{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1386377",
  "citation": "Res. 15374-2026 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Deber municipal de trasladar dimensión ambiental de asentamiento informal",
  "title_en": "Municipal duty to refer informal settlement environmental harm to authorities",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional declaró parcialmente con lugar un recurso de amparo en defensa de intereses difusos contra la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, por omisión ante un asentamiento informal desde 2017 en zonas montañosas del distrito de Concepción. El asentamiento —con unas 183 estructuras— ocupa terrenos de fragilidad ambiental con cobertura forestal y función de recarga hídrica, donde se ha producido deforestación, movimientos de tierra sin permisos y riesgo de contaminación de acuíferos. La Sala distinguió entre el componente sanitario —adecuadamente atendido vía el Ministerio de Salud— y el componente ambiental (deforestación, uso del suelo), respecto al cual no consta gestión formal ante las autoridades técnicas competentes. Se ordenó a la alcaldesa: realizar un análisis técnico-jurídico en tres meses, adoptar medidas propias en doce meses, y trasladar formalmente la dimensión ambiental a instituciones competentes en cuatro meses. El fallo establece que la propiedad privada del terreno no exime al municipio de activar diligentemente los mecanismos institucionales de protección ambiental.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber partially granted an amparo in defense of diffuse environmental interests against the Municipality of Alajuelita, citing inaction regarding an informal settlement that has expanded since 2017 across steep, environmentally fragile mountain terrain in Concepción district. The settlement — approximately 183 structures housing 567 people — occupies land with forest cover and water recharge function, where deforestation, unpermitted earthworks, and wastewater infiltration threatening aquifers have occurred. The Court distinguished between the sanitary component — adequately handled by coordinating with the Ministry of Health — and the environmental component (deforestation, land use), for which no formal referral to competent environmental authorities was documented. The mayor was ordered to conduct a comprehensive technical-legal analysis within three months, adopt measures within the municipality's competence within twelve months, and formally refer the environmental dimension to competent institutions within four months. The ruling holds that private land ownership does not relieve the municipality of its duty to diligently activate environmental protection mechanisms.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "30/04/2026",
  "year": "2026",
  "topic_ids": [],
  "primary_topic_id": null,
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "intereses difusos",
    "amparo ambiental",
    "fragilidad ambiental",
    "recarga hídrica",
    "omisión administrativa",
    "competencias concurrentes",
    "coordinación interinstitucional"
  ],
  "article_citations": [],
  "keywords_es": [
    "asentamiento informal",
    "deforestación",
    "fragilidad ambiental",
    "recarga hídrica",
    "amparo ambiental",
    "omisión municipal",
    "intereses difusos",
    "cobertura forestal",
    "mantos acuíferos",
    "deslizamientos",
    "competencias municipales",
    "coordinación interinstitucional",
    "derecho a un ambiente sano",
    "Alajuelita",
    "protección ambiental"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "informal settlement",
    "deforestation",
    "environmental fragility",
    "water recharge zone",
    "environmental amparo",
    "municipal omission",
    "diffuse interests",
    "forest cover",
    "aquifer contamination",
    "landslide risk",
    "municipal competences",
    "interagency coordination",
    "right to healthy environment",
    "environmental protection"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Ahora bien, en cuanto a la actuación de la autoridad recurrida, este Tribunal advierte que, si bien los terrenos en cuestión son de propiedad privada y los procedimientos de desalojo no corresponden de forma directa a la Municipalidad, lo cierto es que dicha circunstancia no releva a la administración local de su deber de ejercer de manera diligente sus competencias en materia de protección del ambiente.\n\nEn ese sentido, estima esta Sala que, independientemente del alcance concreto de las competencias municipales en la materia, lo cierto es que la autoridad recurrida se encuentra obligada a ejercer, dentro de su ámbito de atribuciones, todas aquellas potestades de control, fiscalización y prevención que le correspondan, y, en su caso, a gestionar de manera oportuna, formal y efectiva el traslado de la situación ante las instancias competentes, aun cuando se trate de materias que excedan su ámbito de actuación directa.\n\nAsí las cosas, esta Sala estima necesario diferenciar los ámbitos de actuación: por un lado, no resulta reprochable la conducta de la autoridad recurrida en cuanto al componente sanitario, en tanto sí gestionó el traslado de la situación al ente competente; sin embargo, sí resulta insuficiente –y por ende reprochable desde la perspectiva constitucional– la ausencia de una gestión igualmente diligente respecto del componente ambiental vinculado a la deforestación, uso del suelo y estabilidad del terreno, aspectos que inciden directamente en la protección del derecho a un ambiente sano.",
  "excerpt_en": "Regarding the actions of the respondent authority, this Tribunal notes that, although the lands in question are privately owned and eviction procedures are not the direct responsibility of the Municipality, that circumstance does not relieve the local administration of its duty to diligently exercise its competences in the area of environmental protection.\n\nIn that sense, this Court considers that, regardless of the specific scope of the municipality's competences, the respondent authority is obligated to exercise, within its area of attribution, all powers of control, oversight, and prevention that fall to it, and, where applicable, to manage the timely, formal, and effective referral of the situation to the competent authorities, even when the matters exceed its direct scope of action.\n\nAccordingly, this Court finds it necessary to distinguish the areas of action: on one hand, the respondent authority's conduct regarding the sanitary component is not reproachable, as it did manage referral of the situation to the competent entity; however, the absence of equally diligent management regarding the environmental component related to deforestation, land use, and terrain stability — aspects that directly bear on the protection of the right to a healthy environment — is insufficient and therefore constitutionally reproachable.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Partially granted",
    "label_es": "Parcialmente con lugar",
    "summary_en": "The Chamber ordered the Municipality of Alajuelita to conduct a comprehensive environmental responsibility analysis and formally refer the deforestation problem to competent environmental authorities, finding the municipality's response insufficient on the environmental dimension of the informal settlement while not reproaching its actions on the sanitary component.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala ordenó a la Municipalidad de Alajuelita realizar un análisis integral de su responsabilidad ambiental y trasladar formalmente la problemática de deforestación a las autoridades técnicas competentes, por respuesta insuficiente en la dimensión ambiental del asentamiento informal, aunque no se reprocha el componente sanitario."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "Consequently, even though an absolute omission on the part of the Municipality of Alajuelita is not established, a partial and incomplete response to the totality of the reported problem is evident, which justifies the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction in order to order the adoption of concrete and coordinated measures, within the scope of its competences, particularly regarding the activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms in environmental matters, so as to prevent the materialization of serious or irreversible environmental damage.",
      "quote_es": "En consecuencia, aun cuando no se configura una omisión absoluta por parte de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, sí se evidencia una respuesta parcial e incompleta frente a la integralidad de la problemática denunciada, lo que justifica la intervención de esta jurisdicción constitucional a efectos de ordenar la adopción de medidas concretas y coordinadas, dentro del ámbito de sus competencias, particularmente en lo relativo a la activación de los mecanismos institucionales pertinentes en materia ambiental, a fin de prevenir la materialización de daños ambientales graves o irreversibles."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "In the event of concurrent competences, or even in scenarios of reasonable doubt as to their scope, the appropriate course of action is the diligent activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms, in order to ensure comprehensive attention to the problem and the effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.",
      "quote_es": "ante la eventual concurrencia de competencias o incluso en escenarios de duda razonable sobre su alcance, lo procedente es la activación diligente de los mecanismos institucionales pertinentes, a fin de asegurar una atención integral de la problemática y la protección efectiva de los derechos fundamentales involucrados."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III — Hecho no probado",
