{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1095157", "citation": "Res. 12509-2022 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Consulta legislativa sobre desafectación y donación de Zona Americana a la Municipalidad de Quepos", "title_en": "Legislative consultation on declassification and donation of Zona Americana to the Municipality of Quepos", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional evacuó la consulta legislativa facultativa planteada por doce diputados contra el proyecto de ley n.° 21.558, que pretendía desafectar del patrimonio natural del Estado y donar a la Municipalidad de Quepos los terrenos de la conocida Zona Americana. Los consultantes alegaron violación del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental por falta de estudios científicos suficientes, ausencia de compensación, y vulneración de la autonomía municipal al ordenar al gobierno local modificar su plan regulador. La Sala desestimó todos los cuestionamientos. Consideró que el estudio técnico aportado al expediente legislativo conciliaba adecuadamente la realidad material del área —con vocación histórica y construcciones existentes— con la declaratoria original de patrimonio natural basada solo en clasificación de suelos, no en cobertura boscosa. Descartó la necesidad de compensación pues el proyecto conserva bajo administración del SINAC los terrenos de aptitud forestal y no se identificaron áreas concretas no compensadas. Sobre la alegada incompetencia del consultor privado, señaló que el Decreto 36786-MINAET autoriza a profesionales privados, sujeto a aprobación del SINAC. Finalmente, consideró que el transitorio II no ordenaba modificar el plan regulador, sino que otorgaba un plazo para incorporar los terrenos donados, labor que ya corresponde al municipio. La Sala encontró el proyecto conforme a la Constitución.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber resolved a discretionary legislative consultation filed by twelve deputies against bill No. 21.558, which sought to declassify the Zona Americana lands from state natural heritage and donate them to the Municipality of Quepos. The petitioners alleged violation of the principle of objective environmental protection due to insufficient scientific studies, lack of compensation, and violation of municipal autonomy by ordering the local government to amend its regulatory plan. The Chamber dismissed all challenges. It found that the technical study in the legislative file properly reconciled the area's material reality —with historic buildings and existing infrastructure— and the original natural heritage declaration based only on soil classification, not forest cover. It rejected the need for compensation because the bill preserves lands suitable for forestry under SINAC administration and no uncompensated areas were identified. It noted that Decree 36786-MINAET permits private professionals to conduct such studies, subject to SINAC approval. Finally, it held that Transitional Provision II did not order a plan amendment but granted a deadline for the municipality to incorporate donated lands into its regulatory plan, a task already within its purview. The Chamber found the bill constitutional.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "31/05/2022", "year": "2022", "topic_ids": [ "property-and-titling", "art-50-constitution" ], "primary_topic_id": "art-50-constitution", "es_concept_hints": [ "patrimonio natural del Estado", "desafectación", "tutela ambiental", "objetivación", "SINAC", "plan regulador", "compensación", "autonomía municipal" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "patrimonio natural del Estado", "desafectación", "Zona Americana", "Quepos", "Sala Constitucional", "consulta legislativa", "objetivación tutela ambiental", "autonomía municipal", "plan regulador", "SINAC", "compensación ambiental", "estudios científicos", "artículo 50 Constitución", "decreto 35325-MP-MINAE", "decreto 36786-MINAET" ], "keywords_en": [ "state natural heritage", "declassification", "Zona Americana", "Quepos", "Constitutional Chamber", "legislative consultation", "objective environmental protection", "municipal autonomy", "regulatory plan", "SINAC", "environmental compensation", "scientific studies", "Article 50 Constitution", "Decree 35325-MP-MINAE", "Decree 36786-MINAET" ], "excerpt_es": "Así, en cuanto a lo alegado por los consultantes con respecto a que el estudio técnico para fundamentar el proyecto de ley desconoce las condiciones ambientales que llevaron a categorizar la zona como patrimonio natural del Estado, más bien se observa que aquel, por un lado, reconoce una realidad material y, por otro, concilia el decreto ejecutivo n.° 35325-MP-MINAE con el nro. 37329-C y el desarrollo histórico en él detallado. Es decir, el estudio técnico verificó la existencia de construcciones e inmuebles históricos en la zona ‑algunos de ellos declarados patrimonio histórico‑, así como zonas aptas para la conservación ambiental, a la vez que ha otorgado a cada uno la categoría que, según el criterio técnico, correspondía. Recuérdese que el Estado debe velar tanto por el patrimonio natural (numeral 50 de la Constitución Política) como por el histórico (ordinal 78 eiusdem), de manera que la conciliación de ambos intereses deviene necesaria, como justamente se hizo en el estudio señalado. En ese tanto, la Sala descarta la queja planteada.\n\nTal como se observa en la transcripción, la Asamblea Legislativa no está girando una orden al gobierno local para que modifique el instrumento de planificación urbana de una manera determinada, sino que le está otorgando un plazo para que incorpore a su plan regulador los terrenos que le serían donados por medio de la ley, que son de su localidad. Tal incorporación es un actuar que, de todas formas, ya corresponde al municipio (Ley de Planificación Urbana), en tanto instancia administradora de los intereses locales.", "excerpt_en": "Thus, regarding the petitioners' claim that the technical study supporting the bill disregarded the environmental conditions that led to the area's designation as state natural heritage, the Chamber instead finds that the study, on one hand, acknowledges the material reality and, on the other, reconciles Executive Decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE with Decree No. 37329-C and the historical development detailed therein. That is, the technical study verified the existence of historic buildings and properties in the area —some declared historical heritage— as well as areas suitable for environmental conservation, while assigning each the category that, according to technical criteria, was appropriate. It should be recalled that the State must safeguard both natural heritage (Article 50 of the Political Constitution) and historical heritage (Article 78 eiusdem), so reconciling both interests became necessary, as was properly done in the study. Therefore, the Chamber dismisses this complaint.\n\nAs seen in the transcription, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner; rather, it is granting a deadline for it to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated to it by law, which belong to its locality. Such incorporation is an action that, in any case, already falls to the municipality (Urban Planning Law), as the entity administering local interests.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber denied the consultation and found that Bill No. 21.558 did not have the alleged constitutional defects.", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional desestimó la consulta y encontró que el proyecto de ley n.° 21.558 no presentaba los vicios de constitucionalidad alegados." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III.a)", "quote_en": "the land was designated as state natural heritage because its soils were class VII and VIII, not because there was forest cover.", "quote_es": "el terreno fue destinado a patrimonio natural del Estado, porque sus suelos eran de categoría VII y VIII, mas no porque existiera cobertura boscosa." }, { "context": "Considerando III.b)", "quote_en": "the bill preserves, in the name of SINAC, those forested lands that were deemed appropriate, in accordance with the technical study (Article 7 of the bill).", "quote_es": "el proyecto de ley conserva a nombre del SINAC aquellos terrenos forestales que se estimaron adecuados, de conformidad con el estudio técnico (artículo 7 del proyecto)." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner; rather, it is granting a deadline for it to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated to it by law, which belong to its locality.", "quote_es": "la Asamblea Legislativa no está girando una orden al gobierno local para que modifique el instrumento de planificación urbana de una manera determinada, sino que le está otorgando un plazo para que incorpore a su plan regulador los terrenos que le serían donados por medio de la ley, que son de su localidad." }, { "context": "Considerando III.a)", "quote_en": "the State must safeguard both natural heritage (Article 50 of the Political Constitution) and historical heritage (Article 78 eiusdem), so reconciling both interests becomes necessary.", "quote_es": "el Estado debe velar tanto por el patrimonio natural (numeral 50 de la Constitución Política) como por el histórico (ordinal 78 eiusdem), de manera que la conciliación de ambos intereses deviene necesaria." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-71469", "citation": "Decreto Ejecutivo 36786", "title_en": "Manual for classifying lands dedicated to conservation within the Maritime-Terrestrial Zone", "title_es": "Manual para la clasificación de tierras dedicadas a la conservación de los", "doc_type": "executive_decree", "date": "12/08/2011", "year": "2011" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-ext-1-0007-336216", "citation": "Res. 11233-2023 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Amparo for excessive visitation at Manuel Antonio National Park", "title_es": "Amparo por exceso de visitación en el Parque Nacional Manuel Antonio", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "12/05/2023", "year": "2023" }, { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-329133", "citation": "Res. 14293-2005 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "EIA requirement for land-use plans and non-annulment of the Escazú Regulatory Plan", "title_es": "Exigencia de EIA para planes reguladores y no anulación del Plan Regulador de Escazú", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "19/10/2005", "year": "2005" }, { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-368207", "citation": "Res. 17126-2006 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Constitutionality of land-use change on private forest land for national-interest projects", "title_es": "Constitucionalidad del cambio de uso de suelo en terrenos forestales privados para proyectos de conveniencia nacional", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "28/11/2006", "year": "2006" }, { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-505410", "citation": "Res. 21258-2010 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Municipality cannot modify land use in Escazú Hills Protective Zone", "title_es": "Municipalidad no puede modificar suelo en Zona Protectora Cerros de Escazú", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "22/12/2010", "year": "2010" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-71469", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Decreto 36786-MINAET" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1161682", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-1161682" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1095157", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": true, "_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": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0007-1161682" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Exp: 22-008694-0007-CO \n\nRes. Nº 2022012509\n\n \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las doce horas y diez minutos del treinta y uno de mayo de dos mil veintidós. \n\nConsulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad interpuesta por los diputados y las diputadas ARACELLY SALAS EDUARTE, CAROLINA HIDALGO HERRERA, JOSÉ MARÍA VILLALTA FLOREZ ESTRADA, LAURA GUIDO PÉREZ, MILEIDY ALVARADO ARIAS, OSCAR CASCANTE CASCANTE, OTTO ROBERTO VARGAS VÍQUEZ, PAOLA VEGA RODRÍGUEZ, PATRICIA VILLEGAS ÁLVAREZ, SILVIA HERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ, VÍCTOR MORALES MORA y WALTER ENRIQUE MUÑOZ CÉSPEDES, respecto del proyecto “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 21.558.\n\nResultando\n\n1.- Mediante escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala el 25 de abril de 2022, las diputadas y los diputados firmantes plantean consulta legislativa respecto del proyecto de “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo nro. 21.558, por los siguientes motivos. Señalan que este proyecto de ley pretende desafectar áreas que forman parte del patrimonio natural de Estado, sin contar con estudios científicos suficientes que garanticen su compensación, tal como lo indicado por esta Sala en la sentencia nro. 2014-12887. Refieren que en el expediente legislativo nro. 21.558 constan los \"Estudios para el análisis de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos\", realizados por la municipalidad de Quepos, aplicando la metodología del decreto nro. 36786-MINAET (Manual para la Clasificación de Tierras Dedicadas a la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales dentro de la Zona Marítima Terrestre en Costa Rica), pero estos incumplen los requisitos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico ambiental, debido a que no son realizados por la autoridad competente: el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. Por otra parte, no solo se aplicó una metodología distinta a la que permitió la incorporación al Patrimonio Ambiental, sino que se basó en una metodología distinta que no se encuentra vigente en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (decreto ejecutivo nro. 3676-MINAET). Señalan que el área se está donando a la municipalidad de Quepos, para que esta proceda a donar de nuevo o a vender esos terrenos, de manera que no solo se pierde la categoría de protección, sino que se traslada al dominio privado de particulares; según lo indicado en el artículo 2 del proyecto de ley en discusión. Como vicio de fondo, apuntan la posible violación al principio de autonomía municipal. Afirman que, en lo relativo al campo del ordenamiento territorial, la autonomía municipal se desarrolla en la Ley de Planificación Urbana, n.° 4240 del 15 de noviembre de 1968. Mediante ese instrumento jurídico se desarrolla la obligación de los gobiernos locales de ordenar el territorio a través de los instrumentos de planificación, como el Plan Regulador. La iniciativa de ley aquí cuestionada (transitorio II) otorga un plazo máximo de cuatro años a la municipalidad de Quepos para que se integren los terrenos objeto de la iniciativa de ley en la \"MODIFICACIÓN PARCIAL AL PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DE LA CIUDAD DE QUEPOS, INTEGRACIÓN DE LA VARIABLE AMBIENTAL\". Consideran que la indicación contenida en el Transitorio II implica modificar el artículo 132 del Plan Regulador: Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental) (Aguirre) del 30 de diciembre de 2016, que dice: \"Articulo 132. Propósito. Preservar el área denominada y ubicada como Zona Americana y destinarla a utilizarla para sedes institucionales, comunales, educativas, de investigación científica y recreativa. Se busca la conservación, protección y rehabilitación de las construcciones existentes en la zona de Patrimonio Histórico debidamente declaradas como tal. Esta zona se encuentra en Administración del MINAE por lo que se deberá de elaborar el respectivo Plan de Manejo.” Señalan que, a partir de lo anterior, les surge la duda si la Asamblea tiene dentro de sus potestades, la posibilidad de ordenarle a un gobierno municipal que modifique el instrumento de planificación urbana vigente en el ejercicio de las atribuciones que le otorga la Carta Fundamental sobre el ordenamiento territorial local. \n\n2.- Por oficio de la Presidencia de esta Sala, número PSC-0051-2021 del 25 de abril de 2022, se comunicó a la presidenta de la Asamblea Legislativa de la presentación de esta consulta.\n\n3.- Mediante resolución de la Presidencia de esta Sala de las 9:56 horas del 26 de abril de 2022, se admitió esta consulta y se solicitó a la Asamblea Legislativa la remisión del expediente legislativo número 21.558.\n\n4.- Por oficio recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala el 12 de mayo de 2022, la Asamblea Legislativa remitió copia certificada del expediente legislativo número 21.558. En consecuencia, el plazo para evacuar la consulta vence el 12 de junio de 2022.\n\n5.- Mediante resolución de la Presidencia de esta Sala de las 13:40 horas del 12 de mayo de 2022 se tuvo por recibida la copia certificada del expediente legislativo número 21.558 y se turnó esta consulta para su debido conocimiento.\n\n6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las disposiciones de ley. \n\nRedacta el magistrado Rueda Leal; y, \n\nConsiderando:\n\n I.- Sobre la admisibilidad de la consulta. De conformidad con el inciso b) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este tipo de consulta debe ser planteada por diez diputados(as) o más, una vez que el proyecto ha sido aprobado en primer debate. En este caso, el requisito se cumple con la firma de 12 legisladores. Por otro lado, el proyecto de ley fue aprobado en primer debate por el Pleno de la Asamblea Legislativa en la sesión extraordinaria n.° 67 del 6 de abril de 2022. Dado que preliminarmente se observan una debida fundamentación y el cumplimiento de los requisitos de admisibilidad, la Sala entra a conocer el fondo.\n\n II.- Agravios de inconstitucionalidad. El primer reproche que plantean los consultantes se refiere a la inobservancia del principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental en la tramitación del expediente del proyecto de ley. Al respecto, señalan que no se han incluido estudios científicos suficientes para garantizar la compensación del área del patrimonio natural del Estado que se va a desafectar, ni para para demostrar que las condiciones ambientales que dieron origen a la protección del área carezcan de interés actual. Refieren que el área, objeto del proyecto adquirió la categoría de patrimonio natural por medio del decreto ejecutivo nro. 35325-MP-MINAE. Remiten a los considerandos de esa normativa a fin de mostrar los motivos para que se otorgara tal categoría de protección. Consideran que los “Estudios para el análisis de la situación actual de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos”, que constan en el expediente legislativo no satisfacen los requisitos fijados en el ordenamiento jurídico ambiental, debido a que no son realizados por la autoridad competente: el Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC). Por otra parte, indican que la metodología es distinta a la que permitió la incorporación al patrimonio natural, pues se basó en una metodología que no se encuentra vigente (“Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET”). Profundizan que se ha incumplido el requisito de compensación del patrimonio natural que se está desafectando, pues se autoriza a la municipalidad de Quepos a donar o vender los terrenos a particulares.