{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1224050",
  "citation": "Res. 02436-2012 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Rechazo de acción de inconstitucionalidad sobre madera en derechos de vía pública",
  "title_en": "Dismissal of Unconstitutionality Claim Regarding Timber from Public Road Rights-of-Way",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano una acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de La Cruz contra el inciso 3.3.3.3.1 del Manual de Procedimientos para el Aprovechamiento Maderable (R-SINAC-028), que establece que la madera proveniente de la corta de árboles en terrenos de vía pública debe ser entregada al SINAC. El accionante alegaba que la disposición vulneraba el principio de jerarquía normativa al contradecir la Ley Forestal y la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, pues sostenía que los árboles en caminos municipales son propiedad del municipio y no pueden ser donados. La Sala determinó que los argumentos se limitaban a cuestiones de legalidad —si una norma reglamentaria excede lo dispuesto en la ley— y no planteaban un verdadero conflicto de constitucionalidad. Concluyó que, de acuerdo con el artículo 49 de la Constitución Política, el control de legalidad corresponde a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa, no a la constitucional, por lo que declaró la inadmisibilidad de la acción.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismissed an unconstitutionality action filed by the Mayor of the Municipality of La Cruz against section 3.3.3.3.1 of the Manual of Procedures for Timber Harvesting (R-SINAC-028), which stipulates that timber from trees cut on public road rights-of-way must be delivered to SINAC. The plaintiff argued that the provision violated the principle of normative hierarchy by contradicting the Forestry Law and the General Public Roads Law, claiming that trees on municipal roads are municipal property and cannot be donated. The Chamber found that the arguments were limited to matters of legality—whether a regulatory norm exceeds statutory law—and did not raise a genuine constitutional conflict. It held that, under Article 49 of the Constitution, legality review belongs to the administrative litigation jurisdiction, not the constitutional one, and thus declared the action inadmissible.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "22/02/2012",
  "year": "2012",
  "topic_ids": [
    "procedural-environmental"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "procedural-environmental",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "jerarquía normativa",
    "control de legalidad",
    "jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa",
    "acción de inconstitucionalidad",
    "aprovechamiento maderable",
    "derechos de vía",
    "SINAC"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Manual de Procedimientos para el Aprovechamiento Maderable en Terrenos de Uso Agropecuario y sin Bosque",
      "article": "2",
      "doc_id": "norm-68637",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "inconstitucionalidad",
    "legalidad",
    "jerarquía normativa",
    "madera en vía pública",
    "aprovechamiento maderable",
    "SINAC",
    "Municipalidad",
    "caminos públicos",
    "Ley Forestal",
    "R-SINAC-028",
    "derechos de vía",
    "inadmisibilidad"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "unconstitutionality",
    "legality",
    "normative hierarchy",
    "timber on public roads",
    "timber harvesting",
    "SINAC",
    "municipality",
    "public roads",
    "Forestry Law",
    "R-SINAC-028",
    "rights-of-way",
    "inadmissibility"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Del análisis realizado a los argumentos del accionante, que se limitan a señalar que la norma impugnada vulnera la jerarquía de las normas, y el principio de legalidad al contradecir lo dispuesto por normas de rango legal, se concluye que la cuestión no alcanza a plantear un verdadero conflicto de constitucionalidad sino tan solo de modo reflejo o indirecto. En reiteradas ocasiones (como, por ejemplo, en la sentencia número 2000-01149 de las 15:39 horas del 2 de febrero del 2000) esta Sala ha sostenido que determinar si una norma reglamentaria violenta o excede lo dispuesto en una ley es un tema de legalidad cuya discusión no corresponde a esta jurisdicción. El artículo 49 de la Carta Fundamental asigna el control de la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, no a la constitucional.",
  "excerpt_en": "From the analysis of the plaintiff's arguments, which are limited to alleging that the challenged norm violates the hierarchy of norms and the principle of legality by contradicting provisions of higher-ranking law, it is concluded that the matter does not raise a genuine conflict of constitutionality but only a reflexive or indirect one. On repeated occasions (as, for example, in decision number 2000-01149 of 3:39 p.m. on February 2, 2000), this Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory norm violates or exceeds what is provided in a statute is a matter of legality whose discussion does not belong to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Constitution assigns control of the legality of the State's administrative function to the administrative litigation jurisdiction, not the constitutional one.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Inadmissible",
    "label_es": "Inadmisible",