      "quote_en": "The following fact of relevance to this ruling is not deemed proven: Sole. That the respondent authority carried out formal, specific, and duly documented steps to refer the problem of deforestation, soil degradation, and environmental harm to the technically competent environmental authorities.",
      "quote_es": "No se estima demostrado el siguiente hecho de relevancia para esta resolución: Único. Que la autoridad recurrida haya realizado gestiones formales, específicas y debidamente documentadas para trasladar la problemática relativa a la deforestación, afectación del suelo y degradación ambiental ante las autoridades técnicas competentes en materia ambiental."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando V — Voto salvado magistrado Salazar Alvarado",
      "quote_en": "It is the undersigned's view that this Court, through the amparo process, should only hear a matter alleging a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment if the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of some importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community.",
      "quote_es": "es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente, de fácil constatación, de cierta importancia o gravedad y que afecte, de forma directa, a alguna persona o comunidad en concreto."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-27738",
      "citation": "Ley 7554",
      "title_en": "Organic Environmental Law",
      "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Ambiente",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "04/10/1995",
      "year": "1995"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-27738",
        "kind": "concept_anchor",
        "label": "Ley 7554"
      }
    ],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1386377",
  "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": "Revisión del Documento\n\n\n\nExp: 26-007151-0007-CO \n\nRes. Nº 2026015374\n\n \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del treinta de abril de dos mil veintiseis .\n\nRecurso de amparo promovido [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad [Valor 001], contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital el 27 de marzo de 2026, la parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo y manifiesta que, desde aproximadamente el año 2017 se ha venido desarrollando un asentamiento informal en zonas montañosas del distrito de Concepción del cantón de Alajuelita. Señala que dicho asentamiento se ubica en terrenos de pendiente pronunciada y características propias de fragilidad ambiental, con presencia de cobertura forestal y potencial función de recarga hídrica. Indica que la ocupación ha implicado deforestación progresiva, movimientos de tierra sin estudios técnicos visibles, construcción de estructuras improvisadas sin permisos municipales, acumulación de residuos sólidos y ausencia de sistemas adecuados para el tratamiento de aguas negras. Las descargas sanitarias y residuos generados en la zona, al no contar con infraestructura formal, se infiltran directamente en el suelo, generando riesgo de afectación a mantos acuíferos y contaminación ambiental. El asentamiento no solo persiste, sino que se encuentra en expansión progresiva hacia el distrito de San Josecito, afectando directamente a la comunidad que representa. Afirma que la situación ha sido pública, notoria y prolongada en el tiempo, sin que la Municipalidad de Alajuelita haya adoptado medidas eficaces y sostenidas para detener la expansión, prevenir la degradación ambiental o mitigar los riesgos asociados. Agrega que la ubicación del asentamiento en zona montañosa con pendiente significativa genera: riesgo potencial de deslizamientos, peligro para la vida e integridad física de las personas que habitan en la zona, riesgo para comunidades colindantes ante eventuales desprendimientos, contaminación de recursos hídricos por infiltración de aguas residuales y deterioro de la cobertura forestal con impacto en la estabilidad del suelo. Acusa que la omisión municipal ha permitido la consolidación progresiva de una situación que puede derivar en consecuencias graves e irreversibles. Añade que, como prueba del conocimiento institucional de esta situación, consta en el acta No. 80 de sesión ordinaria celebrada por el Concejo Municipal el 09 de noviembre del 2021, donde se discutió expresamente la problemática relacionada con asentamientos irregulares en la zona. Añade que, la situación no solo ha sido conocida por la municipalidad recurrida desde años anteriores, sino que además continúa siendo discutida en sesiones recientes del Concejo Municipal. Menciona que así consta en el acta No. 88 de sesión ordinaria celebrada el 10 de febrero del 2026, donde se presentó una moción relacionada con la proliferación de asentamiento informales, tala y construcciones ilegales en la zona de Lámparas y Calle El Boquete. Reitera que la autoridad recurrida ha tenido conocimiento directo, formal y reiterado de la problemática denunciada durante varios años, sin que se haya logrado una solución efectiva que atienda integralmente la situación.\n\n2.- En resolución de las 10:43 horas del 06 de marzo de 2026, se previno a la parte recurrente lo siguiente: \n\n“• Si ha planteado de manera formal y por escrito la gestión correspondiente a efecto de denunciar ante la autoridad accionada la situación que expone en el memorial de interposición de este recurso; • De ser afirmativa su respuesta, deberá aportar copia completa, legible y con el respectivo comprobante de recibido o de remisión de correo electrónico de la denuncia que formuló; • De haber recibido alguna resolución, deberá indicar claramente cuál fue el resultado obtenido y aportar la documentación generada con ocasión de tales diligencias; • Si dicha denuncia se encuentra pendiente de resolución a la fecha de interposición de este recurso, también deberá indicarlo expresamente a esta Sala; • Igualmente si no ha planteado por escrito y de manera formal su denuncia, así deberá aclararlo. De igual modo, deberá aportar cualquier prueba adicional en la cual fundamente su dicho”.\n\n3.- Por escrito incorporado al expediente digital el 11 de marzo de 2026, la parte recurrente señala lo siguiente: \n\n“PRIMERO. SOBRE LA NATURALEZA DEL INTERÉS TUTELADO\n\nLa situación denunciada en el presente recurso no corresponde a un asunto individual o particular, sino que se trata de una problemática que afecta intereses difusos de la comunidad, relacionados con la protección del ambiente, la seguridad de las personas y el ordenamiento territorial del cantón de Alajuelita.\n\nEn ese sentido, la problemática expuesta incide directamente sobre bienes jurídicos de carácter colectivo, razón por la cual cualquier ciudadano se encuentra legitimado para acudir ante esta Sala en defensa de dichos intereses, especialmente cuando se trata de situaciones que podrían generar afectaciones ambientales o riesgos para la seguridad de la población.\n\nSEGUNDO. SOBRE EL CONOCIMIENTO PREVIO DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD\n\nLa problemática denunciada no es nueva ni desconocida para las autoridades municipales, sino que ha sido objeto de reiteradas denuncias comunitarias y discusiones formales dentro del Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita. En diversas oportunidades, vecinos del cantón han acudido al Concejo Municipal a exponer la situación relacionada con asentamientos informales, tala de árboles, construcciones ilegales y riesgos asociados a estas ocupaciones, lo cual evidencia que la administración municipal ha tenido conocimiento pleno y reiterado de estos hechos durante varios años.\n\nTERCERO. DISCUSIÓN FORMAL DE LA PROBLEMÁTICA EN EL CONCEJO MUNICIPAL \n\nComo prueba del conocimiento institucional de esta situación, consta en el Acta N.° 80 de sesión ordinaria celebrada por el Concejo Municipal el día 09 de noviembre del 2021, donde se discutió expresamente la problemática relacionada con asentamientos irregulares en la zona.\n\nEn dicha sesión, la Regidora Iris Figeac manifestó, entre otras cosas: \n\n“…en realidad ellos lo que hicieron fue invadir una finca y entrar aproximadamente cinco años…”\n\nAsimismo, el Regidor suplente Kleyber Álvarez señaló:\n\n“…cuando ellos entraron ahí no eran tantas familias y ahora son un montón de familias… entonces yo pienso que entre más familias metan más problemática se hace el asunto… que cuiden de no meter más gente ahí… porque nos quitaron un montón de montaña…”\n\nPor su parte, el Alcalde Municipal Modesto Alpízar Luna manifestó en esa misma sesión:\n\n“…el plan regulador fue claro en que ese terreno no es apto y no queda para vivienda…”\n\nLo anterior demuestra que las propias autoridades municipales han reconocido públicamente la existencia del asentamiento irregular y las afectaciones ambientales derivadas del mismo. \n\nCUARTO. PESISTENCIA Y ESCALAMIENTO DE LA PROBLEMÁTICA\n\nLa situación no solo ha sido conocida por la Municipalidad desde años anteriores, sino que además continúa siendo discutida en sesiones recientes del Concejo Municipal, lo cual evidencia que la problemática persiste y se ha agravado con el paso del tiempo. \n\nAsí consta en el Acta N. 88 de sesión ordinaria celebrada el 10 de febrero del 2026, donde se presentó una moción relacionada con la proliferación de asentamientos informarles, tal y construcciones ilegales en la zona de Lámparas y Calle El Boquete. \n\nEn dicha moción se reconoce expresamente que: \n\n“…en el Concejo Municipal se han recibido en múltiples ocasiones denunciadas comunitarias formales indicando que en la zona existen asentamientos establecidos irregularmente…”\n\nAsimismo, se indica que la situación ha persistido y escalado, incluyendo reportes de nuevas construcciones, tala de árboles, incendios y posibles ventas irregulares de lotes o derechos.