\n\n En segundo lugar, consideran que se viola el principio de autonomía municipal, porque el transitorio II del proyecto otorga un plazo máximo de cuatro años a la municipalidad de Quepos para que se integren los terrenos, objeto del proyecto de ley, a su plan regulador. Alegan que tal transitorio modifica el artículo 132 del plan regulador “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” del 30 de diciembre de 2016. Transcriben la norma. Con base en ella, señalan que surge la duda de si la Asamblea Legislativa puede ordenarle a un gobierno municipal que modifique el instrumento de planificación urbana vigente.\n\nIII.- Con respecto a los estudios científicos y la compensación del área desafectada. Los consultantes señalan que no hay estudios científicos suficientes por varios motivos: a) no se demuestra que las condiciones ambientales que dieron origen a la protección del área carezcan de interés actual; b) no se garantiza la compensación del área del patrimonio natural que es desafectada; c) no fueron elaborados por el SINAC; d) se utilizó la metodología de un decreto no vigente. \n\nComo preámbulo, se impone citar la jurisprudencia constitucional referida a la objetivación de la tutela ambiental:\n\n“En cuanto al ambiente, objeto del derecho fundamental expuesto, nuestra Carta Magna exige además que sea “sano”. La exigencia “sano” nos conduce a la “capacidad regenerativa” y a la “capacidad de sucesión” para garantizar la vida. De ambos requisitos: “sano” y equilibrado” se desprende la necesidad de un desarrollo sostenible y sustentable; la calidad de vida y la calidad ambiental dependen de ello. Ahora bien, con los conceptos de “ambiente”, “sano” “ecológicamente equilibrado”, la norma constitucional introdujo la ciencia y la técnica en las decisiones ambientales, sean estas legislativas o administrativas, de tal manera que, en los términos de los ordinales 16 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 38 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, las actuaciones estatales en materia ambiental deben fundarse y no pueden contradecir las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica en aras de lograr el goce pleno y universal a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado y, además, un “mayor bienestar para todos los habitantes del país”. En cuanto al sometimiento de las decisiones legislativas y administrativas a las reglas unívocas de la ciencia y la técnica, la Sala lo ha denominado principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental: “De la objetivación de la tutela ambiental (…) es un principio que en modo alguno puede confundirse con el anterior [principio precautorio o “principio de la evitación prudente”], en tanto, como derivado de lo dispuesto en los artículos 16 y 160 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se traduce en la necesidad de acreditar con estudios técnicos la toma de decisiones en esta materia, tanto en relación con actos como de las disposiciones de carácter general –tanto legales como reglamentarias–, de donde se deriva la exigencia de la vinculación a la ciencia y a la técnica con lo cual, se condiciona la discrecionalidad de la Administración en esta materia. De manera que en atención a los resultados que se deriven de esos estudios técnicos –tales como los estudios de impacto ambiental–, si se evidencia un criterio técnico objetivo que denote la probabilidad de un evidente daño al ambiente, los recursos naturales o a la salud de las personas, es que resulta obligado desechar el proyecto, obra o actividad propuestas; y en caso de una \"duda razonable\" resulta obligado tomar decisiones en pro del ambiente (principio pro-natura), que puede traducirse en la adopción, tanto de medidas compensatorias como precautorias, a fin de proteger de la manera adecuada el ambiente.” (Sentencia de la Sala Constitucional Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolución nro. 2012-13367 de las 11:33 horas del 21 de setiembre de 2012).\n\nEn cuanto a los reclamos concretos:\n\na) Sobre las condiciones ambientales que dieron origen a la protección del área como patrimonio natural del Estado. \n\nLos consultantes señalan que el decreto ejecutivo nro. 35325-MP-MINAE destinó para patrimonio natural del Estado el inmueble ubicado en Puntarenas, matrícula folio real nro. 164408-000, que es el mismo que se pretende desafectar mediante el proyecto de ley nro. 21.558. Remiten al considerando III de ese decreto con el objeto de enfatizar el motivo de incorporación del terreno al patrimonio natural:\n\n“III.-Que El informe \"Estudio de Suelos y Capacidad de Uso de las Tierras Fincas Nº 6-07524000 y Nº 6-0783000\", elaborado por el Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, dispone en el punto 6 Conclusiones y Recomendaciones, entre otras, que los suelos del área de estudio se mapearon en cinco unidades de mapeo, 2 asociaciones que se dividieron fases por criterios de pendiente y textura y dos asociaciones, donde la unidad de manejo es Tipo VIII, recomendando no impulsar ningún cambio en el uso de la tierra, especialmente en aquellas áreas con relictos de bosque y preservar la belleza escénica del sitio, ya que se considera parte del Patrimonio Natural del Estado.”\n\nEn cuanto a este tema, si bien la Sala no cuenta con el citado \"Estudio de Suelos y Capacidad de Uso de las Tierras Fincas Nº 6-07524000 y Nº 6-0783000\", pues tal documento no fue aportado por la parte, lo cierto es que el análisis del expediente legislativo aporta suficientes elementos para descartar el reclamo.\n\nPara iniciar, la Sala destaca la explicación del MINAE con respecto a la valoración efectuada en ese entonces para declararlo patrimonio natural. Así, el ministro del ramo razonó:\n\n“Desafectar algunos de los terrenos de la conocida Zona Americana en el centro del cantón, que particularmente no tienen gran valor ecosistémico y que por el contrario, han sido calificados como PNE por su condición de ser suelos categorías VII y VIII, y no, por la existencia de bosque para conservar, es una oportunidad de desarrollo turístico en la región. Su interés es de tipo histórico arquitectónico y cultural, ya que fueron terrenos dados en arrendamiento gratuito por 50 años a la Compañía Bananera de Costa Rica y es urgente su administración municipal para que puedan recibir mantenimiento en infraestructura…” (énfasis del original. Folio 278 del expediente legislativo). \n\nEs decir, el terreno fue destinado a patrimonio natural del Estado, porque sus suelos eran de categoría VII y VIII, mas no porque existiera cobertura boscosa. \n\nTal valoración va en consonancia con el estudio técnico efectuado, “Estudio para el análisis de la situación actual de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos. Parte 1: Estudio de cobertura forestal de la Zona Americana”, que sirve de base al proyecto de ley. Entre las conclusiones de ese informe se lee:\n\n“La densidad promedio obtenida según lo registrado en las parcelas de muestreo y corroborado en los puntos de observación el área estudiada no cumple como bosque según lo establecido en la ley 7575, sin embargo existen áreas sensibles consideradas como terrenos de aptitud forestal por sus condiciones biofísicas y topografías, por tanto deben destinarse a la conservación.\n\nSe registraron un total de 18 especies distribuidas en 16 familias taxonómicas, siendo esto un indicador de BAJA diversidad florística en un área con alta heterogeneidad topográfica. Esta composición no cumple lo establecido en la ley forestal en cuanto a la riqueza de especies. Lo anterior debido a que el 33% de la densidad por hectárea está concentrada en dos especies, siendo el Mango (sic) (especie introducida) y el coco las especies predominantes.\n\nEl porcentaje de cobertura de copa de los árboles maduros, fue muy inferior al 70% en los sitios con presencia de puntos de observación mientras que el 67% de los sitios con parcelas temporales si registro valores superiores a este. En pocos sitios con escasa presencia de árboles puede identificarse un dosel superior que limite el acceso de luz, sin embargo, este dosel está conformado por una baja diversidad de especies, siendo el Mango (sic) y el Coco (sic) las predominantes.\n\nSe registraron cuatro sitios que a pesar de no cumplir los criterios establece (sic) la ley forestal 7575, son áreas sensibles de pendientes mayores a 40%, con elevada pedegosidad (sic) y por tanto son Terrenos de Aptitud Forestal (TAF).” (Énfasis del original. Folio 110 del expediente legislativo n.°21.558).\n\nCon respecto a los suelos, la segunda parte de citado informe, denominada “Estudio de suelos y capacidad de uso de las tierras de la Zona Americana” concluyó:\n\n“La mayor parte del área de estudio corresponde con un espacio de tipo tierras misceláneas donde no se evaluó la capacidad de uso de las tierras y donde no se realiza una descripción de los suelos ni una clasificación taxonómica de los mismos pues en tal sección los suelos naturales han sido mayoritariamente disturbados o removidos debido al desarrollo de construcciones, caminos, terrazas artificiales, excavaciones, adición de materiales de relleno y otras circunstancias similares y en las cuales existe un centro poblacional conocido como “zona americana” de Quepos. La sección de tierras misceláneas destaca especialmente en espacios intermedios del área de estudio y abarca 19,44 ha y representa un 70,16 por ciento del área de estudio.” (Folio 152 del expediente legislativo n.°21.558).\n\nAhora bien, si se acude al decreto ejecutivo nro. 35325-MP-MINAE, se debe destacar que este menciona que la “…naturaleza según el mismo Registro es terreno con construcciones, zona verde, zona ocupada, parque, tacotal, charral y patio…” Sin embargo, a pesar de la existencia de inmuebles, la normativa en mención destinó todo el inmueble a patrimonio natural del Estado. El desapego de ese decreto con la realidad material del área se hace aún más evidente por la existencia de otro decreto ‑el nro. 37329-C del 23 de agosto de 2012‑ que declara patrimonio histórico arquitectónico cantidad de estructuras de la Zona Americana. Es relevante la parte considerativa de esta última disposición, pues evidencia la importancia de las construcciones presentes en esa zona:\n\n“1.- Que el conjunto de edificaciones conocido como \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\", matrícula folio real No. 6-164408-000, plano No. P-0120944-1993, es propiedad del Estado cédula jurídica No. 2-000-045522, y es administrado por el Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, cédula jurídica No. 2-100-042014.\n\n2.- Que el conjunto de edificaciones que conforman la denominada \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\", presentan un entorno especial por autenticidad y valor cultural, por ser representativo de las ciudades bananeras y del desarrollo socio-económico de las regiones del país utilizadas por la Compañía Bananera.\n\n3.- Que el ingreso de la United Fruit Company y sus subsidiarias al territorio del Pacífico Central, marcó el inicio de las poblaciones de los actuales cantones de Aguirre y Parrita.\n\n4.- Que el citado conjunto de edificaciones poseen un valor histórico íntimamente relacionado con los valores científicos y de autenticidad, que impactan directamente con el valor cultural, ya que dichas edificaciones se preservan al día de hoy, con un alto grado de autenticidad, y por tanto como un testimonio de la evidencia de rasgos culturales como el estilo de vida, las técnicas constructivas y materiales, que se aplicaron para resolver las condiciones geográficas y climatológicas del entorno, durante su construcción.\n\n5.- Que el conjunto de edificaciones que existen en el inmueble son un testimonio del paso de la United Fuit Company por la región del Pacífico Central, representando un modelo arquitectónico importado basado en una cultura exógena, que al igual que en todos los enclaves bananeros latinoamericanos, genera una población con características culturales diferentes a las del resto del territorio nacional.\n\n6.- Que dadas las relaciones sociales y costumbres de los habitantes de la región, no ameritaba los cerramientos entre una y otra vivienda, e incluso las cercas vivas fueron innecesarias en ese territorio.\n\n7.- Que las áreas de esparcimiento fueron imprescindibles dentro del estilo de vida de los habitantes del inmueble conocido como \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\", muestra de ello es la construcción de espacios sociales como el \"Club Americano\" (que se concretó, incluso antes de la construcción de la Casa del subgerente), la piscina y la canchas de tenis, que fueron indispensables para el desarrollo cultural de la población.\n\n8.- Que el inmueble mantiene su tejido histórico, de tal manera que hoy en día se puede observar la forma de vida de las personas de las últimas décadas de la primera mitad del siglo XX hasta el momento en que la subsidiaria de la United Fruit Company, abandonó el país.\n\n9.- Que por las condiciones histórico-arquitectónicas citadas, y con fundamento en el artículo 89 de la Constitución Política, la Ley No. 7555, Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica y el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Reglamento a la Ley de Patrimonio Histórico- Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, y sus reformas; el Ministerio de Cultura y Juventud realizó la instrucción del procedimiento administrativo para declarar e incorporar al Patrimonio Histórico- Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, el inmueble en cuestión.\n\n10.- Que por acuerdo firme No. 12 tomado por la Comisión Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico- Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, en Sesión Ordinaria No. 18-2011 del 10 de octubre de 2011, se emitió la opinión favorable, requerida por el artículo No. 7 de la Ley No. 7555, Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica y el artículo No. 9 inciso b) del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Reglamento a la Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica.\n\n11.- Que es deber del Estado conservar, proteger y preservar el Patrimonio Histórico- Arquitectónico de Costa Rica. (…)”\n\nAsí, en cuanto a lo alegado por los consultantes con respecto a que el estudio técnico para fundamentar el proyecto de ley desconoce las condiciones ambientales que llevaron a categorizar la zona como patrimonio natural del Estado, más bien se observa que aquel, por un lado, reconoce una realidad material y, por otro, concilia el decreto ejecutivo n.° 35325-MP-MINAE con el nro. 37329-C y el desarrollo histórico en él detallado. Es decir, el estudio técnico verificó la existencia de construcciones e inmuebles históricos en la zona ‑algunos de ellos declarados patrimonio histórico‑, así como zonas aptas para la conservación ambiental, a la vez que ha otorgado a cada uno la categoría que, según el criterio técnico, correspondía. Recuérdese que el Estado debe velar tanto por el patrimonio natural (numeral 50 de la Constitución Política) como por el histórico (ordinal 78 eiusdem), de manera que la conciliación de ambos intereses deviene necesaria, como justamente se hizo en el estudio señalado. En ese tanto, la Sala descarta la queja planteada.\n\nb) Con respecto a la compensación del área desafectada del patrimonio natural. Los consultantes reclaman que se compense el área desafectada del patrimonio natural por el proyecto de ley. Este argumento debe rechazarse por dos motivos. El primero está expuesto en el acápite anterior. La categorización indiscriminada de todo el inmueble como patrimonio natural, que planteó el decreto ejecutivo nro. 35325-MP-MINAE, rivaliza con la realidad material del lugar, donde no se aprecia patrimonio natural en algunas partes del territorio, sino construcciones y caminos, por ejemplo, que históricamente estuvieron ahí. En segundo lugar, se determina que el proyecto de ley conserva a nombre del SINAC aquellos terrenos forestales que se estimaron adecuados, de conformidad con el estudio técnico (artículo 7 del proyecto). Es decir, ni de tal estudio técnico ni del escrito de interposición de la consulta se infiere cuáles áreas en concreto sería necesario compensar, visto que cada zona será destinada según su naturaleza. En ese tanto, se desestima el extremo.\n\nc) En cuanto a que los estudios técnicos no fueron elaborados por el SINAC. Los consultantes señalan que la autoridad competente para elaborar el estudio técnico es el SINAC. En cuanto a este punto, el escrito de interposición no efectúa mayor desarrollo argumentativo, como es su deber (numeral 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). Por otro lado, el estudio técnico que da respaldo al proyecto de ley señala que se confeccionó con base en los lineamientos del decreto ejecutivo nro. 36786-MINAET. Esa norma indica en su apartado III:\n\n“III.-Competencias para la delimitación y certificación. La clasificación de los terrenos dentro de la ZMT corresponderá a las Áreas de Conservación (AC) del Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) y a profesionales privados debidamente acreditados por los Colegios Profesionales respectivos para que clasifiquen los bosques, terrenos de aptitud forestal (suelos Clase VII y VIII), (manglares, esteros, rías, marismas, lagunas costeras, pantanos, bosques anegados, salitrales) y humedales.\n\nLa validez de los documentos de categorización emitidos por profesionales privados quedará sujeta a la aprobación que emita el AC que por competencia territorial le corresponda. A las Áreas de Conservación del SINAC con jurisdicción en la ZMT les competerá, además, la verificación, fiscalización, deslinde y certificación de las tierras del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y las zonas de protección. (…)” (El subrayado es agregado).\n\nDado que, de forma expresa, la norma, por un lado, autoriza que profesionales privados realicen tal tipo de estudio, y, por otro, sujeta la validez de este a la aprobación del AC competente, abonado a la ausencia de mayor fundamentación por parte de los consultantes para profundizar en el examen de este reproche, se desestima el extremo.\n\nLo anterior, empero, no exime al interesado de procurar la aprobación del Área de Conservación respectiva, ni al Área de Conservación del SINAC de ejercer su competencia sobre la “…verificación, fiscalización, deslinde y certificación de las tierras del Patrimonio Natural del Estado y las zonas de protección…”, en los términos indicados en ese mismo apartado del reglamento. No está de más decir, que la municipalidad no se ve exonerada de cumplir los trámites legales concernientes a la protección ambiental ni está exceptuada de la verificación de posibles impedimentos aplicables, que el ordenamiento jurídico establece a favor del ambiente como, por ejemplo, el numeral 15 de la Ley Forestal:\n\n“ARTICULO 15.