    "summary_en": "The unconstitutionality action is summarily dismissed because it concerns matters of legality, not of constitutionality.",
    "summary_es": "Se rechaza de plano la acción de inconstitucionalidad por versar sobre cuestiones de legalidad, no de constitucionalidad."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "determining whether a regulatory norm violates or exceeds what is provided in a statute is a matter of legality whose discussion does not belong to this jurisdiction",
      "quote_es": "determinar si una norma reglamentaria violenta o excede lo dispuesto en una ley es un tema de legalidad cuya discusión no corresponde a esta jurisdicción"
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "Article 49 of the Constitution assigns control of the legality of the State's administrative function to the administrative litigation jurisdiction, not the constitutional one",
      "quote_es": "El artículo 49 de la Carta Fundamental asigna el control de la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, no a la constitucional"
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-41661",
      "citation": "Ley 7575",
      "title_en": "Forestry Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Forestal",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "13/02/1996",
      "year": "1996"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-41661",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 7575  Art. 6"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1224050",
  "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": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "Exp: 12-000669-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2012002436\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas treinta minutos del veintidos de febrero de dos mil doce.\n\nAcción de inconstitucionalidad presentada por [Nombre 001], mayor, casado, Abogado, vecino de Guanacaste, portador de la cédula de identidad número [Valor 001], en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de La Cruz, contra el inciso 3.3.3.3.1 del ³Manual de Procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica´ R-SINAC-028.emitido por el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación y publicado en la Gaceta N.163 del 23 de agosto del 2010.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las diez horas cincuenta minutos del 18 de enero de 2012, se interpone acción de inconstitucionalidad contra el artículo 3.3.3.3.1 del ³Manual de procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica” R-SINAC-028. Sostiene el accionante que su legitimación deriva del procedimiento que sigue vía administrativa ante el Área de Conservación Guanacaste, en contra de la resolución administrativa ACG-GMRN-OSRL-316 de la Jefa de la Oficina Subregional Liberia. Señala que la normativa impugnada establece que la madera que deriva de la corta de árboles en terrenos de vía pública, debe ser entregada al Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, mediante la Oficina Subregional correspondiente. Explica que la Ley Forestal establece como requisito para la donación de madera que se desconozca el propietario de la misma y hace referencia en sus artículos 6 y 65 a las carreteras. A juicio del accionante, de acuerdo con la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, las carreteras son aquellas que constituyen la red vial nacional, no así la cantonal. Por lo anterior, es criterio del accionante que de esto deriva que la Ley Forestal no regule lo relativo a los caminos que se encuentran bajo administración municipal, por lo cual el manual aquí impugnado, el cual deriva de dicha ley, no puede hacerlo tampoco. Sostiene que de acuerdo a la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, la Municipalidad tiene propiedad de las calles de su jurisdicción, y por lo tanto, la tiene también de los árboles que se encuentren en ellas. Así las cosas, asegura, al ser los árboles propiedad municipal, no pueden ser sujetos de donación, de conformidad con lo estipulado en la Ley Forestal. Solicita se declare inconstitucional la norma impugnada.\n\n2.- El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.\n\nRedacta el Magistrado Armijo Sancho; y, \n\nConsiderando:\n\nI. Sobre los presupuestos formales de admisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con formalidades precisas, que deben ser cumplidas a efecto de que la Sala logre de forma válida conocer el fondo de la impugnación. El artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, estipula los presupuestos de admisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad; entre ellos se exige la existencia de un asunto previo pendiente de resolver, sea en vía judicial, o en el procedimiento para agotar la vía administrativa, en que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés que se considera infringido. Por su parte, el artículo 79 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece que el escrito de interposición de la acción debe ir acompañado de la certificación literal del libelo en que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad en el asunto principal. Si bien indica el accionante en el escrito de interposición que su legitimación deriva de un procedimiento en vía administrativa, este no aporta certificación literal del libelo en el que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad en dicho proceso. De igual manera, omite el accionante la cancelación del timbre del Colegio de Abogados, el cual es requisito para la presentación del escrito inicial de todo proceso judicial, de conformidad con el artículo 4) de la Ley 3245 del 3 de diciembre de 1963. La Sala no soslaya que en cumplimiento de lo establecido en el artículo 80 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, bien podría requerirse al accionante subsanar estas formalidades; sin embargo debe especificarse que se omite la prevención correspondiente por las razones que de seguido se expondrán.