\n\nQUINTO. SOBRE LA NECESIDAD DE INTERVENCIÓN CONSTITUCIONAL\n\nDe lo anterior se desprende que la Municipalidad de Alajuelita ha tenido conocimiento directo, formal y reiterado de la problemática denunciada durante varios años, sin que se haya logrado una solución efectiva que atienda integralmente la situación denunciada.\n\nEn consecuencia, el presente recurso se interpone en defensa de intereses difusos de la comunidad, relacionados con la protección ambiental, el ordenamiento territorial y la seguridad de los habitantes del cantón, ante una situación conocida por las autoridades municipales y que ha sido objeto de reiteradas denuncias comunitarias.\n\n(…)\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSolicito respetuosamente a esta honorable Sala tener por atendida en tiempo la prevención realizada y continuar con la tramitación del presente Recurso de Amparo”. \n\n4.- En resolución de las 15:26 horas del 31 de marzo de 2026, se da curso al proceso y solicita informe al alcalde de Alajuelita, sobre los hechos alegados por la parte recurrente. \n\n5.- Informa bajo juramento María del Rosario Siles Fernández conocida como María del Rocío Siles Fernández, en su condición de alcaldesa de Alajuelita, lo siguiente: \n\n“PRIMERO: El asentamiento en cuestión se localiza aproximadamente a doscientos metros al sur, trescientos metros al este y ciento cincuenta metros al sur de la última parada de autobuses en Concepción debajo de Alajuelita.\n\nSe trata de una ocupación irregular sobre terrenos de naturaleza privada, pertenecientes a Fiduciaria UNIBANK y a la sociedad Empresarial Moracha S.A.\n\nAnte el crecimiento progresivo del asentamiento, el Gobierno Local promovió la conformación de una instancia de coordinación interinstitucional, con participación de entidades públicas con competencia en materia social, sanitaria, de seguridad y vivienda.\n\nSEGUNDO: Coordinación interinstitucional inicial\n\nDurante el año 2018 se llevaron a cabo diversas reuniones con participación de instituciones públicas, propietarios de los inmuebles y autoridades nacionales, en las cuales se analizó la problemática y se definieron rutas de actuación, incluyendo la eventual gestión de desalojos administrativos por parte de los titulares de los terrenos.\n\nTERCERO: Intervención sanitaria\n\nEl Ministerio de Salud realizó inspecciones en el sitio, determinando condiciones generalizadas de insalubridad, con incumplimiento de normativa sanitaria y constructiva vigente, lo cual dio lugar a las respectivas actuaciones administrativas en el ámbito de su competencia.\n\nLa situación que viven los recurrentes es lamentable, son personas que viven en condiciones insalubres, sin contar la mayoría de ellos con servicios de agua potable, luz eléctrica o sin tener donde hacer sus necesidades fisiológicas, ya que las aguas negras discurren montaña abajo, en razón de ello, existe una orden sanitaria N° 103-2018 emitida por el Ministerio de Salud.\n\nSin embargo, esta Municipalidad ni siquiera el gobierno central están en la obligación de solventar a los invasores su situación de vivienda o condiciones de vida, éste Municipio no cuenta con recursos económicos para donar vivienda a los ocupantes del sector, es uno de los cantones más vulnerables y problemáticos en cuanto al tema se refiere. No pueden pretender los recurrentes que por invadir una propiedad privada debe dársele vivienda cuando muchos de ellos son personas con un status migratorio irregular, que infringen la ley, esperar que el gobierno les ayude a mejorar sus condiciones de vida es poner sobre el gobierno local y el nacional una carga que no les corresponde atender cuando son ellos mismos los que deben proveer el sustento y mejoramiento de la calidad de vida de sus propias familias.\n\nCUARTO: Abordaje social y censal\n\nDurante el año 2019 se ejecutaron acciones de levantamiento de información poblacional y coordinación con instituciones del sector social, particularmente el IMAS y el MIVAH, a efectos de canalizar eventuales soluciones habitacionales. No obstante, se constató una participación limitada por parte de las personas ocupantes.\n\nQUINTO: Limitaciones operativas y de seguridad\n\nEn el año 2020 se evidenció un deterioro en las condiciones de seguridad del sector, lo cual imposibilitó el ingreso regular de funcionarios públicos, así como la realización de notificaciones individualizadas, dada la existencia de riesgos para la integridad física del personal institucional.\n\nAsimismo, la emergencia sanitaria derivada del COVID-19 implicó la suspensión temporal de diversas actuaciones administrativas.\n\nSEXTO: Reactivación y situación reciente\n\nEn el año 2022 se reactivaron los espacios de coordinación interinstitucional; sin embargo, surgieron divergencias técnicas respecto a los mecanismos de notificación sanitaria, particularmente en cuanto a la exigencia de notificación individual, lo cual ha incidido en la continuidad del proceso.\n\nSETIMO: De conformidad con los datos disponibles al año 2023, el asentamiento comprende aproximadamente:\n\n• 183 estructuras\n\n• 567 personas\n\n• 167 núcleos familiares\n\nSe deja constancia de que dichas cifras son de carácter estimativo, debido a la dificultad para obtener información completa y verificable en el sitio.\n\nAdicionalmente, el área ha sido catalogada como de alta vulnerabilidad, con condiciones sanitarias y sociales complejas.\n\nOCTAVO: Con fundamento en el artículo 11 de la Constitución Política y en los principios rectores de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, la actuación administrativa se encuentra sujeta al principio de legalidad, en virtud del cual las instituciones públicas únicamente pueden ejercer las competencias que les han sido expresamente atribuidas por el ordenamiento jurídico.\n\nEn este contexto, resulta pertinente precisar:\n\n1. La Municipalidad de Alajuelita no ostenta la titularidad de los terrenos ocupados, por lo que carece de potestades para disponer de los mismos o ejecutar desalojos de forma directa.\n\n2. Los procedimientos de desalojo en bienes de propiedad privada requieren la actuación de:\n\n2.1 Los propietarios de los inmuebles\n\n2.2 El Ministerio de Seguridad Pública\n\n2.3 Las autoridades competentes en materia sanitaria\n\n3. La emisión y ejecución de órdenes sanitarias corresponde al Ministerio de Salud, en ejercicio de sus competencias legales.\n\n4. Las actuaciones operativas de seguridad y control territorial corresponden a los cuerpos policiales competentes.\n\nAl respecto en la Resolución N° 2019018061, dictada en el Expediente 19-015547-0007-CO, a las nueve horas y veinte minutos del veinte de setiembre del dos mil diecinueve en Recurso de Amparo de Cindy Rebeca Rojas González y otros contra la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, en el aparte IV- Sobre el caso en concreto.- esta Sala indica textualmente :” se advierte a la Municipalidad de Alajuelita que no puede participar directa o indirectamente en vías de hecho que ejecuten los dueños de las propiedades invadidas por precaristas. En ese sentido, las autoridades deben respetar los procedimientos previstos para el desalojo administrativo (en cualquiera de sus modalidades, incluyendo las invasiones en curso) y para el derribo de edificaciones construidas sin licencias municipales. Incluso, si se tratare de inmuebles que representen un peligro inminente para las personas que los habitan, deberán coordinar inmediatamente con las instituciones competentes para que se dicten los actos y órdenes pertinentes a los efectos de que se resguarde la seguridad e integridad de las personas”.\n\nNOVENO: De conformidad con lo expuesto, esta Municipalidad ha desplegado actuaciones consistentes con su ámbito competencial, orientadas a:\n\n• La articulación interinstitucional\n\n• El abordaje integral de la problemática\n\n• La canalización de alternativas de atención social\n\n• El seguimiento continuo del caso\n\nNo obstante, la materialización de medidas definitivas se encuentra condicionada a la intervención de otras autoridades con competencia específica.\n\nDECIMO: De los antecedentes expuestos se concluye que:\n\n• El Gobierno Local ha actuado de forma diligente y conforme al ordenamiento jurídico.\n\n• La situación descrita responde a una problemática de carácter complejo y multisectorial.\n\n• No se configura una omisión atribuible a la Municipalidad de Alajuelita en el ejercicio de sus competencias.\n\nVIII. PETITORIA\n\nPor todo lo anteriormente expuesto, solicito se declare SIN LUGAR el Recurso. El problema que vive actualmente el cantón de Alajuelita particularmente en ese asentamiento es una bomba de tiempo, conlleva problemas de salud, económicos, sociales, de educación y seguridad, las personas que allí habitan lo hacen en condiciones funestas e insalubres, no cuentan con servicios básicos de agua potable o electricidad, sin servicios sanitarios y la correcta disposición de las aguas negras o pluviales o basura. La inseguridad ha aumentado en el sector, los ocupantes han terraceado la montaña y según el último informe de la Comisión Nacional de emergencia , al no ser una zona habitable se exponen al riesgo de derrumbes, empero, es una situación que no pue-de ni debe la Municipalidad de Alajuelita atender sola, sino en conjunto con la Fuerza Pública, Dirección Nacional de Migración y extranjería, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Ministerio de Salud, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, MINAE, SENASA, IMAS, Ministerio de Vivienda y asentamientos humanos, entre otros .