- Impedimentos\n\nLos organismos de la Administración Pública no podrán permutar, ceder, enajenar, de ninguna manera, entregar ni dar en arrendamiento, terrenos rurales de su propiedad o bajo su administración, sin que antes hayan sido clasificados por el Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía. Si están cubiertos de bosque, automáticamente quedarán incorporados al patrimonio natural del Estado y se constituirá una limitación que deberá inscribirse en el Registro Público.” \n\nd) Sobre la alegada “metodología no vigente”. En este punto, los consultantes de nuevo incumplen su deber de razonar adecuadamente el reproche de constitucionalidad que alegan. Ellos se limitan a indicar que el estudio “…se basó en una metodología distinta que no se encuentra vigente en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET)”. Tal como se expuso en el apartado anterior, el número correcto del decreto que se utilizó para la metodología es el 36786-MINAET (no 3676, como se indicó). Aún asumiendo la existencia de un error material en el citado número, el Sistema Nacional de Legislación Vigente (SINALEVI) indica que el decreto nro. 36786-MINAET no ha sido derogado. En ese tanto, la queja planteada no puede prosperar.\n\nIV.- Atinente a la constitucionalidad por el fondo. Como motivo por el fondo, los consultantes consideran que el transitorio II del proyecto de ley lesiona la autonomía municipal, porque ordena a un gobierno local que modifique su instrumento de planificación urbana. Además, ese transitorio implica la modificación del artículo 132 del plan regulador “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” del 30 de diciembre de 2016. \n\nEl transitorio II del proyecto de ley nro. 21.558 estatuye:\n\n“TRANSITORIO II- Se otorga un plazo no mayor de cuatro años para que la Municipalidad de Quepos pueda realizar y presentar una nueva propuesta de ordenamiento territorial ante el Departamento de Urbanismo del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) o ante quien corresponda, para que con base en los lineamientos del Plan Regulador “Modificación Parcial al Plan Regulador Urbano de la Ciudad de Quepos, Integración de la Variable Ambiental\" o el instrumento de planificación que se encuentre vigente, proceda a realizar la integración de los terrenos señalados en el artículo 1 de la presente ley.”\n\nTal como se observa en la transcripción, la Asamblea Legislativa no está girando una orden al gobierno local para que modifique el instrumento de planificación urbana de una manera determinada, sino que le está otorgando un plazo para que incorpore a su plan regulador los terrenos que le serían donados por medio de la ley, que son de su localidad. Tal incorporación es un actuar que, de todas formas, ya corresponde al municipio (Ley de Planificación Urbana), en tanto instancia administradora de los intereses locales.\n\nFinalmente, el posible choque entre el proyecto de ley y “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” en tesis de principio, es un tema por ventilar en la sede de la legalidad, en caso de que entrare en vigor el proyecto estudiado.\n\nV.- Corolario. En conclusión, se evacua la consulta en el sentido de que el proyecto de ley nro. 21.558 no contiene los vicios constitucionales acusados.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nSe evacua la consulta formulada en el sentido que el proyecto “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 21.558, no contiene vicios de constitucionalidad en los términos en que fue planteada. Notifíquese esta sentencia al Directorio de la Asamblea Legislativa. Comuníquese.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresidente\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nPaul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nJorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nJosé Roberto Garita N. Rosibel Jara V.\n\nExp: 22-008694-0007-CO 1", "body_en_text": "Exp: 22-008694-0007-CO\n\nRes. No. 2022012509\n\n \n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at twelve hours and ten minutes on the thirty-first of May of two thousand twenty-two.\n\nOptional legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by deputies ARACELLY SALAS EDUARTE, CAROLINA HIDALGO HERRERA, JOSÉ MARÍA VILLALTA FLOREZ ESTRADA, LAURA GUIDO PÉREZ, MILEIDY ALVARADO ARIAS, OSCAR CASCANTE CASCANTE, OTTO ROBERTO VARGAS VÍQUEZ, PAOLA VEGA RODRÍGUEZ, PATRICIA VILLEGAS ÁLVAREZ, SILVIA HERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ, VÍCTOR MORALES MORA and WALTER ENRIQUE MUÑOZ CÉSPEDES, regarding the bill \"LAW FOR THE DISAFFECTION AND DONATION OF THE ZONA AMERICANA TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF QUEPOS\", which is being processed in legislative file number 21.558.\n\nResultando\n\n1.- Through a document received at the Secretariat of the Chamber on April 25, 2022, the undersigned deputies filed a legislative consultation regarding the bill for the \"LAW FOR THE DISAFFECTION AND DONATION OF THE ZONA AMERICANA TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF QUEPOS\", processed in legislative file no. 21.558, for the following reasons. They indicate that this bill seeks to disaffect areas that are part of the State's natural heritage, without sufficient scientific studies guaranteeing their compensation, as stated by this Chamber in ruling no. 2014-12887. They refer that legislative file no. 21.558 contains the \"Studies for the analysis of the Zona Americana in the canton of Quepos\", carried out by the municipality of Quepos, applying the methodology of decree no. 36786-MINAET (Manual for the Classification of Lands Dedicated to the Conservation of Natural Resources within the Zona Marítima Terrestre in Costa Rica), but these do not meet the requirements established in the environmental legal system, because they are not carried out by the competent authority: the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. On the other hand, not only was a methodology different from the one that allowed incorporation into the Environmental Heritage applied, but it was based on a different methodology that is not current in our legal system (decreto ejecutivo no. 3676-MINAET). They point out that the area is being donated to the municipality of Quepos, so that it may proceed to donate again or sell those lands, so that not only is the protection category lost, but it is transferred to the private domain of individuals; as indicated in article 2 of the bill under discussion. As a substantive defect, they note the possible violation of the principle of municipal autonomy. They affirm that, regarding the field of territorial planning, municipal autonomy is developed in the Urban Planning Law, No. 4240 of November 15, 1968. Through that legal instrument, the obligation of local governments to order the territory through planning instruments, such as the Plan Regulador, is developed. The legislative initiative questioned here (Transitorio II) grants a maximum period of four years to the municipality of Quepos to integrate the lands subject to the legislative initiative into the \"PARTIAL MODIFICATION TO THE URBAN PLAN REGULADOR OF THE CITY OF QUEPOS, INTEGRATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLE\". They consider that the indication contained in Transitorio II implies modifying article 132 of the Plan Regulador: Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso de Suelo (integration of the environmental variable) (Aguirre) of December 30, 2016, which states: \"Article 132. Purpose. Preserve the area denominated and located as Zona Americana and destine it for institutional, communal, educational, scientific research, and recreational sites. The conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of existing buildings in the Historical Heritage area, duly declared as such, is sought. This zone is under the Administration of MINAE, so the respective Management Plan must be prepared.” They state that, based on the foregoing, doubt arises as to whether the Assembly has within its powers the possibility to order a municipal government to modify the current urban planning instrument in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution regarding local territorial planning.\n\n2.- By official communication from the Presidency of this Chamber, number PSC-0051-2021 of April 25, 2022, the president of the Legislative Assembly was informed of the filing of this consultation.\n\n3.- Through a resolution of the Presidency of this Chamber at 9:56 a.m. on April 26, 2022, this consultation was admitted and the Legislative Assembly was requested to send legislative file number 21.558.\n\n4.- Through an official communication received at the Secretariat of the Chamber on May 12, 2022, the Legislative Assembly sent a certified copy of legislative file number 21.558. Consequently, the deadline to resolve the consultation expires on June 12, 2022.\n\n5.- Through a resolution of the Presidency of this Chamber at 1:40 p.m. on May 12, 2022, the certified copy of legislative file number 21.558 was deemed received and this consultation was assigned for its due consideration.\n\n6.- The provisions of law have been observed in the proceedings.\n\nJudge Rueda Leal writes; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\n I.- On the admissibility of the consultation. In accordance with subsection b) of article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, this type of consultation must be filed by ten or more deputies, once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, the requirement is met with the signature of 12 legislators. On the other hand, the bill was approved in the first debate by the Plenary of the Legislative Assembly in extraordinary session no. 67 of April 6, 2022. Given that proper grounds and compliance with the admissibility requirements are preliminarily observed, the Chamber proceeds to hear the merits.\n\n II.- Complaints of unconstitutionality. The first reproach raised by the consultants refers to the non-observance of the principle of objectification of environmental protection in the processing of the bill's file. In this regard, they point out that sufficient scientific studies have not been included to guarantee the compensation of the area of the State's natural heritage to be disaffected, nor to demonstrate that the environmental conditions that gave rise to the area's protection lack current interest. They refer that the area subject to the bill acquired the category of natural heritage through decreto ejecutivo no. 35325-MP-MINAE. They refer to the considerandos of that regulation to show the reasons for granting such a protection category. They consider that the \"Studies for the analysis of the current situation of the Zona Americana in the canton of Quepos\", which appear in the legislative file, do not satisfy the requirements set in the environmental legal system, because they are not carried out by the competent authority: the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC). On the other hand, they indicate that the methodology is different from the one that allowed incorporation into the natural heritage, as it was based on a methodology that is not current (\"Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET\"). They elaborate that the requirement for compensation of the natural heritage being disaffected has been breached, because the municipality of Quepos is authorized to donate or sell the lands to private parties.\n\n Secondly, they consider that the principle of municipal autonomy is violated, because Transitorio II of the bill grants a maximum period of four years to the municipality of Quepos to integrate the lands, the subject of the bill, into its plan regulador. They allege that such transitory provision modifies article 132 of the plan regulador \"Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso de Suelo (integration of the environmental variable (Aguirre))\" of December 30, 2016. They transcribe the rule. Based on it, they point out that doubt arises as to whether the Legislative Assembly can order a municipal government to modify the current urban planning instrument.\n\nIII.- Regarding the scientific studies and the compensation of the disaffected area. The consultants point out that there are insufficient scientific studies for several reasons: a) it is not demonstrated that the environmental conditions that gave rise to the area's protection lack current interest; b) the compensation of the natural heritage area that is disaffected is not guaranteed; c) they were not prepared by SINAC; d) the methodology of a non-current decree was used.\n\nAs a preamble, it is necessary to cite the constitutional jurisprudence regarding the objectification of environmental protection:\n\n\"Regarding the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Constitution also requires it to be 'healthy'. The requirement 'healthy' leads us to 'regenerative capacity' and 'succession capacity' to guarantee life. From both requirements: 'healthy' and 'balanced', the need for sustainable and enduring development emerges; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of 'environment', 'healthy', 'ecologically balanced', the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, so that, in the terms of sections 16 of the General Law of Public Administration and 38 of the Organic Environmental Law, state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a 'greater well-being for all the country's inhabitants'. Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection: 'Of the objectification of environmental protection (...) it is a principle that in no way can be confused with the former [precautionary principle or 'principle of prudent avoidance'], insofar as, derived from the provisions of articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, it translates into the need to support decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both regarding acts and provisions of a general nature –both legal and regulatory–, from which derives the requirement of being bound to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that, in attention to the results derived from those technical studies –such as environmental impact assessment studies–, if objective technical criteria are evidenced that denote the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in case of a 'reasonable doubt', it becomes mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which can translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.' (Rulings of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).\" (Resolution no. 2012-13367 at 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012).\n\nRegarding the specific claims:\n\na) On the environmental conditions that gave rise to the protection of the area as the State's natural heritage.\n\nThe consultants point out that decreto ejecutivo no. 35325-MP-MINAE designated for the State's natural heritage the property located in Puntarenas, registered under folio real no. 164408-000, which is the same one intended to be disaffected through bill no. 21.558. They refer to considerando III of that decree to emphasize the reason for incorporating the land into the natural heritage:\n\n\"III.-That the report 'Soil Study and Land Use Capacity of Farms No. 6-07524000 and No. 6-0783000', prepared by the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, provides in point 6 Conclusions and Recommendations, among others, that the soils of the study area were mapped into five mapping units, 2 associations that were divided into phases by slope and texture criteria and two associations, where the management unit is Type VIII, recommending not to promote any land-use change, especially in those areas with forest remnants and to preserve the scenic beauty of the site, as it is considered part of the State's Natural Heritage.\"\n\nOn this topic, even though the Chamber does not have the cited \"Soil Study and Land Use Capacity of Farms No. 6-07524000 and No. 6-0783000\", as such document was not provided by the party, the truth is that the analysis of the legislative file provides sufficient elements to dismiss the claim.\n\nTo begin, the Chamber highlights the explanation of MINAE regarding the assessment made at that time to declare it natural heritage. Thus, the minister of the branch reasoned:\n\n\"Disaffecting some of the lands of the well-known Zona Americana in the center of the canton, which particularly do not have great ecosystemic value and which, on the contrary, have been classified as PNE due to their condition of being category VII and VIII soils, and not, due to the existence of forest to conserve, is an opportunity for tourism development in the region. Its interest is of a historical, architectural, and cultural type, since these lands were given in free lease for 50 years to the Compañía Bananera de Costa Rica and their municipal administration is urgent so that they can receive infrastructure maintenance...\" (emphasis from the original. Folio 278 of the legislative file).\n\nThat is, the land was destined to the State's natural heritage because its soils were category VII and VIII, but not because there was forest cover.\n\nSuch assessment aligns with the technical study carried out, \"Study for the analysis of the current situation of the Zona Americana in the canton of Quepos. Part 1: Forest cover study of the Zona Americana\", which serves as the basis for the bill. Among the conclusions of that report, it reads:\n\n\"The average density obtained according to what was recorded in the sampling parcels and corroborated at the observation points indicates the studied area does not qualify as forest as established in Ley 7575, however, there are sensitive areas considered as forest aptitude lands due to their biophysical conditions and topography, therefore they must be destined for conservation.\n\nA total of 18 species distributed in 16 taxonomic families were recorded, this being an indicator of LOW floristic diversity in an area with high topographic heterogeneity. This composition does not meet what is established in the Ley Forestal regarding species richness. The foregoing because 33% of the density per hectare is concentrated in two species, Mango (sic) (introduced species) and coconut being the predominant species.\n\nThe canopy cover percentage of mature trees was far below 70% in sites with observation points, while 67% of sites with temporary parcels did record values above this. In few sites with scarce presence of trees, an upper canopy that limits light access can be identified, however, this canopy is made up of a low diversity of species, Mango (sic) and Coconut (sic) being the predominant ones.\n\nFour sites were recorded that, despite not meeting the criteria established by Ley Forestal 7575, are sensitive areas with slopes greater than 40%, with high stoniness and therefore are Forest Aptitude Lands (TAF).\" (Emphasis from the original. Folio 110 of legislative file No. 21.558).