\n\nII.- Sobre el objeto de la acción. La norma objeto de esta acción es el inciso 3.3.3.1 del ³Manual de procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica,´ R-SINAC-028, emitido por el Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación y publicado en la Gaceta N.163 del 23 de agosto del 2010, que dispone:\n\n“3.3.3.3 Sobre la madera producto de los árboles cortados:\n\n3.3.3.3.1 Madera en derechos de vía:\n\nCuando la corta de árboles se realice en terrenos de la vía pública, la madera deberá ser entregada al SINAC, a través de la Oficina Subregional del Área de Conservación correspondiente, para que cumpla con lo dispuesto en los artículos 6 inciso q) y 65 de la Ley Forestal Nº 7575.\n\nPara tales fines; el MOPT o la Municipalidad según corresponda; al momento de elaborar el cartel de licitación para la contratación de las obras de construcción, ampliación y mantenimiento de vías públicas, deberá incluir en las operaciones de la obra, la corta, extracción y acarreo de las trozas comerciales a sitios custodiados (planteles cercanos, predios acondicionados para tal fin u otros), a efectos de considerar sus costos y establecer las condiciones de la contratación, las responsabilidades relacionadas con estos productos para la empresa adjudicataria del proyecto. Estos aspectos deberán incluirse dentro de la resolución de autorización de corta elaborada por la AFE.\n\nUna vez apilada la madera en troza en los sitios destinados para cada caso concreto, la empresa adjudicataria entregará al contratante mediante acto formal, la madera debidamente inventariada, y este último; en forma inmediata la entregará a la Oficina Subregional del Área de Conservación correspondiente, quien la asignará a la Junta de Educación respectiva.”\n\nEl accionante señala que la disposición violenta el principio de jerarquía de las normas, porque es contraria a la Ley Forestal, ya que irrespeta una de las condiciones establecidas en los artículos 6 y 65 de dicha ley para que sea procedente la donación de madera: que se desconozca el propietario de la misma. Asimismo, señala que de acuerdo con la Ley General de Caminos Públicos, las carreteras son aquellas que constituyen la red vial nacional, por lo que las disposiciones mencionadas de la Ley Forestal, no regulan lo relativo a los caminos bajo administración municipal. Argumenta que la madera proveniente de árboles que se encuentren en caminos bajo administración municipal, es propiedad del municipio, por lo que a su juicio las disposiciones del Manual R-SINAC-028 no resultan aplicables a las Municipalidades y son contrarias a las características del derecho de propiedad o dominio.\n\nIII. De la inadmisibilidad de la acción en razón del objeto de impugnación. Del análisis realizado a los argumentos del accionante, que se limitan a señalar que la norma impugnada vulnera la jerarquía de las normas, y el principio de legalidad al contradecir lo dispuesto por normas de rango legal, se concluye que la cuestión no alcanza a plantear un verdadero conflicto de constitucionalidad sino tan solo de modo reflejo o indirecto. En reiteradas ocasiones (como, por ejemplo, en la sentencia número 2000-01149 de las 15:39 horas del 2 de febrero del 2000) esta Sala ha sostenido que determinar si una norma reglamentaria violenta o excede lo dispuesto en una ley es un tema de legalidad cuya discusión no corresponde a esta jurisdicción. El artículo 49 de la Carta Fundamental asigna el control de la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, no a la constitucional. En este caso, resulta evidente que la demanda versa sobre extremos de legalidad, en consecuencia, a tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la acción debe ser declarada inadmisible, como se dispone.\n\n \n\nPor tanto:\n\nSe rechaza de plano la acción.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nGilbert Armijo S.\n\nPresidente a.i.\n\n \n\n \n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.\n\n \n\nPaul Rueda L. Teresita Rodríguez A.\n\n \n\nRicardo Guerrero P. Aracelly Pacheco S.",
  "body_en_text": "Exp: 12-000669-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2012002436\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at fourteen hours and thirty minutes on February twenty-second, two thousand twelve.\n\nAn action of unconstitutionality (acción de inconstitucionalidad) filed by [Nombre 001], of legal age, married, Attorney, resident of Guanacaste, holder of identity card number [Valor 001], in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipalidad de La Cruz, against subsection 3.3.3.3.1 of the \"Manual de Procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica\" R-SINAC-028, issued by the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación and published in La Gaceta N.163 of August 23, 2010.