\n\nSe debe coordinar junto con todas las instituciones supra citadas reubicar a las familias que se encuentran instaladas en ese sector, lo cual se traduce en realizar un trabajo mucho más articulado con el Gobierno Central, toda vez que la Municipalidad por sí sola no tiene capacidad logística ni económica para solventar inmediatamente y en el acto , el grave problema que aqueja al cantón, tal y como lo pretende el recurrente.\n\nAsí las cosas, queda comprobado que éste Municipio no ha faltado a sus deberes como gobierno local en el sentido de desatender la problemática sino que hay que considerar dos aspectos preponderantes, reiterados a lo largo de éste libelo , primero: en un estado garantista de derechos como el nuestro no podemos violar el debido proceso y segundo: reubicar a las familias que se encuentran instaladas en ese sector, requiere per se un trabajo en conjunto y más articulado con las demás instituciones del Poder Ejecutivo.\n\nEste Municipio no ha violentado derecho constitucional o derecho humano alguno, sino que cumple su deber como gobierno local, administrador de los intereses generales de los administrados, tal y como lo estipula el Código Municipal, tratando de evitar que se sigan invadiendo las montañas con todos los problemas de salud, económicos, sociales, de educación y seguridad que esto acarrea para el cantón de Alajuelita y todos sus habitantes pero la realidad es que no se tiene capacidad instalada ni administrativa ni policialmente para controlar el caos social del sector”.\n\n6.- En los procedimientos seguidos se ha observado las prescripciones legales.\n\n Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,\n\n Considerando:\n\n I.- Objeto del recurso. La parte recurrente alega que, desde aproximadamente el 2017, se ha desarrollado y expandido un asentamiento informal en zonas montañosas del distrito de Concepción, cantón de Alajuelita, caracterizadas por su fragilidad ambiental, pendientes pronunciadas y potencial función de recarga hídrica, el cual ha generado deforestación, movimientos de tierra sin sustento técnico, construcciones sin permisos, acumulación de residuos y ausencia de sistemas adecuados de saneamiento, provocando la infiltración de aguas residuales y riesgos de contaminación de mantos acuíferos. Señala que dicha ocupación se ha extendido progresivamente hacia el distrito de San Josecito, generando riesgos de deslizamientos, afectación a la vida e integridad de las personas, impacto en comunidades colindantes y deterioro de la cobertura forestal. Afirma que esta situación ha sido pública, notoria y prolongada, y que la Municipalidad de Alajuelita ha tenido conocimiento reiterado de la problemática –según consta en actas municipales de los años 2021 y 2026– sin adoptar medidas eficaces, lo que, a su juicio, constituye una omisión que ha permitido la consolidación y agravamiento de una situación con potenciales consecuencias graves e irreversibles.\n\nII.- Hechos probados. De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos:\n\na) Que desde aproximadamente el 2017 se ha desarrollado un asentamiento humano en condición irregular en zonas montañosas del distrito de Concepción del cantón de Alajuelita (hecho no controvertido).\n\nb) El asentamiento se localiza aproximadamente a doscientos metros al sur, trescientos metros al este y ciento cincuenta metros al sur de la última parada de autobuses en Concepción, debajo de Alajuelita, sobre terrenos de propiedad privada, pertenecientes a Fiduciaria UNIBANK y a la sociedad Empresarial Moracha S.A. (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida).\n\nc) Que en el sitio se han realizado intervenciones sin respaldo técnico ni permisos municipales, tales como deforestación, movimientos de tierra y construcción de estructuras improvisadas (hecho no controvertido).\n\nd) Se ubica en terrenos con pendientes pronunciadas y condiciones de fragilidad ambiental, con presencia de cobertura forestal y potencial función de recarga hídrica (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida).\n\ne) Presenta condiciones de insalubridad, con ausencia de sistemas adecuados para el manejo de aguas residuales y residuos sólidos, lo que genera infiltración en el suelo y riesgo de afectación a mantos acuíferos (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida).\n\nf) El Ministerio de Salud realizó inspecciones en el sitio y emitió la orden sanitaria No. 103-2018, constatando condiciones generalizadas de insalubridad (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida).\n\ng) La Municipalidad de Alajuelita ha participado en acciones de coordinación interinstitucional con diversas entidades públicas, incluyendo el Ministerio de Salud, el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS) y el Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), orientadas al abordaje social, sanitario y de seguridad de la problemática (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida). \n\nh) La situación del asentamiento implica riesgos para la vida, la integridad física de las personas y el ambiente, incluyendo la posibilidad de deslizamientos, afectación a comunidades colindantes y deterioro de la cobertura forestal (véase informe de la autoridad recurrida).\n\n III.- Hecho no probado. No se estima demostrado el siguiente hecho de relevancia para esta resolución: Único. Que la autoridad recurrida haya realizado gestiones formales, específicas y debidamente documentadas para trasladar la problemática relativa a la deforestación, afectación del suelo y degradación ambiental ante las autoridades técnicas competentes en materia ambiental. \n\nIV.- Sobre el caso concreto. Después analizar los elementos probatorios y el informe rendido bajo juramento por la autoridad recurrida, con el oportuno apercibimiento de las consecuencias previstas en el artículo 44 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se acredita que la problemática sometida a conocimiento de esta Sala se refiere a la consolidación y expansión progresiva de un asentamiento humano en condición irregular, ubicado en una zona montañosa de alta fragilidad ambiental, caracterizada por pendientes pronunciadas, cobertura forestal y potencial función de recarga hídrica, lo cual comporta riesgos relevantes para el ambiente, la salud pública y la integridad de las personas.\n\nEn efecto, de los autos se desprende que dicho asentamiento presenta condiciones de insalubridad, ausencia de infraestructura básica para el manejo de aguas residuales y residuos sólidos, así como intervenciones antrópicas sin respaldo técnico —tales como movimientos de tierra y deforestación— que inciden negativamente en la estabilidad del terreno y aumentan el riesgo de deslizamientos. Asimismo, se constata que la situación no es reciente, sino que se ha desarrollado desde al menos el año 2017, siendo conocida por la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, tal como se acredita con las actas municipales y las gestiones de coordinación interinstitucional referidas en el informe rendido.\n\nAhora bien, en cuanto a la actuación de la autoridad recurrida, este Tribunal advierte que, si bien los terrenos en cuestión son de propiedad privada y los procedimientos de desalojo no corresponden de forma directa a la Municipalidad, lo cierto es que dicha circunstancia no releva a la administración local de su deber de ejercer de manera diligente sus competencias en materia de protección del ambiente.\n\nEn ese sentido, se tiene por acreditado que la Municipalidad ha desplegado acciones de coordinación interinstitucional, levantamiento de información y abordaje social de la problemática. Asimismo, en lo que respecta al componente sanitario, consta que la situación fue trasladada a la autoridad competente, habiendo intervenido el Ministerio de Salud mediante inspecciones en el sitio y la emisión de la respectiva orden sanitaria, lo que evidencia que, en ese ámbito específico, se realizaron gestiones para canalizar la problemática hacia la dependencia correspondiente.\n\nNo obstante, y a efectos de delimitar con claridad el ámbito de responsabilidad administrativa, se constata que no existe en autos acreditación suficiente de que la municipalidad haya gestionado de manera concreta, formal y específica el traslado de la problemática relativa a la deforestación, afectación del suelo y posible degradación ambiental ante las autoridades técnicas competentes en esa materia. Si bien del informe rendido se desprende la realización de acciones de coordinación interinstitucional orientadas principalmente a la atención social, sanitaria y de seguridad —con participación, entre otras, del Ministerio de Salud, el Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), el Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH) y cuerpos policiales—, no se acredita la adopción de gestiones puntuales, formales y debidamente documentadas dirigidas específicamente a activar los mecanismos de intervención de las autoridades con competencia en materia ambiental.