\n\nRegarding soils, the second part of the cited report, called \"Soil study and land use capacity of the Zona Americana\" concluded:\n\n\"The greater part of the study area corresponds to a space of miscellaneous lands type where the land use capacity was not evaluated and where no description of the soils or taxonomic classification thereof is made, because in such section the natural soils have been mostly disturbed or removed due to the development of constructions, roads, artificial terraces, excavations, addition of fill materials, and other similar circumstances and in which a populated center exists known as 'Zona Americana' of Quepos. The miscellaneous lands section stands out especially in intermediate spaces of the study area, covers 19.44 ha and represents 70.16 percent of the study area.\" (Folio 152 of legislative file No. 21.558).\n\nNow, if one turns to decreto ejecutivo no. 35325-MP-MINAE, it should be noted that it mentions that the \"...nature according to the same Registry is land with buildings, green zone, occupied zone, park, thicket, scrubland and yard...\" However, despite the existence of buildings, the regulation in question designated the entire property as the State's natural heritage. The detachment of that decree from the material reality of the area is made even more evident by the existence of another decree ‑no. 37329-C of August 23, 2012‑ which declares a number of structures in the Zona Americana as architectural historical heritage. The considerative part of this latter provision is relevant, as it evidences the importance of the buildings present in that zone:\n\n\"1.- That the group of buildings known as 'Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos', registered under folio real No. 6-164408-000, plan No. P-0120944-1993, is owned by the State legal identification No. 2-000-045522, and is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, legal identification No. 2-100-042014.\n\n2.- That the group of buildings that make up the so-called 'Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos', present a special environment due to authenticity and cultural value, for being representative of the banana towns and the socio-economic development of the country's regions used by the Compañía Bananera.\n\n3.- That the entry of the United Fruit Company and its subsidiaries into the Central Pacific territory marked the beginning of the populations of the current cantons of Aguirre and Parrita.\n\n4.- That the cited group of buildings possesses a historical value intimately related to the scientific and authenticity values, which directly impact cultural value, since said buildings are preserved to this day, with a high degree of authenticity, and therefore as a testimony of the evidence of cultural features such as the lifestyle, construction techniques and materials, which were applied to resolve the geographic and climatological conditions of the environment during their construction.\n\n5.- That the group of buildings existing on the property are a testimony of the passage of the United Fruit Company through the Central Pacific region, representing an imported architectural model based on an exogenous culture, which, like in all Latin American banana enclaves, generates a population with cultural characteristics different from those of the rest of the national territory.\n\n6.- That given the social relations and customs of the region's inhabitants, enclosures between one dwelling and another did not merit, and even live fences were unnecessary in that territory.\n\n7.- That recreational areas were essential within the lifestyle of the inhabitants of the property known as 'Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos', a sign of this is the construction of social spaces like the 'Club Americano' (which materialized, even before the construction of the assistant manager's house), the pool and the tennis courts, which were indispensable for the cultural development of the population.\n\n8.- That the property maintains its historical fabric, such that today one can observe the way of life of people from the last decades of the first half of the 20th century until the moment when the subsidiary of the United Fruit Company abandoned the country.\n\n9.- That due to the cited historical-architectural conditions, and based on article 89 of the Political Constitution, Law No. 7555, Law of Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica and Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Regulation to the Law of Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, and its amendments; the Ministry of Culture and Youth conducted the instruction of the administrative procedure to declare and incorporate into the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, the property in question.\n\n10.- That by final agreement No. 12 taken by the Comisión Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, in Ordinary Session No. 18-2011 of October 10, 2011, the favorable opinion, required by article No. 7 of Law No. 7555, Law of Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica and article No. 9 subsection b) of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Regulation to the Law of Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, was issued.\n\n11.- That it is the duty of the State to conserve, protect, and preserve the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica. (…)\"\n\nThus, regarding what was alleged by the consultants with respect to the fact that the technical study to support the bill ignores the environmental conditions that led to categorizing the zone as the State's natural heritage, it is rather observed that the former, on one hand, recognizes a material reality and, on the other, reconciles decreto ejecutivo No. 35325-MP-MINAE with No. 37329-C and the historical development detailed therein. That is, the technical study verified the existence of historical buildings and properties in the area ‑some of them declared historical heritage‑, as well as zones suitable for environmental conservation, while granting each the category that, according to the technical criteria, corresponded. Recall that the State must ensure both the natural heritage (section 50 of the Political Constitution) and the historical one (section 78 eiusdem), so that the conciliation of both interests becomes necessary, as justly done in the indicated study. In that regard, the Chamber dismisses the complaint raised.\n\nb) Regarding the compensation of the area disaffected from the natural heritage. The consultants claim that the area disaffected from the natural heritage by the bill must be compensated. This argument must be rejected for two reasons. The first is set out in the preceding section. The indiscriminate categorization of the entire property as natural heritage, as proposed by decreto ejecutivo no. 35325-MP-MINAE, clashes with the material reality of the place, where natural heritage is not observed in some parts of the territory, but rather buildings and roads, for example, which were historically there. Secondly, it is determined that the bill conserves in the name of SINAC those forest lands that were deemed suitable, in accordance with the technical study (article 7 of the bill). That is, neither from such technical study nor from the consultation filing document is it inferred which specific areas it would be necessary to compensate, given that each zone will be destined according to its nature. In that regard, the point is dismissed.\n\nc) As to the technical studies not being prepared by SINAC. The consultants point out that the competent authority to prepare the technical study is SINAC. On this point, the filing document does not provide further argumentative development, as is its duty (section 99 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction). On the other hand, the technical study supporting the bill indicates that it was prepared based on the guidelines of decreto ejecutivo no. 36786-MINAET. That norm indicates in its section III:\n\n\"III.-Competencies for delimitation and certification. The classification of lands within the ZMT shall correspond to the Áreas de Conservación (AC) of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) and to private professionals duly accredited by the respective Professional Associations to classify forests, forest aptitude lands (Class VII and VIII soils), (mangroves, estuaries, rias, marshes, coastal lagoons, swamps, flooded forests, salt flats) and wetlands.\n\nThe validity of categorization documents issued by private professionals shall be subject to the approval issued by the AC that corresponds by territorial competence. The Áreas de Conservación of SINAC with jurisdiction in the ZMT shall also be responsible for the verification, oversight, demarcation, and certification of the State's Natural Heritage lands and protection zones. (…)\" (Underlining added).\n\nGiven that, expressly, the norm, on one hand, authorizes private professionals to conduct this type of study, and, on the other, subjects its validity to the approval of the competent AC, in addition to the lack of further grounds from the consultants to deepen the examination of this reproach, the point is dismissed.\n\nThe foregoing, however, does not exempt the interested party from seeking the approval of the respective Área de Conservación, nor the Área de Conservación of SINAC from exercising its competence over the \"…verification, oversight, demarcation, and certification of the State's Natural Heritage lands and protection zones…\", in the terms indicated in that same section of the regulation. It goes without saying that the municipality is not exempted from complying with the legal procedures concerning environmental protection, nor is it excepted from the verification of possible applicable impediments that the legal system establishes in favor of the environment, such as section 15 of the Ley Forestal:\n\n\"ARTICLE 15.- Impediments\n\nPublic Administration bodies may not swap, transfer, alienate, in any way, deliver, or lease, rural lands owned by them or under their administration, without them first having been classified by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. If they are covered by forest, they will automatically be incorporated into the State's natural heritage and a limitation will be constituted that must be registered in the Public Registry.\"\n\nd) On the alleged \"non-current methodology\". On this point, the consultants again fail in their duty to adequately reason the reproach of constitutionality they allege. They merely indicate that the study \"…was based on a different methodology that is not current in our legal system (Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET)\". As stated in the previous section, the correct number of the decree used for the methodology is 36786-MINAET (not 3676, as indicated). Even assuming the existence of a material error in the cited number, the Sistema Nacional de Legislación Vigente (SINALEVI) indicates that decreto no. 36786-MINAET has not been repealed. In that regard, the complaint raised cannot succeed.\n\nIV.- Concerning constitutionality on the merits. As a reason on the merits, the consultants consider that Transitorio II of the bill harms municipal autonomy, because it orders a local government to modify its urban planning instrument. Furthermore, that transitory provision implies the modification of article 132 of the plan regulador \"Reglamento de Zonificación del Uso de Suelo (integration of the environmental variable (Aguirre))\" of December 30, 2016.\n\nTransitorio II of bill no. 21.558 states:\n\n\"TRANSITORIO II- A period of no more than four years is granted so that the Municipality of Quepos can carry out and present a new territorial planning proposal to the Urbanism Department of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) or to the corresponding entity, so that based on the guidelines of the Plan Regulador 'Partial Modification to the Urban Plan Regulador of the City of Quepos, Integration of the Environmental Variable' or the planning instrument that is in effect, it proceeds to carry out the integration of the lands indicated in article 1 of this law.\"\n\nAs observed in the transcription, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a determined manner, but rather is granting it a deadline to incorporate into its plan regulador the lands that would be donated to it through the law, which are in its locality.\n\nSuch incorporation is an action that, in any case, already falls to the municipality (Ley de Planificación Urbana), as the administrative body for local interests.\n\nFinally, the potential conflict between the bill and the \"Zoning Regulation for Land Use (Integration of the Environmental Variable) (Aguirre)\" (Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)), as a matter of principle, is an issue to be addressed in the venue of legality, should the bill under review enter into force.\n\nV.- Corollary. In conclusion, the consultation is resolved in the sense that legislative bill no. 21.558 does not contain the alleged constitutional defects.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe consultation submitted is resolved in the sense that the bill “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, processed under legislative file number 21.558, does not contain constitutional defects in the terms raised. This judgment shall be notified to the Board of Directors of the Asamblea Legislativa. Let it be communicated.\n\n \n \n \nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresidente\n\n \n \n \nPaul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\n \n \n \nJorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.\n\n \n \n \nJosé Roberto Garita N. Rosibel Jara V.\n\nExp: 22-008694-0007-CO 1\n\nNow, with the concepts of \"environment,\" \"healthy,\" and \"ecologically balanced,\" the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, in the terms of Articles 16 of the General Public Administration Act and 38 of the Organic Environmental Act, state actions in environmental matters must be based on and cannot contradict the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve the full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a \"greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country.\" Regarding the subjection of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, this Chamber has denominated it the principle of objectivization of environmental protection: \"The objectivization of environmental protection (...) is a principle that can in no way be confused with the previous one [the precautionary principle or 'principle of prudent avoidance'], since, as derived from the provisions of Articles 16 and 160 of the General Public Administration Act, it translates into the need to substantiate decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to acts and provisions of a general nature—both legal and regulatory—from which the requirement of binding adherence to science and technique is derived, thereby conditioning the Administration's discretion in this matter. So that, in consideration of the results derived from those technical studies—such as environmental impact assessments (estudios de impacto ambiental)—if an objective technical criterion is evident that denotes the probability of clear damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of 'reasonable doubt,' it is mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which may translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.\" (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).\" (Resolution No. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012).\n\nRegarding the specific claims:\n\n**a) On the environmental conditions that gave rise to the protection of the area as a state natural patrimony (patrimonio natural del Estado).**\n\nThe petitioners point out that Executive Decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE allocated the property located in Puntarenas, real property registration No. 164408-000, to the state natural patrimony, which is the same one intended to be disaffected through draft law No. 21.558. They refer to considerando III of that decree in order to emphasize the reason for incorporating the land into the natural patrimony:\n\n\"III.-That the report 'Soil Study and Land Use Capacity for Farms No. 6-07524000 and No. 6-0783000' ('Estudio de Suelos y Capacidad de Uso de las Tierras Fincas Nº 6-07524000 y Nº 6-0783000'), prepared by the National Institute of Innovation and Transfer of Agricultural Technology of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, provides in point 6 Conclusions and Recommendations, among others, that the soils of the study area were mapped into five mapping units, 2 associations that were divided into phases by slope and texture criteria and two associations, where the management unit is Type VIII, recommending that no land-use change (cambio de uso de la tierra) be promoted, especially in those areas with forest relicts, and to preserve the scenic beauty of the site, since it is considered part of the State Natural Patrimony.\"\n\nRegarding this issue, although this Chamber does not have the aforementioned \"Soil Study and Land Use Capacity for Farms No. 6-07524000 and No. 6-0783000,\" as such document was not provided by the party, the truth is that the analysis of the legislative record provides sufficient elements to dismiss the claim.\n\nTo begin, this Chamber highlights the explanation from MINAE regarding the assessment made at that time to declare it a natural patrimony. Thus, the minister of that branch reasoned:\n\n\"Disaffecting some of the lands of the well-known American Zone in the center of the canton, which particularly **do not have great ecosystemic value and which, on the contrary, have been classified as PNE due to their condition of being category VII and VIII soils, and not because of the existence of forest to conserve**, is an opportunity for tourism development in the region. Its interest is historical, architectural, and cultural, since they were lands given in free lease for 50 years to the Costa Rican Banana Company and their municipal administration is urgent so that they can receive infrastructure maintenance…\" (emphasis original. Page 278 of the legislative record).\n\nThat is, the land was allocated to the state natural patrimony because its soils were category VII and VIII, but not because there was a forest cover (cobertura boscosa).\n\nThis assessment is consistent with the technical study carried out, \"Study for the analysis of the current situation of the American Zone in the canton of Quepos. Part 1: Forest cover study of the American Zone\" (\"Estudio para el análisis de la situación actual de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos. Parte 1: Estudio de cobertura forestal de la Zona Americana\"), which serves as the basis for the draft law. Among the conclusions of that report we read:\n\n\"The average density obtained according to what was recorded in the sampling plots and corroborated at the observation points, the area studied does not qualify as forest according to the provisions of Ley 7575, however there are sensitive areas considered as forest-suitable lands due to their biophysical conditions and topographies, therefore they must be allocated for conservation.\n\nA total of 18 species distributed in 16 taxonomic families were recorded, this being an indicator of **LOW** floristic diversity in an area with high topographical heterogeneity. This composition does not meet what is established in the forest law in terms of species richness. The foregoing is because 33% of the density per hectare is concentrated in two species, Mango (sic) (introduced species) and Coco (sic) being the predominant species.