusive, as the plaintiff erroneously alleges. What occurs is that, in those cases in which the controlling body intervenes, by reason of its powers, its criterion shall be binding on the respective Administration. To understand the contrary would entail a serious detriment to the systems of control of the Public Treasury, since it would mean that administrative superiors would lack disciplinary power with respect to offenses that harm the public coffers. In other words, if the Comptroller General does not intervene, or does not do so in a timely manner, a great number of actions harmful to the public interest and to the resources destined to foster the achievement of the general purposes inherent to a Social and Democratic State of Law would go unpunished. Thus, it is clear that the interpretation put forward by the appellant in cassation is unacceptable, according to the hermeneutic parameters contained in numeral 10 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), insofar as accepting the reading he proposes of the regulations invoked would betray the public purpose pursued with the norms of control and oversight of the Public Treasury; that is, to safeguard its integrity and not to foster its lack of protection, as a result of the ignorance of the control powers that public officials must exercise opportunely and duly, in their respective spheres of action, including the disciplinary one.”"
}