\n\nEn ese sentido, estima esta Sala que, independientemente del alcance concreto de las competencias municipales en la materia, lo cierto es que la autoridad recurrida se encuentra obligada a ejercer, dentro de su ámbito de atribuciones, todas aquellas potestades de control, fiscalización y prevención que le correspondan, y, en su caso, a gestionar de manera oportuna, formal y efectiva el traslado de la situación ante las instancias competentes, aun cuando se trate de materias que excedan su ámbito de actuación directa. De este modo, ante la eventual concurrencia de competencias o incluso en escenarios de duda razonable sobre su alcance, lo procedente es la activación diligente de los mecanismos institucionales pertinentes, a fin de asegurar una atención integral de la problemática y la protección efectiva de los derechos fundamentales involucrados.\n\nAsí las cosas, esta Sala estima necesario diferenciar los ámbitos de actuación: por un lado, no resulta reprochable la conducta de la autoridad recurrida en cuanto al componente sanitario, en tanto sí gestionó el traslado de la situación al ente competente; sin embargo, sí resulta insuficiente –y por ende reprochable desde la perspectiva constitucional– la ausencia de una gestión igualmente diligente respecto del componente ambiental vinculado a la deforestación, uso del suelo y estabilidad del terreno, aspectos que inciden directamente en la protección del derecho a un ambiente sano.\n\nEn consecuencia, aun cuando no se configura una omisión absoluta por parte de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, sí se evidencia una respuesta parcial e incompleta frente a la integralidad de la problemática denunciada, lo que justifica la intervención de esta jurisdicción constitucional a efectos de ordenar la adopción de medidas concretas y coordinadas, dentro del ámbito de sus competencias, particularmente en lo relativo a la activación de los mecanismos institucionales pertinentes en materia ambiental, a fin de prevenir la materialización de daños ambientales graves o irreversibles.\n\n V.- Voto salvado del magistrado Salazar Alvarado. Con el debido respeto, disiento del voto de mayoría que declara con lugar el recurso, con base en las siguientes razones:\n\nLa protección a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense, está tutelado no solo en el artículo 50, de la Constitución Política, sino también en una serie de leyes y decretos ejecutivos (reglamentos) vigentes, tales como la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; la Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; la Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; y el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), para citar solo algunos. Esto hace necesario, en materia ambiental, separar el control de constitucionalidad del control de legalidad. En este sentido, es criterio del suscrito que esta Sala, por vía de amparo, solo debe conocer un asunto en que se alega violación al derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, si la Administración no ha intervenido aún y cuando la violación a ese derecho sea manifiesta y evidente, de fácil constatación, de cierta importancia o gravedad y que afecte, de forma directa, a alguna persona o comunidad en concreto. De lo contrario, el tema debe plantearse y discutirse en la vía de legalidad. Por ello, el simple incumplimiento de obligaciones y deberes impuestos legalmente a las diversas administraciones públicas en materia ambiental es propio de ser conocido en la vía de legalidad –administrativa o jurisdiccional-, donde, con mucha mayor amplitud, podrán fiscalizarse los incumplimientos u omisiones que se acusen. Debe tenerse presente que el recurso de amparo es un proceso sumario, informal, sencillo y rápido, de manera tal, que desde el momento mismo en que la Administración interviene en un asunto ambiental, en ejercicio de sus competencias, y sustancia un procedimiento, con el dictado de actos administrativos, su conocimiento resulta ajeno al ámbito de acción de esta jurisdicción especializada. Por ello, la revisión de las actuaciones administrativas llevadas a cabo en torno a un tema ambiental que requiera, para su correcta valoración, de un proceso de conocimiento pleno, solo es posible en la jurisdicción ordinaria, toda vez que el diseño del proceso de amparo es incompatible con la contrastación o revisión de criterios técnicos o jurídicos elaborados al amparo de las normas legales o reglamentarias vigentes o con la evacuación de nuevos y mayores elementos de convicción necesarios para la contrastación o revisión de los criterios que ya consten en el expediente administrativo del caso. Lo contrario implicaría transformar el amparo en un proceso ordinario de pleno conocimiento, con lo cual se desnaturalizaría y se tornarían nugatorios los fines para los cuales ha sido diseñado, con lo cual, perdería su condición de instrumento para la tutela eficaz de los derechos fundamentales. Como consecuencia de lo anterior, estimo que cuando un ente u órgano público ha intervenido, en diversas formas, o ha dictado actos administrativos en relación con un asunto ambiental, su conocimiento y fiscalización corresponde a la jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo. Es, precisamente, la verificación de la existencia de esa intervención administrativa lo que determina que el asunto sea competencia de la vía legalidad. En consecuencia, este recurso debió haberse rechazado de plano, ya que su objeto es una cuestión propia de ser discutida, analizada y resuelta en la vía de legalidad. Empero, como no se hizo así, lo procedente es declararlo sin lugar, sin hacer pronunciamiento alguno con respecto al fondo de la cuestión planteada por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado.\n\n VI.- Voto salvado parcial respecto a la parte dispositiva de esta sentencia de la magistrada Garro Vargas. Si bien coincido con la mayoría de la Sala en que el recurso se debe declarar parcialmente con lugar, difiero sobre dónde residenciar la fase de ejecución del asunto, debido a la inexistencia de mecanismos adecuados previstos por la normativa que rige esta jurisdicción constitucional para dar seguimiento a una sentencia que reviste aspectos técnicos de gran complejidad, como lo es la solución de la problemática aquejada en el presente proceso por la parte recurrente. En cambio, lo dispuesto por el Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo en materia de ejecución (artículo 155 y siguientes) tiene evidentes ventajas, como la posibilidad de pedir cronogramas, imponer multas, sentar responsabilidades, fiscalizar etapas de cumplimiento, etc. Por ello, de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 56 de la Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, estimo que la fase de ejecución debe realizarse ante el Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, bajo las reglas de ejecución de sentencia de dicho Código. \n\n VII.- Documentación aportada al expediente. Se previene a las partes que, de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de treinta días hábiles, contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", aprobado por la Corte Plena en Sesión No. 27-11, del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial No. 19, del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la Sesión No. 43-12, celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\n Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso. Se ordena a María del Rosario Siles Fernández conocida como María del Rocío Siles Fernández, en su condición de alcaldesa de Alajuelita, o quien en su lugar ocupe el cargo, para que, 1) dentro del plazo de TRES MESES, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia, realice un análisis técnico y jurídico integral de la problemática denunciada en su dimensión ambiental, a efectos de determinar con claridad cuáles actuaciones le corresponden al municipio dentro del ámbito de sus competencias y cuáles exceden las mismas; 2) determinado lo anterior, respecto de aquellas materias que se encuentren dentro de su ámbito competencia, deberá la autoridad recurrida adoptar y ejecutar las medidas necesarias para su atención y solución efectiva, dentro del plazo de DOCE MESES, contado a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia; 3) en relación con aquellas materias que excedan su ámbito de competencia, realice el traslado formal, oportuno y debidamente documentado a las autoridades competentes, dentro del plazo de CUATRO MESES, igualmente contado a partir de la notificación de esta resolución, a fin de que se adopten las medidas correspondientes; y 4) asimismo, deberá coordinar de manera con las instituciones involucradas y rendir informe a esta Sala, dentro de los plazos indicados, sobre las acciones realizadas, las determinaciones adoptadas y los traslados efectuados. Se advierte a la autoridad recurrida, o a quien ocupe su cargo, que, de conformidad con lo establecido por el artículo 71 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se impondrá prisión de tres meses a dos años o de veinte a sesenta días multa a quien recibiere una orden que deba cumplir o hacer cumplir, dictada dentro de un recurso de amparo, y no la cumpliere o no la hiciere cumplir, siempre que el delito no esté más gravemente penado. Se condena a la Municipalidad de Alajuelita al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo. El magistrado Salazar Alvarado salva el voto y declara sin lugar el recurso, por corresponderle a la jurisdicción ordinaria, en específico, a la contencioso-administrativa, determinar si las actuaciones y conductas administrativas acusadas se ajustan o no, en sustancia, a lo preceptuado en el ordenamiento jurídico de rango legal, en cuanto a la protección, tutela y conservación del derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado. La magistrada Garro Vargas salva el voto respecto a la ejecución de esta sentencia y, de conformidad con el artículo 56 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, dispone que debe realizarse ante el Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, bajo las reglas de ejecución, establecidos en los artículos 155 y siguientes del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. Asimismo, ordena que se le remita copia de la sentencia para que se inicie los procedimientos de ejecución de este fallo. En lo demás, se declara sin lugar el recurso. Notifíquese.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresidente\n\n \n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\n \n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\nLuis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\n \n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\n \n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\n \n\n \n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\n\n\n VFHX433RJ0QM61 \n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-007151-0007-CO \n\n \n\nTeléfonos: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).",