\n\nThe canopy cover percentage of mature trees was well below 70% at sites with the presence of observation points, while 67% of the sites with temporary plots did record values above this. In few sites with a scarce presence of trees, an upper canopy that limits light access can be identified, however, this canopy is formed by a low diversity of species, with Mango (sic) and Coco (sic) being predominant.\n\nFour sites were recorded that, despite not meeting the criteria established by Forest Law 7575, are sensitive areas with slopes greater than 40%, with high surface stone content (pedegosidad) (sic) and therefore are Forest-Suitable Lands (TAF).\" (Emphasis original).\n\nFolio 110 of legislative file No. 21.558).\n\nWith respect to the soils, the second part of the aforementioned report, called “*Soil study and land-use capacity of the Zona Americana*” concluded:\n\n“*The majority of the study area corresponds to a miscellaneous lands space where the land-use capacity was not evaluated and where no description of the soils or taxonomic classification thereof is made, since in such section the natural soils have been mostly disturbed or removed due to the development of buildings, roads, artificial terraces, excavations, addition of fill materials, and other similar circumstances, and in which a population center known as the ‘Zona Americana’ of Quepos exists. The miscellaneous lands section stands out especially in intermediate spaces of the study area and covers 19.44 ha and represents 70.16 percent of the study area.*” (Folio 152 of legislative file No. 21.558).\n\nNow, if one turns to Executive Decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE, it must be noted that it mentions that the “…*nature according to the Registry itself is land with buildings, green zone, occupied zone, park, thicket, scrubland, and yard*…” However, despite the existence of buildings, the aforementioned regulation designated **all** of the property as national natural heritage. The detachment of that decree from the material reality of the area is made even more evident by the existence of another decree —No. 37329-C of August 23, 2012— which declares a number of structures of the Zona Americana as historical-architectural heritage. The recital part of this latter provision is relevant, as it demonstrates the importance of the constructions present in that zone:\n\n“*1.— That the group of buildings known as ‘Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos’, real folio registration No. 6-164408-000, Plan No. P-0120944-1993, is the property of the State, legal identification No. 2-000-045522, and is administered by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, legal identification No. 2-100-042014.*\n\n*2.— That the group of buildings that make up the so-called ‘Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos’ present a special setting of authenticity and cultural value, as they are representative of the banana company towns and of the socio-economic development of the country’s regions used by the Banana Company.*\n\n*3.— That the entry of the United Fruit Company and its subsidiaries into the Central Pacific territory marked the beginning of the settlements of the current cantons of Aguirre and Parrita.*\n\n*4.— That the aforementioned group of buildings possesses historical value intimately linked to scientific values and authenticity, which directly impact the cultural value, since these buildings are preserved today with a high degree of authenticity, and therefore as a testament to the evidence of cultural features such as lifestyle, construction techniques, and materials, which were applied to address the geographical and climatological conditions of the surroundings during their construction.*\n\n*5.— That the group of buildings existing on the property are a testimony of the United Fruit Company’s passage through the Central Pacific region, representing an imported architectural model based on an exogenous culture, which, as in all Latin American banana enclaves, generates a population with cultural characteristics different from those of the rest of the national territory.*\n\n*6.— That given the social relations and customs of the region’s inhabitants, enclosures between one dwelling and another were not warranted, and even live fences were unnecessary in that territory.*\n\n*7.— That recreation areas were essential to the lifestyle of the inhabitants of the property known as ‘Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos’; evidence of this is the construction of social spaces such as the ‘Club Americano’ (which was completed even before the construction of the assistant manager’s house), the swimming pool, and the tennis courts, which were indispensable for the cultural development of the population.*\n\n*8.— That the property maintains its historical fabric, so that today one can observe the way of life of the people from the final decades of the first half of the 20th century until the moment when the subsidiary of the United Fruit Company left the country.*\n\n*9.— That due to the cited historical-architectural conditions, and based on Article 89 of the Political Constitution, Law No. 7555, Law on the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, and Executive Decree No. 32749-C, Regulation to the Law on the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, and its amendments; the Ministry of Culture and Youth carried out the processing of the administrative procedure to declare and incorporate the property in question into the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica.*\n\n*10.— That by final agreement No. 12 adopted by the National Commission for the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, in Ordinary Session No. 18-2011 of October 10, 2011, the favorable opinion required by Article No. 7 of Law No. 7555, Law on the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, and Article No. 9, subsection b) of Executive Decree No. 32749-C, Regulation to the Law on the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica, was issued.*\n\n*11.— That it is the duty of the State to conserve, protect, and preserve the Historical-Architectural Heritage of Costa Rica.* (…)*”*\n\nThus, regarding what was alleged by the petitioners with respect to the technical study to support the bill disregarding the environmental conditions that led to categorizing the zone as national natural heritage, it is rather observed that the former, on the one hand, recognizes a material reality and, on the other, reconciles Executive Decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE with No. 37329-C and the historical development detailed therein. That is, the technical study verified the existence of constructions and historical buildings in the zone —some of them declared historical heritage—, as well as areas suitable for environmental conservation, while granting each the category that, according to technical criteria, corresponded. It should be recalled that the State must safeguard both natural heritage (Article 50 of the Political Constitution) and historical heritage (Article 78 *eiusdem*), so reconciling both interests becomes necessary, as was precisely done in the referenced study. To that extent, the Chamber dismisses the complaint raised.\n\n**b) Regarding the compensation of the area removed from the natural heritage.** The petitioners claim that the area removed from the natural heritage by the bill should be compensated. This argument must be rejected for two reasons. The first is set forth in the preceding section. The indiscriminate categorization of the entire property as natural heritage, as proposed by Executive Decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE, conflicts with the material reality of the place, where natural heritage is not present in some parts of the territory, but rather buildings and roads, for example, which historically were there. Second, it is determined that the bill conserves in the name of SINAC those forest lands that were deemed suitable, in accordance with the technical study (Article 7 of the bill). That is, neither from that technical study nor from the petition filing brief can it be inferred which specific areas would need to be compensated, given that each zone will be designated according to its nature. To that extent, this point is dismissed.\n\n**c) Regarding that the technical studies were not prepared by SINAC.** The petitioners point out that the competent authority to prepare the technical study is SINAC. Regarding this point, the filing brief does not provide further argumentative development, as is its duty (Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law).\n\nOn the other hand, the technical study that supports the bill indicates that it was prepared based on the guidelines of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 36786-MINAET. That regulation states in its section III:\n\n\"III.- Competencies for delimitation and certification. The classification of lands within the ZMT shall correspond to the Conservation Areas (Áreas de Conservación, AC) of the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and to private professionals duly accredited by the respective Professional Associations for the classification of forests, lands of forestry aptitude (Class VII and VIII soils), (mangroves, estuaries, rias, coastal lagoons, swamps, flooded forests, salt flats) and wetlands.\n\nThe validity of the categorization documents issued by private professionals shall be subject to the approval issued by the AC with the corresponding territorial competence. The Conservation Areas of SINAC with jurisdiction in the ZMT shall also be responsible for the verification, oversight, demarcation, and certification of the lands of the State Natural Heritage and the protection zones.\" (…) (The underlining is added).\n\nGiven that, explicitly, the regulation, on one hand, authorizes private professionals to carry out this type of study, and, on the other, subjects its validity to the approval of the competent AC, combined with the absence of further substantiation by the consultants to deepen the examination of this objection, this point is dismissed.\n\nThe foregoing, however, does not exempt the interested party from seeking the approval of the respective Conservation Area, nor the Conservation Area of SINAC from exercising its competence over the “…verification, oversight, demarcation, and certification of the lands of the State Natural Heritage and the protection zones…”, in the terms indicated in that same section of the regulation. It should be noted that the municipality is not exonerated from complying with the legal procedures concerning environmental protection nor is it excepted from the verification of possible applicable impediments that the legal system establishes in favor of the environment, such as, for example, numeral 15 of the Ley Forestal:\n\n\"ARTICLE 15.- Impediments\n\nPublic Administration bodies may not exchange, assign, alienate, in any way, deliver, or lease rural lands they own or under their administration, without them first having been classified by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. If they are covered with forest, they will automatically be incorporated into the State Natural Heritage and a limitation shall be constituted that must be registered in the Public Registry.\"\n\n**d) Regarding the alleged “non-current methodology”.** On this point, the consultants again fail in their duty to adequately reason the constitutional objection they allege. They merely indicate that the study “…was based on a different methodology that is not current in our legal system (Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET)”. As stated in the previous section, the correct number of the decree used for the methodology is 36786-MINAET (not 3676, as was indicated). Even assuming a material error exists in the cited number, the National System of Current Legislation (SINALEVI) indicates that Decreto No. 36786-MINAET has not been repealed. Therefore, the complaint raised cannot succeed.\n\n**IV.- Regarding the constitutionality on the merits.** As a reason on the merits, the consultants consider that Transitional Provision II of the bill harms municipal autonomy, because it orders a local government to modify its urban planning instrument. Furthermore, that transitional provision implies the modification of Article 132 of the regulatory plan “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” of December 30, 2016.\n\nTransitional Provision II of bill No. 21.558 stipulates:\n\n\"TRANSITIONAL PROVISION II- A period of no more than four years is granted for the Municipality of Quepos to prepare and present a new territorial planning proposal to the Urbanism Department of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) or to the corresponding entity, so that, based on the guidelines of the Regulatory Plan “Partial Modification to the Urban Regulatory Plan of the City of Quepos, Integration of the Environmental Variable\" or the planning instrument in force, it proceeds to integrate the lands indicated in Article 1 of this law.\"\n\nAs observed in the transcript, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner, but rather granting it a deadline to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated to it through the law, which are from its locality. Such incorporation is an action that, in any case, already corresponds to the municipality (Urban Planning Law), as the administrative body for local interests.\n\nFinally, the possible conflict between the bill and the “Reglamento de zonificación del uso del suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” is, in principle, an issue to be resolved in the legal venue, should the studied bill enter into force.\n\n**V.- Corollary.** In conclusion, the consultation is resolved in the sense that bill No. 21.558 does not contain the constitutional defects alleged.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe consultation formulated is resolved in the sense that the bill “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, processed in legislative file number 21.558, does not contain constitutional defects in the terms in which it was raised. Notify this judgment to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly. Be communicated.\n\n\n\n**Fernando Castillo V.**\n**Presidente**\n\n\n\n**Paul Rueda L.** **Luis Fdo. Salazar A.**\n\n\n\n**Jorge Araya G.** **Anamari Garro V.**\n\n\n\n**José Roberto Garita N.** **Rosibel Jara V.**\n\n**Exp: 22-008694-0007-CO** 1\n\nNotify the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly of this judgment.\nCommunicate.\n\n\"…As a substantive ground, the petitioners consider that Transitory Provision II of the bill infringes municipal autonomy because it orders a local government to modify its urban planning instrument. Furthermore, that transitory provision entails the modification of Article 132 of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) \"Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre))\" of December 30, 2016.\n\nTransitory Provision II of bill no. 21,558 provides:\n\n\"TRANSITORIO II- A period of no more than four years is granted for the Municipality of Quepos to prepare and submit a new land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) proposal to the Department of Urbanism of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) or to the corresponding authority, so that, based on the guidelines of the Regulatory Plan 'Modificación Parcial al Plan Regulador Urbano de la Ciudad de Quepos, Integración de la Variable Ambiental' or the planning instrument in force, it may proceed to integrate the lands indicated in Article 1 of this law.\"\n\nAs can be observed in the transcription, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner; rather, it is granting it a deadline to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated through the law, which are located in its locality. Such incorporation is an action that, in any case, already falls to the municipality (Ley de Planificación Urbana), as the administrative body in charge of local interests.\n\nAs a substantive ground, the petitioners consider that Transitory Provision II of the bill infringes municipal autonomy because it orders a local government to modify its urban planning instrument. Furthermore, that transitory provision entails the modification of Article 132 of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) \"Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre))\" of December 30, 2016.\n\nTransitory Provision II of bill no. 21,558 provides:\n\n\"TRANSITORIO II- A period of no more than four years is granted for the Municipality of Quepos to prepare and submit a new land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) proposal to the Department of Urbanism of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) or to the corresponding authority, so that, based on the guidelines of the Regulatory Plan 'Modificación Parcial al Plan Regulador Urbano de la Ciudad de Quepos, Integración de la Variable Ambiental' or the planning instrument in force, it may proceed to integrate the lands indicated in Article 1 of this law.\"\n\nAs can be observed in the transcription, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner; rather, it is granting it a deadline to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated through the law, which are located in its locality. Such incorporation is an action that, in any case, already falls to the municipality (Ley de Planificación Urbana), as the administrative body in charge of local interests…\" CO07/22\n\nARTICLE 50 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. \"…regarding the arguments raised by the petitioners with respect to the fact that the technical study supporting the bill disregards the environmental conditions that led to categorizing the area as natural heritage of the State (patrimonio natural del Estado), rather it is observed that the study, on the one hand, recognizes a material reality and, on the other, reconciles Executive Decree (decreto ejecutivo) no. 35325-MP-MINAE with no. 37329-C and the historical development detailed therein. That is to say, the technical study verified the existence of historic buildings and properties in the area—some of them declared historical heritage—as well as areas suitable for environmental conservation, while assigning to each the category that, according to the technical criteria, was appropriate. It should be remembered that the State must look after both the natural heritage (numeral 50 of the Political Constitution) and the historical heritage (ordinal 78 eiusdem), so that the reconciliation of both interests becomes necessary, as was precisely done in the indicated study…\" CO07/22\n\nDescriptor: LEY PARA DESAFECTAR Y DONAR ZONA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS\nExpediente: 22-008694-0007-CO\nSentencia: 012509-22 of May 31, 2022\nTipo de asunto: Consulta Legislativa Facultativa\nNorma impugnada: Law for the Dezoning and Donation of the American Zone to the Municipality of Quepos. Legislative File No. 21,558\nParte dispositiva: The consultation is answered in the sense that the bill \"LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS\", processed under legislative file number 21,558, does not contain constitutional flaws under the terms it was formulated. Notify the Board of Directors of the Legislative Assembly of this judgment. Communicate.