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- By brief received at the Secretariat of the Chamber at ten hours and fifty minutes on January 18, 2012, an action of unconstitutionality is filed against article 3.3.3.3.1 of the \"Manual de procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica\" R-SINAC-028. The claimant argues that his standing derives from the proceeding he is pursuing administratively before the Área de Conservación Guanacaste, against administrative resolution ACG-GMRN-OSRL-316 issued by the Head of the Oficina Subregional Liberia. He points out that the challenged regulation establishes that wood resulting from the felling of trees on public road land must be delivered to the Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, through the corresponding Oficina Subregional. He explains that the Ley Forestal establishes as a requirement for the donation of wood that the owner of the same be unknown and refers to highways in its articles 6 and 65. In the claimant's opinion, according to the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, highways are those that constitute the national road network, not the cantonal one. Therefore, it is the claimant's view that it follows that the Ley Forestal does not regulate matters relating to roads under municipal administration, and for this reason the manual challenged here, which derives from said law, cannot do so either. He argues that according to the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, the Municipality owns the streets within its jurisdiction, and therefore, it also owns the trees located on them. Consequently, he asserts, since the trees are municipal property, they cannot be subject to donation, in accordance with the provisions of the Ley Forestal. He requests that the challenged rule be declared unconstitutional.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers this Chamber to dismiss outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its filing, any action brought before it that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to dismiss it, or that it merely repeats or reproduces a prior, identical or similar dismissed action.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Armijo Sancho; and,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nI. On the formal prerequisites for the admissibility of the action of unconstitutionality. The action of unconstitutionality is a process with precise formalities, which must be met so that the Chamber may validly hear the merits of the challenge. Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional stipulates the prerequisites for the admissibility of the action of unconstitutionality; among them, it requires the existence of a prior matter pending resolution, either in judicial proceedings, or in the process to exhaust administrative remedies, in which the unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest deemed infringed. For its part, Article 79 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes that the brief filing the action must be accompanied by a certified literal copy of the pleading in which the unconstitutionality was invoked in the principal matter. Although the claimant indicates in the filing brief that his standing derives from an administrative proceeding, he does not provide a certified literal copy of the pleading in which the unconstitutionality was invoked in that process. Likewise, the claimant omits payment of the Colegio de Abogados stamp, which is a requirement for filing the initial brief in any judicial process, in accordance with Article 4) of Law 3245 of December 3, 1963. The Chamber does not overlook that in compliance with the provisions of Article 80 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, the claimant could well be required to correct these formalities; however, it must be specified that the corresponding preliminary order is omitted for the reasons set forth below.\n\nII.- On the object of the action. The rule subject to this action is subsection 3.3.3.1 of the \"Manual de procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica,\" R-SINAC-028, issued by the Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación and published in La Gaceta N.163 of August 23, 2010, which provides:\n\n“3.3.3.3 Regarding wood obtained from felled trees:\n\n3.3.3.3.1 Wood in rights-of-way:\n\nWhen the felling of trees is carried out on land of the public roadway, the wood must be delivered to SINAC, through the Oficina Subregional of the corresponding Área de Conservación, in order to comply with the provisions of paragraphs (q) of Article 6 and Article 65 of Ley Forestal Nº 7575.\n\nFor such purposes; MOPT or the Municipality, as applicable; when preparing the bidding specifications for the contracting of construction, expansion, and maintenance works of public roads, must include in the work operations the felling, extraction, and hauling of commercial logs to guarded sites (nearby yards, properties conditioned for that purpose, or others), in order to consider their costs and establish the conditions of the contract and the responsibilities related to these products for the company awarded the project. These aspects must be included within the cutting authorization resolution prepared by the AFE.\n\nOnce the log timber is stacked at the sites designated for each specific case, the awarded company shall deliver the duly inventoried wood to the contracting party through a formal act, and the latter; shall immediately deliver it to the Oficina Subregional of the corresponding Área de Conservación, which shall allocate it to the respective Junta de Educación.”