  "body_en_text": "Exp: 26-007151-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2026015374\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the thirtieth of April, two thousand twenty-six.\n\nAmparo petition filed by [Name 001], national identity card [Value 001], against the MUNICIPALITY OF ALAJUELITA.\n\nWhereas:\n\n1.- By written submission entered into the digital case file on March 27, 2026, the petitioning party files an amparo petition and states that, since approximately 2017, an informal settlement has been developing in mountainous areas of the Concepción district in the canton of Alajuelita. The petitioner indicates that this settlement is located on steeply sloped terrain with inherent environmental fragility (fragilidad ambiental), forest cover (cobertura forestal), and a potential groundwater recharge (recarga hídrica) function. The petitioner further indicates that the occupation has involved progressive deforestation, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) without any visible technical studies, construction of improvised structures without municipal permits, accumulation of solid waste, and the absence of adequate sewage (aguas negras) treatment systems. Because the settlement lacks formal infrastructure, sanitary discharges and waste generated in the area infiltrate directly into the soil, creating a risk of contamination of aquifers (mantos acuíferos) and environmental harm. The settlement is persisting and is progressively expanding toward the San Josecito district, directly affecting the community the petitioner represents. The petitioner states that the situation has been public, notorious, and prolonged, and that the Municipality of Alajuelita has failed to adopt effective and sustained measures to halt the expansion, prevent environmental degradation, or mitigate the associated risks. The petitioner adds that the location of the settlement on mountainous terrain with significant slopes generates: potential risk of landslides (deslizamientos), danger to the life and physical integrity of the people living in the area, risk to neighboring communities from possible rockfalls, contamination of water resources through infiltration of wastewater (aguas residuales), and deterioration of forest cover with an impact on soil stability. The petitioner alleges that the municipality's failure to act has allowed the progressive consolidation of a situation that may result in serious and irreversible consequences. The petitioner further adds that, as evidence of institutional awareness of this situation, Municipal Council meeting minutes No. 80 of an ordinary session held on November 9, 2021, expressly discussed problems related to irregular settlements in the area. The petitioner adds that the situation has not only been known to the respondent municipality for several years, but continues to be discussed in recent Municipal Council sessions, as reflected in minutes No. 88 of an ordinary session held on February 10, 2026, in which a motion was presented regarding the proliferation of informal settlements, logging, and illegal construction in the Lámparas and Calle El Boquete area. The petitioner reiterates that the respondent authority has had direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported problem for several years, without having achieved an effective solution that comprehensively addresses the situation.\n\n2.- By resolution issued at 10:43 hours on March 6, 2026, the petitioning party was given the following notice:\n\n\"• Whether the petitioner has formally and in writing filed the corresponding complaint with the respondent authority reporting the situation described in the submission initiating this petition; • If so, the petitioner must provide a complete, legible copy of the complaint with the corresponding proof of receipt or email transmission confirmation; • If the petitioner has received any decision, the petitioner must clearly indicate what outcome was obtained and provide any documentation generated in connection with those proceedings; • If said complaint remains pending resolution as of the date of filing of this petition, the petitioner must also expressly state this to the Chamber; • If the petitioner has not filed the complaint formally and in writing, the petitioner must also clarify this. Similarly, the petitioner must provide any additional evidence on which the petitioner's account is based.\"\n\n3.- By written submission entered into the digital case file on March 11, 2026, the petitioning party states the following:\n\n\"FIRST. ON THE NATURE OF THE PROTECTED INTEREST\n\nThe situation reported in this petition does not concern an individual or private matter, but rather a problem affecting the diffuse interests (intereses difusos) of the community, related to environmental protection, public safety, and land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) in the canton of Alajuelita.\n\nIn that regard, the situation directly affects collective legal interests, which is why any citizen is entitled to appear before this Chamber in defense of those interests, particularly when the situation could generate environmental harm or risks to the safety of the population.\n\nSECOND. ON THE MUNICIPALITY'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE\n\nThe reported problem is neither new nor unknown to the municipal authorities; it has been the subject of repeated community complaints and formal discussions within the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Alajuelita. On various occasions, residents of the canton have come before the Municipal Council to describe the situation related to informal settlements, tree-felling, illegal construction, and the risks associated with these occupations, demonstrating that the municipal administration has had full and repeated knowledge of these facts for several years.\n\nTHIRD. FORMAL DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IN THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\n\nAs evidence of the institutional awareness of this situation, Municipal Council meeting Acta N.° 80 of an ordinary session held on November 9, 2021, expressly discussed the problem related to irregular settlements in the area.\n\nIn that session, Council Member Iris Figeac stated, among other things:\n\n\"…what they actually did was invade a property and move in approximately five years ago…\"\n\nLikewise, Deputy Council Member Kleyber Álvarez remarked:\n\n\"…when they moved in there were not that many families and now there are a lot of families… so I think the more families they bring in the more of a problem this becomes… they should make sure not to bring more people in there… because they took a lot of our mountain from us…\"\n\nFor his part, Mayor Modesto Alpízar Luna stated in that same session:\n\n\"…the land-use regulatory plan (plan regulador) was clear that that land is not suitable and is not designated for housing…\"\n\nThe foregoing demonstrates that the municipal authorities themselves have publicly acknowledged the existence of the irregular settlement and the resulting environmental harm.\n\nFOURTH. PERSISTENCE AND ESCALATION OF THE PROBLEM\n\nThe situation has not only been known to the Municipality for several years, but continues to be discussed in recent sessions of the Municipal Council, demonstrating that the problem persists and has worsened over time.\n\nThis is evidenced in Acta N. 88 of an ordinary session held on February 10, 2026, in which a motion was presented regarding the proliferation of informal settlements, logging, and illegal construction in the Lámparas and Calle El Boquete area.\n\nThat motion expressly acknowledges that:\n\n\"…the Municipal Council has on multiple occasions received formal community complaints indicating that in the area there are settlements established irregularly…\"\n\nIt also indicates that the situation has persisted and escalated, including reports of new construction, tree-felling, fires, and possible irregular sales of lots or use-rights.\n\nFIFTH. ON THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERVENTION\n\nFrom the foregoing it follows that the Municipality of Alajuelita has had direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported problem for several years, without having achieved an effective solution that comprehensively addresses the reported situation.\n\nAccordingly, this petition is filed in defense of the diffuse interests of the community, related to environmental protection, land-use planning, and the safety of the canton's residents, in the face of a situation known to the municipal authorities that has been the subject of repeated community complaints.