\nCO08/22\n\nExp: 22-008694-0007-CO\nRes. Nº 2022012509\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at twelve hours and ten minutes on May thirty-first, two thousand twenty-two.\n\nVoluntary legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by the deputies ARACELLY SALAS EDUARTE, CAROLINA HIDALGO HERRERA, JOSÉ MARÍA VILLALTA FLOREZ ESTRADA, LAURA GUIDO PÉREZ, MILEIDY ALVARADO ARIAS, OSCAR CASCANTE CASCANTE, OTTO ROBERTO VARGAS VÍQUEZ, PAOLA VEGA RODRÍGUEZ, PATRICIA VILLEGAS ÁLVAREZ, SILVIA HERNÁNDEZ SÁNCHEZ, VÍCTOR MORALES MORA, and WALTER ENRIQUE MUÑOZ CÉSPEDES, regarding the bill \"LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS\", processed under legislative file number 21,558.\n\nResultando\n\n1.- By means of a brief received in the Secretariat of the Court on April 25, 2022, the undersigned deputies filed a legislative consultation regarding the bill \"LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS\", processed under legislative file no. 21,558, on the following grounds. They state that this bill aims to dezone areas that form part of the natural heritage of the State (patrimonio natural del Estado), without having sufficient scientific studies that guarantee their compensation, as indicated by this Court in judgment no. 2014-12887. They refer that the \"Estudios para el análisis de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos\", conducted by the municipality of Quepos, appear in legislative file no. 21.558, applying the methodology of Decree no. 36786-MINAET (Manual para la Clasificación de Tierras Dedicadas a la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales dentro de la Zona Marítima Terrestre en Costa Rica), but these fail to comply with the requirements established in the environmental legal system, because they were not carried out by the competent authority: the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación. On the other hand, not only was a different methodology applied than the one that allowed the incorporation into the Environmental Heritage, but it was based on a different methodology that is not in force in our legal system (Executive Decree no. 3676-MINAET). They point out that the area is being donated to the municipality of Quepos, so that the latter may proceed to re-donate or sell those lands, such that not only is the protection category lost, but it is transferred to the private domain of individuals, as indicated in Article 2 of the bill under discussion. As a substantive flaw, they note the possible violation of the principle of municipal autonomy. They state that, regarding the field of land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial), municipal autonomy is developed in the Ley de Planificación Urbana, no. 4240 of November 15, 1968. Through that legal instrument, the obligation of local governments to plan the territory through planning instruments, such as the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), is developed. The questioned bill (transitory provision II) grants a maximum period of four years to the municipality of Quepos to integrate the lands that are the object of the bill into the \"MODIFICACIÓN PARCIAL AL PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DE LA CIUDAD DE QUEPOS, INTEGRACIÓN DE LA VARIABLE AMBIENTAL\". They consider that the indication contained in Transitory Provision II implies modifying Article 132 of the Regulatory Plan: Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental) (Aguirre) of December 30, 2016, which states: \"Article 132. Purpose. Preserve the area known and located as Zona Americana and allocate it for use as institutional, communal, educational, scientific research, and recreational headquarters. The conservation, protection, and rehabilitation of existing buildings in the Historical Heritage area duly declared as such is sought.\"\n\nThis zone is under the Administration of MINAE, therefore the respective Management Plan (Plan de Manejo) must be prepared.” They point out that, based on the foregoing, the question arises as to whether the Assembly has within its powers the possibility of ordering a municipal government to modify the current urban planning instrument in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution regarding local territorial planning (ordenamiento territorial local).\n\n**2.-** By official communication from the Presidency of this Chamber, number PSC-0051-2021 of April 25, 2022, the president of the Legislative Assembly was notified of the filing of this consultation (consulta).\n\n**3.-** By ruling of the Presidency of this Chamber at 9:56 a.m. on April 26, 2022, this consultation (consulta) was admitted, and the Legislative Assembly was requested to remit legislative file number 21.558.\n\n**4.-** By official communication received in the Secretariat of the Chamber on May 12, 2022, the Legislative Assembly remitted a certified copy of legislative file number 21.558. Consequently, the deadline to evacuate the consultation expires on June 12, 2022.\n\n**5.-** By ruling of the Presidency of this Chamber at 1:40 p.m. on May 12, 2022, the certified copy of legislative file number 21.558 was received and this consultation was assigned for its due consideration.\n\n**6.-** The provisions of the law have been observed in the procedures.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Rueda Leal**; and,\n\n**Considering (Considerando):**\n\n**I.- On the admissibility of the consultation (consulta).** In accordance with subsection b) of article 96 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this type of consultation must be raised by ten or more deputies, once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, the requirement is met with the signature of 12 legislators. Furthermore, the legislative bill was approved in first debate by the Plenary of the Legislative Assembly in extraordinary session No. 67 of April 6, 2022. Given that proper substantiation and compliance with the admissibility requirements are preliminarily observed, the Chamber proceeds to hear the merits.\n\n**II.- Grievances of unconstitutionality.** The first reproach raised by the consultants refers to the non-observance of the principle of objectification of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental) in the processing of the legislative bill file. In this regard, they point out that sufficient scientific studies have not been included to guarantee the compensation for the area of the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado) that will be released (desafectar), nor to demonstrate that the environmental conditions that gave rise to the area's protection lack current interest. They state that the area, object of the bill, acquired the category of natural heritage by means of executive decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE. They refer to the recitals (considerandos) of that regulation in order to show the reasons for granting such a category of protection. They consider that the “Studies for the analysis of the current situation of the American Zone in the canton of Quepos” (“Estudios para el análisis de la situación actual de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos”), which are contained in the legislative file, do not satisfy the requirements established in the environmental legal system, because they are not carried out by the competent authority: the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC). On the other hand, they indicate that the methodology is different from the one that allowed the incorporation into the natural heritage, since it was based on a methodology that is not in force (“Decree No. 3676 (sic)-MINAET”). They elaborate that the requirement for compensation for the natural heritage being released (desafectar) has been breached, since the municipality of Quepos is authorized to donate or sell the lands to private parties.\n\nSecondly, they consider that the principle of municipal autonomy is violated, because transitory provision II of the bill grants a maximum period of four years to the municipality of Quepos to integrate the lands, object of the legislative bill, into its regulatory plan (plan regulador). They allege that such transitory provision modifies article 132 of the regulatory plan “Zoning Regulation for Land Use (Integration of the Environmental Variable (Aguirre))” (“Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre))”) of December 30, 2016. They transcribe the norm. Based on it, they point out that the question arises as to whether the Legislative Assembly can order a municipal government to modify the current urban planning instrument.\n\n**III.- Regarding the scientific studies and the compensation for the released (desafectada) area.** The consultants point out that there are not sufficient scientific studies for several reasons: a) it is not demonstrated that the environmental conditions that gave rise to the protection of the area lack current interest; b) the compensation for the area of the natural heritage that is released (desafectada) is not guaranteed; c) they were not prepared by SINAC; d) the methodology of a non-current decree was used.\n\nAs a preamble, it is necessary to cite the constitutional jurisprudence referring to the objectification of environmental protection (objetivación de la tutela ambiental):\n\n“Regarding the environment, the object of the fundamental right set forth, our Magna Carta also requires it to be ‘healthy’ (‘sano’). The requirement of ‘healthy’ leads us to ‘regenerative capacity’ and ‘succession capacity’ to guarantee life. From both requirements: ‘healthy’ and ‘balanced’, the need for sustainable and viable development is derived; quality of life and environmental quality depend on it. Now, with the concepts of ‘environment’, ‘healthy’, ‘ecologically balanced’, the constitutional norm introduced science and technique into environmental decisions, whether legislative or administrative, such that, under the terms of articles 16 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and 38 of the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), state actions in environmental matters must be based on, and cannot contradict, the unequivocal rules of science and technique in order to achieve full and universal enjoyment of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and, furthermore, a ‘greater well-being for all the inhabitants of the country’. Regarding the submission of legislative and administrative decisions to the unequivocal rules of science and technique, the Chamber has called it the principle of objectification of environmental protection (principio de objetivación de la tutela ambiental): ‘The objectification of environmental protection (…) is a principle that can in no way be confused with the previous one [the precautionary principle or ‘principle of prudent avoidance’], insofar as, derived from the provisions of articles 16 and 160 of the General Law of Public Administration, it translates into the need to accredit decision-making in this matter with technical studies, both in relation to acts and provisions of a general nature – both legal and regulatory –, from which derives the requirement of linkage to science and technique, thereby conditioning the Administration’s discretion in this matter. So that, in accordance with the results derived from those technical studies – such as environmental impact assessment studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) –, if an objective technical criterion is evidenced denoting the probability of evident damage to the environment, natural resources, or people's health, it becomes mandatory to reject the proposed project, work, or activity; and in the case of ‘reasonable doubt’ it becomes mandatory to make decisions in favor of the environment (pro-natura principle), which can translate into the adoption of both compensatory and precautionary measures, in order to adequately protect the environment.’ (Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber Nos. 21258-10, 17126-06, 14293-05).” (Resolution No. 2012-13367 of 11:33 a.m. on September 21, 2012).\n\nRegarding the specific claims:\n\n**a) Regarding the environmental conditions that gave rise to the protection of the area as State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado).**\n\nThe consultants point out that executive decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE designated the property located in Puntarenas, recorded under real estate folio number (matrícula folio real) 164408-000, for State's natural heritage, which is the same one sought to be released (desafectar) through legislative bill No. 21.558.\n\nThey refer to Considerando III of that decree in order to emphasize the reason for incorporating the land into the natural heritage:\n\n“III.-That the report 'Estudio de Suelos y Capacidad de Uso de las Tierras Fincas Nº 6-07524000 y Nº 6-0783000', prepared by the Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia de Tecnología Agropecuaria of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, states in section 6 Conclusions and Recommendations, among others, that the soils of the study area were mapped into five mapping units, 2 associations that were divided into phases by slope and texture criteria and two associations, where the management unit is Type VIII, recommending not to promote any land-use change (cambio de uso del suelo), especially in those areas with forest relicts and to preserve the scenic beauty of the site, since it is considered part of the State Natural Heritage.”\n\nRegarding this issue, although the Court does not have the aforementioned \"Estudio de Suelos y Capacidad de Uso de las Tierras Fincas Nº 6-07524000 y Nº 6-0783000\", since said document was not provided by the party, the truth is that the analysis of the legislative file provides sufficient elements to dismiss the claim.\n\nTo begin with, the Court highlights the MINAE's explanation regarding the assessment carried out at that time to declare it natural heritage. Thus, the minister of the branch reasoned:\n\n“Removing some of the lands of the well-known Zona Americana in the center of the canton from protection, which particularly do not have great ecosystem value and which, on the contrary, have been classified as PNE due to their condition of being category VII and VIII soils, and not because of the existence of forest cover (cobertura boscosa) to conserve, is an opportunity for tourism development in the region. Its interest is of a historical, architectural and cultural type, since they were lands given in free lease for 50 years to the Compañía Bananera de Costa Rica and their municipal administration is urgent so that they can receive infrastructure maintenance…” (emphasis in original. Folio 278 of the legislative file).\n\nThat is to say, the land was designated as state natural heritage because its soils were category VII and VIII, but not because forest cover existed.\n\nSuch assessment is consistent with the technical study carried out, “Estudio para el análisis de la situación actual de la Zona Americana en el cantón de Quepos. Parte 1: Estudio de cobertura forestal de la Zona Americana”, which serves as the basis for the bill. Among the conclusions of that report the following is read:\n\n“The average density obtained according to what was recorded in the sampling plots and corroborated at the observation points, the studied area does not qualify as forest according to the provisions of Ley 7575, however, there are sensitive areas considered as lands with forestry aptitude due to their biophysical conditions and topographies, therefore they must be destined for conservation.\n\nA total of 18 species distributed in 16 taxonomic families were recorded, this being an indicator of LOW floristic diversity in an area with high topographic heterogeneity. This composition does not comply with the provisions of the Ley Forestal regarding species richness. The foregoing due to the fact that 33% of the density per hectare is concentrated in two species, with Mango (sic) (introduced species) and coconut being the predominant species.\n\nThe percentage of canopy cover of mature trees was well below 70% at the sites with presence of observation points, while 67% of the sites with temporary plots did record values higher than this. In a few sites with scarce presence of trees, an upper canopy can be identified that limits light access, however, this canopy is made up of a low diversity of species, with Mango (sic) and Coco (sic) being the predominant ones.\n\nFour sites were recorded that, despite not meeting the criteria established (sic) by Ley Forestal 7575, are sensitive areas with slopes greater than 40%, with high rockiness (sic) and therefore are Lands of Forestry Aptitude (TAF).” (Emphasis in original. Folio 110 of legislative file no. 21.558).\n\nRegarding the soils, the second part of said report, called “Estudio de suelos y capacidad de uso de las tierras de la Zona Americana”, concluded:\n\n“Most of the study area corresponds to a miscellaneous land type space where the land-use capacity (capacidad de uso de las tierras) was not evaluated and where no description of the soils or a taxonomic classification of the same is made, since in such section the natural soils have been mostly disturbed or removed due to the development of constructions, roads, artificial terraces, excavations, addition of fill materials and other similar circumstances and in which there is a population center known as the “Zona Americana” of Quepos. The miscellaneous lands section stands out especially in intermediate spaces of the study area and covers 19.44 ha and represents 70.16 percent of the study area.” (Folio 152 of legislative file no. 21.558).\n\nNow, if one turns to executive decree no. 35325-MP-MINAE, it must be noted that it mentions that the “…nature according to the Registry itself is land with constructions, green zone, occupied zone, park, brushland, scrubland and yard…” However, despite the existence of buildings, the aforementioned regulation designated the entire property as state natural heritage. The decree's detachment from the material reality of the area is made even more evident by the existence of another decree – no. 37329-C of August 23, 2012 – which declares a number of structures of the Zona Americana as architectural historical heritage. The recital part of this last provision is relevant, as it evidences the importance of the constructions present in that zone:\n\n“1.- That the group of buildings known as \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\", real folio registration No. 6-164408-000, plan No. P-0120944-1993, is property of the State legal ID No. 2-000-045522, and is administered by the Ministerio de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, legal ID No.\n\n2-100-042014.