\n\nThe claimant points out that the provision violates the principle of hierarchy of norms, because it is contrary to the Ley Forestal, since it disrespects one of the conditions established in articles 6 and 65 of said law for a donation of wood to be appropriate: that the owner of the same is unknown. Additionally, he points out that according to the Ley General de Caminos Públicos, highways are those that constitute the national road network, meaning that the aforementioned provisions of the Ley Forestal do not regulate matters relating to roads under municipal administration. He argues that wood from trees located on roads under municipal administration is the property of the municipality, and therefore, in his opinion, the provisions of Manual R-SINAC-028 are not applicable to the Municipalities and are contrary to the characteristics of the right of ownership or domain.\n\nIII. On the inadmissibility of the action based on the object of the challenge. From the analysis of the claimant's arguments, which are limited to stating that the challenged rule violates the hierarchy of norms and the principle of legality by contradicting provisions of legal standing, it is concluded that the matter does not amount to a genuine conflict of constitutionality but merely one of a reflexive or indirect nature. On repeated occasions (as, for example, in judgment number 2000-01149 at 15:39 hours on February 2, 2000), this Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory rule violates or exceeds the provisions of a law is a matter of legality whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Carta Fundamental assigns control over the legality of the State's administrative function to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, not the constitutional one. In this case, it is evident that the claim concerns matters of legality, and consequently, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, the action must be declared inadmissible, as ordered.\n\n \n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe action is dismissed outright.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nGilbert Armijo S.\n\nPresidente a.i.\n\n \n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Fernando Cruz C.\n\n \n\nPaul Rueda L. Teresita Rodríguez A.\n\n \n\nRicardo Guerrero P. Aracelly Pacheco S.\n\nSan José, at fourteen hours thirty minutes on the twenty-second of February two thousand twelve.\n\nAction of unconstitutionality filed by [Name 001], of legal age, married, Attorney, resident of Guanacaste, bearer of identity card number [Value 001], in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of La Cruz, against subsection 3.3.3.3.1 of the “Manual of Procedures for Timber Harvesting on Agricultural-Use and Non-Forested Lands and Special Situations in Costa Rica” (Manual de Procedimientos para el aprovechamiento maderable en terrenos de uso agropecuario y sin bosque y situaciones especiales en Costa Rica) R-SINAC-028, issued by the National Council of Conservation Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas de Conservación) and published in Gazette No. 163 of August 23, 2010.\n\n**Resultando:**\n\n**1.-** By written submission received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at ten hours fifty minutes on January 18, 2012, an action of unconstitutionality is filed against article 3.3.3.3.1 of the \"Manual of Procedures for Timber Harvesting on Agricultural-Use and Non-Forested Lands and Special Situations in Costa Rica\" R-SINAC-028. The claimant maintains that his standing derives from the administrative proceeding being followed before the Guanacaste Conservation Area (Área de Conservación Guanacaste), against administrative resolution ACG-GMRN-OSRL-316 from the Head of the Liberia Subregional Office. He points out that the challenged regulation establishes that timber resulting from the felling of trees on public right-of-way land must be delivered to the National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC), through the corresponding Subregional Office. He explains that the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal) establishes as a requirement for the donation of timber that its owner is unknown, and refers in its articles 6 and 65 to highways. In the claimant's opinion, according to the General Law of Public Roads (Ley General de Caminos Públicos), highways are those that constitute the national road network, but not the cantonal one. Therefore, it is the claimant's view that this implies the Forestry Law does not regulate matters relating to roads under municipal administration, and consequently the manual challenged here, which derives from said law, cannot do so either. He maintains that according to the General Law of Public Roads, the Municipality owns the streets within its jurisdiction, and therefore, it also owns the trees located on them. As matters stand, he asserts, since the trees are municipal property, they cannot be subject to donation, in accordance with the provisions of the Forestry Law. He requests that the challenged norm be declared unconstitutional.\n\n**2.-** Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any motion brought to its attention that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a mere reiteration or reproduction of a previous, equal or similar motion that was rejected.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Armijo Sancho**; and,\n\n**Considerando:**\n\n**I. On the formal prerequisites for admissibility of the action of unconstitutionality.** The action of unconstitutionality is a process with precise formalities, which must be fulfilled so that the Chamber can validly hear the merits of the challenge. Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction stipulates the prerequisites for admissibility of the action of unconstitutionality; among them is the requirement of a prior matter pending resolution, either in a judicial proceeding, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route, in which the unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered to be infringed. For its part, Article 79 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes that the written submission filing the action must be accompanied by a literal certification of the pleading in which the unconstitutionality was invoked in the main matter. Although the claimant indicates in the filing submission that his standing derives from an administrative proceeding, he does not provide a literal certification of the pleading in which the unconstitutionality was invoked in said process. Likewise, the claimant omits payment of the Costa Rican Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados) stamp, which is a requirement for the presentation of the initial written submission of every judicial process, in accordance with Article 4) of Law 3245 of December 3, 1963. The Chamber does not overlook that, in compliance with the provisions of Article 80 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the claimant could well be required to correct these formalities; however, it must be specified that the corresponding prevention is omitted for the reasons that will be set forth below.\n\n**II.- On the object of the action.** The norm object of this action is subsection 3.3.3.1 of the \"Manual of Procedures for Timber Harvesting on Agricultural-Use and Non-Forested Lands and Special Situations in Costa Rica,\" R-SINAC-028, issued by the National Council of Conservation Areas and published in Gazette No. 163 of August 23, 2010, which provides:\n\n*“**3.3.3.3 On the timber product of felled trees:***\n\n***3.3.3.3.1 Timber on right-of-way:** *\n\n*When tree felling is carried out on public road lands, the timber must be delivered to SINAC, through the Subregional Office of the corresponding Conservation Area, so that it complies with the provisions of subsections q) of Article 6 and Article 65 of the Forestry Law No. 7575.*\n\n*For such purposes; MOPT or the Municipality as appropriate; at the time of preparing the bidding documents for the contracting of construction, expansion, and maintenance works for public roads, must include in the work operations, the felling, extraction, and hauling of commercial logs to guarded sites (nearby depots, properties conditioned for such purpose, or others), in order to consider their costs and establish the contracting conditions, and the responsibilities related to these products for the company awarded the project. These aspects must be included within the felling authorization resolution prepared by the AFE.*\n\n*Once the log timber is piled at the sites designated for each specific case, the awarded company shall deliver to the contracting party, through a formal act, the duly inventoried timber, and the latter; shall immediately deliver it to the Subregional Office of the corresponding Conservation Area, which shall assign it to the respective Education Board (Junta de Educación).”*\n\nThe claimant indicates that the provision violates the principle of hierarchy of norms, because it is contrary to the Forestry Law, since it disrespects one of the conditions established in Articles 6 and 65 of said law for a timber donation to be appropriate: that the owner of the timber is unknown. Likewise, he points out that according to the General Law of Public Roads, highways are those that constitute the national road network, so the mentioned provisions of the Forestry Law do not regulate matters relating to roads under municipal administration. He argues that timber from trees located on roads under municipal administration is the property of the municipality, so in his judgment the provisions of Manual R-SINAC-028 are not applicable to Municipalities and are contrary to the characteristics of the right of property or ownership.\n\n**III. On the inadmissibility of the action due to the object of the challenge.** From the analysis conducted of the claimant's arguments, which are limited to pointing out that the challenged norm violates the hierarchy of norms and the principle of legality by contradicting provisions of legal rank, it is concluded that the question does not succeed in raising a true conflict of constitutionality but rather merely a reflexive or indirect one. On repeated occasions (such as, for example, in judgment number 2000-01149 at 15:39 hours on February 2, 2000), this Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory norm violates or exceeds the provisions of a law is a matter of legality whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Constitution assigns control of the legality of the State's administrative function to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, not the constitutional one. In this case, it is evident that the lawsuit concerns extremes of legality; consequently, pursuant to the provisions of Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the action must be declared inadmissible, as is ordered.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\n**Gilbert Armijo S.**\n**Acting President**\n\n**Luis Paulino Mora M.**          **Fernando Cruz C.**\n\n**Paul Rueda L.**                     **Teresita Rodríguez A.**\n\n**Ricardo Guerrero P.**         **Aracelly Pacheco S.**"
}