\n\n(…)\n\nTHEREFORE\n\nI respectfully request that this honorable Chamber consider the notice duly answered in time and continue processing this Amparo Petition.\"\n\n4.- By resolution issued at 15:26 hours on March 31, 2026, the proceedings were opened and the Mayor of Alajuelita was requested to submit a report on the facts alleged by the petitioning party.\n\n5.- María del Rosario Siles Fernández, also known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as Mayor of Alajuelita, reports under oath as follows:\n\n\"FIRST: The settlement in question is located approximately two hundred meters south, three hundred meters east, and one hundred fifty meters south of the last bus stop in Concepción, below Alajuelita.\n\nThis is an irregular occupation on privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and to the company Empresarial Moracha S.A.\n\nFaced with the progressive growth of the settlement, the Local Government promoted the formation of an inter-institutional coordination body, with the participation of public entities with jurisdiction over social, sanitation, security, and housing matters.\n\nSECOND: Initial inter-institutional coordination\n\nDuring 2018, various meetings were held with the participation of public institutions, property owners, and national authorities, in which the problem was analyzed and courses of action were defined, including the eventual pursuit of administrative evictions by the landowners.\n\nTHIRD: Sanitation intervention\n\nThe Ministry of Health conducted inspections at the site, finding widespread unsanitary conditions, including violations of applicable sanitation and construction regulations, which led to the corresponding administrative actions within its area of competence.\n\nThe situation experienced by the petitioners is unfortunate — these are people living in unsanitary conditions, most without access to drinking water, electricity, or sanitation facilities, since sewage flows down the hillside. For this reason, sanitary order No. 103-2018 was issued by the Ministry of Health.\n\nHowever, neither this Municipality nor even the central government is obligated to provide housing or living conditions to the squatters (invasores). This Municipality does not have the financial resources to provide housing to the occupants of the area; it is one of the most vulnerable and troubled cantons on this issue. The petitioners cannot expect that by invading private property they should be given housing, particularly when many of them are persons with irregular immigration status who are breaking the law. Expecting the government to help improve their living conditions is placing on the local and national government a burden that is not theirs to bear, when it is those persons themselves who must provide for and improve the quality of life of their own families.\n\nFOURTH: Social outreach and census\n\nDuring 2019, population data-gathering activities were carried out and coordination was established with social-sector institutions, particularly the IMAS and the MIVAH, with a view to channeling potential housing solutions. However, limited participation was observed on the part of the occupants.\n\nFIFTH: Operational and security limitations\n\nIn 2020, a deterioration in the security conditions in the area became evident, which prevented regular entry by public officials and the serving of individual notices, given the existence of risks to the physical safety of institutional personnel.\n\nAdditionally, the health emergency caused by COVID-19 led to the temporary suspension of various administrative actions.\n\nSIXTH: Reactivation and recent situation\n\nIn 2022, inter-institutional coordination spaces were reactivated; however, technical disagreements arose regarding the mechanisms for sanitary notification, particularly with respect to the requirement of individual notice, which has affected the continuity of the process.\n\nSEVENTH: According to data available as of 2023, the settlement comprises approximately:\n\n• 183 structures\n\n• 567 persons\n\n• 167 family units\n\nIt is noted that these figures are estimates, given the difficulty of obtaining complete and verifiable information at the site.\n\nAdditionally, the area has been classified as one of high vulnerability, with complex sanitary and social conditions.\n\nEIGHTH: In accordance with Article 11 of the Political Constitution and the governing principles of the General Law of Public Administration, administrative action is subject to the principle of legality, by virtue of which public institutions may only exercise the powers expressly conferred upon them by the legal order.\n\nIn this context, it is pertinent to clarify:\n\n1. The Municipality of Alajuelita does not hold title to the occupied land and therefore lacks the authority to dispose of it or carry out evictions directly.\n\n2. Eviction proceedings on privately owned land require action by:\n\n2.1 The property owners\n\n2.2 The Ministry of Public Security\n\n2.3 The authorities with competence over sanitation matters\n\n3. The issuance and enforcement of sanitary orders falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health, in the exercise of its legal powers.\n\n4. Operational actions involving security and territorial control fall within the jurisdiction of the competent police forces.\n\nIn this regard, Resolution N° 2019018061, issued in Expediente 19-015547-0007-CO, at nine hours twenty minutes on the twentieth of September, two thousand nineteen, in an Amparo Petition by Cindy Rebeca Rojas González and others against the Municipality of Alajuelita, in section IV — On the specific case — this Chamber states verbatim: \"the Municipality of Alajuelita is warned that it may not participate directly or indirectly in de facto actions (vías de hecho) carried out by the owners of properties invaded by informal occupants (precaristas). In that regard, authorities must respect the procedures established for administrative eviction (in any of its forms, including ongoing invasions) and for the demolition of structures built without municipal permits. Even in cases involving properties that represent an imminent danger to their occupants, the authorities must immediately coordinate with the competent institutions so that the relevant acts and orders are issued to safeguard the safety and integrity of the persons concerned.\"\n\nNINTH: In accordance with the foregoing, this Municipality has carried out actions consistent with its area of competence, aimed at:\n\n• Inter-institutional coordination\n\n• A comprehensive approach to the problem\n\n• Channeling social-service alternatives\n\n• Ongoing monitoring of the case\n\nHowever, the implementation of definitive measures is contingent on the intervention of other authorities with specific jurisdiction.\n\nTENTH: From the foregoing background, the following conclusions are drawn:\n\n• The Local Government has acted diligently and in accordance with the legal order.\n\n• The situation described is the result of a complex, multi-sectoral problem.\n\n• No failure to act attributable to the Municipality of Alajuelita in the exercise of its competencies has occurred.\n\nVIII. PETITION\n\nFor all of the foregoing reasons, I request that this petition be declared WITHOUT MERIT. The problem currently affecting the canton of Alajuelita, particularly in that settlement, is a ticking time bomb, bringing health, economic, social, educational, and security problems. The people living there do so in dire and unsanitary conditions, without access to basic services such as drinking water or electricity, without sanitation facilities, and without proper disposal of sewage, stormwater, or garbage. Insecurity has increased in the area; the occupants have cut terraces into the hillside and, according to the latest report from the Comisión Nacional de Emergencias, since it is not a habitable zone, they are exposed to the risk of landslides. However, this is a situation that the Municipality of Alajuelita cannot and should not address alone, but rather jointly with the Public Security Forces, the Dirección Nacional de Migración y Extranjería, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, the Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, MINAE, SENASA, IMAS, the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements, and others.\n\nCoordination with all of the foregoing institutions is needed to relocate the families currently residing in that area, which requires far more coordinated work with the central government, since the Municipality alone does not have the logistical or financial capacity to immediately and on-the-spot resolve the serious problem afflicting the canton, as the petitioner demands.\n\nGiven all of the foregoing, it is demonstrated that this Municipality has not failed in its duties as a local government by neglecting the problem; rather, two overriding considerations must be taken into account — stated repeatedly throughout this submission — first: in a rights-guaranteeing state such as ours, due process cannot be violated; and second: relocating the families currently residing in that area inherently requires joint and more coordinated work with the other institutions of the Executive Branch.\n\nThis Municipality has not violated any constitutional right or human right; rather, it fulfills its duty as a local government and administrator of the general interests of those it governs, as established in the Municipal Code, working to prevent further encroachment on the hillsides with all the health, economic, social, educational, and security problems this brings to the canton of Alajuelita and all its residents — but the reality is that the Municipality lacks the installed administrative or police capacity to control the social disorder in the area.