2.- That the group of buildings that make up the so-called \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\" presents a special environment due to its authenticity and cultural value, for being representative of the banana towns and the socio-economic development of the regions of the country used by the Compañía Bananera.

3.- That the arrival of the United Fruit Company and its subsidiaries to the Central Pacific territory marked the beginning of the settlements of the present-day cantons of Aguirre and Parrita.

4.- That the aforementioned group of buildings possesses a historical value intimately related to scientific and authenticity values, which directly impact the cultural value, since said buildings are preserved to this day, with a high degree of authenticity, and therefore as a testimony to the evidence of cultural features such as the lifestyle, the construction techniques and materials, which were applied to resolve the geographical and climatological conditions of the environment, during their construction.

5.- That the group of buildings existing on the property are a testimony to the passage of the United Fruit Company through the Central Pacific region, representing an imported architectural model based on an exogenous culture, which, as in all Latin American banana enclaves, generates a population with cultural characteristics different from those of the rest of the national territory.

6.- That given the social relations and customs of the region's inhabitants, enclosures between one dwelling and another were not warranted, and even live fences were unnecessary in that territory.

7.- That recreational areas were essential within the lifestyle of the inhabitants of the property known as \"Antigua Zona Americana de Quepos\", evidence of this is the construction of social spaces such as the \"Club Americano\" (which was realized even before the construction of the Assistant Manager's House), the swimming pool and the tennis courts, which were indispensable for the cultural development of the population.

8.- That the property maintains its historical fabric, in such a way that today one can observe the way of life of the people from the last decades of the first half of the 20th century until the moment when the subsidiary of the United Fruit Company left the country.

9.- That due to the cited historical-architectural conditions, and based on Article 89 of the Constitución Política, Law No. 7555, the Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, and Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Reglamento a la Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, and its amendments; the Ministerio de Cultura y Juventud conducted the instruction of the administrative procedure to declare and incorporate into the historical-architectural heritage (Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica), the property in question.

10.- That by final agreement No. 12 adopted by the Comisión Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica, in Ordinary Session No. 18-2011 of October 10, 2011, the favorable opinion was issued, as required by Article No. 7 of Law No. 7555, the Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica and Article No. 9 subsection b) of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 32749-C, Reglamento a la Ley de Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica.

11.- That it is the duty of the State to conserve, protect and preserve the historical-architectural heritage (Patrimonio Histórico-Arquitectónico de Costa Rica). (…)\"

Thus, regarding what was alleged by the petitioners with respect to the fact that the technical study to support the bill disregards the environmental conditions that led to categorizing the zone as natural heritage (patrimonio natural) of the State, it is rather observed that the former, on one hand, recognizes a material reality and, on the other, reconciles executive decree (decreto ejecutivo) No. 35325-MP-MINAE with No. 37329-C and the historical development detailed therein. That is, the technical study verified the existence of historical constructions and properties in the zone -some of them declared historical heritage (patrimonio histórico)-, as well as areas suitable for environmental conservation, while granting each the category that, according to the technical criterion, was appropriate. It must be remembered that the State must watch over both the natural heritage (numeral 50 of the Constitución Política) and the historical heritage (ordinal 78 eiusdem), such that the reconciliation of both interests becomes necessary, as was precisely done in the indicated study. In that regard, the Chamber dismisses the complaint raised.

b) Regarding the compensation for the area removed from the natural heritage (patrimonio natural). The petitioners claim that the area removed from the natural heritage by the bill be compensated. This argument must be rejected for two reasons. The first is set forth in the preceding paragraph. The indiscriminate categorization of the entire property as natural heritage, which was proposed by executive decree No. 35325-MP-MINAE, clashes with the material reality of the place, where natural heritage is not appreciated in some parts of the territory, but rather constructions and roads, for example, which were historically there. Secondly, it is determined that the bill preserves in the name of SINAC those forested lands that were deemed suitable, in accordance with the technical study (Article 7 of the bill). That is, neither from said technical study nor from the brief filing the consultation can it be inferred which specific areas would need to be compensated, given that each zone will be designated according to its nature. In that regard, this point is dismissed.

c) Regarding the fact that the technical studies were not prepared by SINAC. The petitioners point out that the competent authority to prepare the technical study is the SINAC. Regarding this point, the brief filing the consultation does not provide further argumentative development, as is its duty (numeral 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). On the other hand, the technical study that supports the bill indicates that it was prepared based on the guidelines of executive decree No. 36786-MINAET. That regulation indicates in its section III:

\"III.- Competencies for delimitation and certification. The classification of lands within the ZMT shall correspond to the Conservation Areas (Áreas de Conservación, AC) of the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación (SINAC) and to duly accredited private professionals by the respective Professional Associations (Colegios Profesionales) to classify forests, lands of forestry aptitude (Class VII and VIII soils), (mangroves, estuaries, rias, salt marshes, coastal lagoons, swamps, flooded forests, salt flats) and wetlands.

The validity of the categorization documents issued by private professionals shall be subject to the approval issued by the AC that by territorial competence corresponds.

\n\nThe Conservation Areas (Áreas de Conservación) of SINAC with jurisdiction in the ZMT shall also have the authority for the verification, supervision (fiscalización), demarcation (deslinde), and certification of lands belonging to the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) and the protection zones (zonas de protección).” (Emphasis added).\n\nGiven that the regulation, on the one hand, expressly authorizes private professionals to carry out such studies, and, on the other, subjects their validity to the approval of the competent Conservation Area (AC), in addition to the lack of further substantiation by the petitioners to delve deeper into the examination of this reproach, this point is dismissed.\n\nThe foregoing, however, does not exempt the interested party from seeking the approval of the respective Conservation Area (Área de Conservación), nor the Conservation Area of SINAC from exercising its authority regarding the “…verification, supervision (fiscalización), demarcation (deslinde), and certification of lands belonging to the State's Natural Heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado) and the protection zones (zonas de protección)…”, in the terms indicated in that same section of the regulation. It is worth stating that the municipality is not relieved of fulfilling the legal procedures concerning environmental protection, nor is it exempted from the verification of possible applicable impediments that the legal system establishes in favor of the environment, such as, for example, article 15 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal):\n\n“ARTICLE 15.- Impediments\n\nPublic Administration bodies may not exchange (permutar), transfer, alienate in any way, deliver, or lease rural lands of their property or under their administration, without first having them classified by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. If they are covered by forest (bosque), they shall automatically be incorporated into the State's natural heritage (patrimonio natural del Estado) and a limitation shall be constituted which must be registered in the Public Registry.”\n\nd) Regarding the alleged “non-current methodology”. On this point, the petitioners again fail in their duty to adequately substantiate the constitutional reproach they allege. They merely indicate that the study “…was based on a different methodology that is not current in our legal system (Decreto N° 3676 (sic)-MINAET)”. As set forth in the previous section, the correct number of the decree used for the methodology is 36786-MINAET (not 3676, as was indicated). Even assuming the existence of a material error in the cited number, the National System of Current Legislation (SINALEVI) indicates that decree no. 36786-MINAET has not been repealed. To that extent, the complaint raised cannot succeed.\n\nIV.- Regarding constitutionality on the merits. As a reason on the merits, the petitioners consider that Transitory Provision II of the bill infringes upon municipal autonomy, because it orders a local government to modify its urban planning instrument. Furthermore, that transitory provision implies amending Article 132 of the regulatory plan “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)” of December 30, 2016.\n\nTransitory Provision II of bill no. 21.558 stipulates:\n\n“TRANSITORIO II- A period of no more than four years is granted for the Municipality of Quepos to carry out and present a new land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) proposal before the Urbanism Department of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (INVU) or before the corresponding entity, so that, based on the guidelines of the Regulatory Plan “Modificación Parcial al Plan Regulador Urbano de la Ciudad de Quepos, Integración de la Variable Ambiental\" or the planning instrument that is in effect, it proceeds to integrate the lands indicated in Article 1 of this law.”\n\nAs observed in the transcription, the Legislative Assembly is not issuing an order to the local government to modify the urban planning instrument in a specific manner, but rather granting it a deadline to incorporate into its regulatory plan the lands that would be donated to it by means of the law, which are within its locality. Such incorporation is an action that, in any case, already corresponds to the municipality (Urban Planning Law – Ley de Planificación Urbana), as the body administering local interests.\n\nFinally, any potential conflict between the bill and the “Reglamento de zonificación del uso de suelo (integración de la variable ambiental (Aguirre)”, in principle, is a matter to be resolved in a legality venue, if the studied bill were to come into force.\n\nV.- Corollary. In conclusion, the consultation is resolved in the sense that bill no. 21.558 does not contain the accused constitutional defects.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe consultation formulated is resolved in the sense that the bill “LEY PARA DESAFECTACIÓN Y DONACIÓN DE LA ZONA AMERICANA A LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE QUEPOS”, processed under legislative file (expediente) number 21.558, does not contain constitutional defects in the terms in which it was raised. This ruling shall be notified to the Directorate of the Legislative Assembly. Let it be communicated.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresidente\n\nPaul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.\n\nJosé Roberto Garita N. Rosibel Jara V." }