\"\n\n6.- The legal requirements governing the proceedings have been observed.\n\nThe opinion is drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Subject of the petition. The petitioning party alleges that since approximately 2017, an informal settlement has been developing and expanding in mountainous areas of the Concepción district, canton of Alajuelita, areas characterized by environmental fragility, steep slopes, and a potential groundwater recharge function, which has generated deforestation, earthworks without technical justification, construction without permits, accumulation of waste, and the absence of adequate sanitation systems, causing wastewater infiltration and risks of aquifer contamination. The petitioner states that the occupation has progressively spread toward the San Josecito district, generating risks of landslides, threats to the life and physical integrity of persons, impacts on neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover. The petitioner affirms that this situation has been public, notorious, and prolonged, and that the Municipality of Alajuelita has had repeated knowledge of the problem — as evidenced in municipal council minutes from 2021 and 2026 — without having adopted effective measures, which, in the petitioner's view, constitutes a failure to act that has allowed a situation with potentially serious and irreversible consequences to consolidate and worsen.\n\nII.- Proven facts. The following facts are considered adequately established as relevant to the resolution of this matter:\n\na) That since approximately 2017, a human settlement in irregular status has been developing in mountainous areas of the Concepción district of the canton of Alajuelita (undisputed fact).\n\nb) The settlement is located approximately two hundred meters south, three hundred meters east, and one hundred fifty meters south of the last bus stop in Concepción, below Alajuelita, on privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and to the company Empresarial Moracha S.A. (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nc) That interventions without technical authorization or municipal permits have been carried out at the site, including deforestation, earthworks, and construction of improvised structures (undisputed fact).\n\nd) The site is located on steeply sloped terrain with conditions of environmental fragility, forest cover, and a potential groundwater recharge function (see report of the respondent authority).\n\ne) The site presents unsanitary conditions, with the absence of adequate systems for managing wastewater and solid waste, causing soil infiltration and risk of aquifer contamination (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nf) The Ministry of Health conducted inspections at the site and issued sanitary order No. 103-2018, finding widespread unsanitary conditions (see report of the respondent authority).\n\ng) The Municipality of Alajuelita has participated in inter-institutional coordination activities with various public entities, including the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), and the Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), aimed at addressing the social, sanitation, and security aspects of the problem (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nh) The situation of the settlement poses risks to the life and physical integrity of persons and to the environment, including the possibility of landslides, harm to neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nIII.- Unproven fact. The following fact, which is relevant to this decision, is not considered to have been established: Sole unproven fact: That the respondent authority carried out formal, specific, and adequately documented referrals of the matters related to deforestation, soil degradation, and environmental deterioration to the technically competent authorities in environmental matters.\n\nIV.- On the specific case. After analyzing the evidentiary record and the report submitted under oath by the respondent authority, with the timely warning regarding the consequences provided for in Article 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, it is established that the matter before this Chamber concerns the progressive consolidation and expansion of a human settlement in irregular status, located in a mountainous area of high environmental fragility, characterized by steep slopes, forest cover, and a potential groundwater recharge function, which entails significant risks to the environment, public health, and the physical integrity of persons.\n\nIndeed, the record reveals that this settlement presents unsanitary conditions, the absence of basic infrastructure for managing wastewater and solid waste, and human-caused interventions without technical authorization — such as earthworks and deforestation — that negatively affect the stability of the terrain and increase the risk of landslides. It is likewise established that the situation is not recent, but has been developing since at least 2017, and has been known to the Municipality of Alajuelita, as evidenced by the municipal council minutes and the inter-institutional coordination activities referenced in the submitted report.\n\nTurning now to the conduct of the respondent authority, this Tribunal observes that, while the land in question is privately owned and eviction proceedings do not fall directly within the Municipality's jurisdiction, that circumstance does not relieve the local administration of its duty to diligently exercise its competencies with respect to environmental protection.\n\nIn that regard, it is established that the Municipality has carried out inter-institutional coordination actions, information-gathering, and a social-outreach approach to the problem. Moreover, with respect to the sanitation component, the record shows that the situation was referred to the competent authority, with the Ministry of Health having intervened through site inspections and the issuance of the corresponding sanitary order, which demonstrates that, in that specific area, steps were taken to channel the problem to the appropriate agency.\n\nHowever, and in order to clearly delineate the scope of administrative responsibility, the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the municipality formally, specifically, and in documented fashion referred the matters related to deforestation, soil degradation, and possible environmental deterioration to the technically competent authorities in that area. While the submitted report reflects the carrying out of inter-institutional coordination activities oriented primarily toward social, sanitation, and security matters — involving, among others, the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), the Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), and police forces — there is no evidence of specific, formal, and adequately documented actions directed at activating the intervention mechanisms of the authorities with competence in environmental matters.\n\nIn that regard, this Chamber finds that, regardless of the specific scope of municipal competencies in this area, the respondent authority is obligated to exercise, within its sphere of authority, all powers of oversight, supervision, and prevention that belong to it, and, where applicable, to formally, timely, and effectively refer the situation to the competent agencies, even in matters that exceed its direct sphere of action. Accordingly, when a possible overlap of competencies exists, or even in scenarios involving reasonable doubt as to their scope, the appropriate course of action is the diligent activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms, so as to ensure a comprehensive response to the problem and effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.\n\nIn light of the foregoing, this Chamber finds it necessary to distinguish between areas of action: on the one hand, the conduct of the respondent authority with respect to the sanitation component is not reproachable, given that the situation was in fact referred to the competent agency; however, the absence of an equally diligent response with respect to the environmental component related to deforestation, land use, and terrain stability — aspects that directly bear on the protection of the right to a healthy environment — is insufficient, and accordingly reproachable from a constitutional standpoint.\n\nConsequently, while the Municipality of Alajuelita's conduct does not constitute an absolute failure to act, it does reflect a partial and incomplete response to the full scope of the reported problem, which justifies the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction to order the adoption of specific and coordinated measures, within the scope of its competencies, particularly with regard to activating the relevant institutional mechanisms in environmental matters, so as to prevent the materialization of serious or irreversible environmental harm.\n\nV.- Dissenting opinion of Magistrate Salazar Alvarado.\n\nExp: 26-007151-0007-CO\nRes. Nº 2026015374\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours twenty minutes on the thirtieth of April of two thousand twenty-six.\n\nAmparo petition (recurso de amparo) filed by [Nombre 001], national identification number [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA.\n\nBackground:\n\n1.- By written submission incorporated into the digital case file on March 27, 2026, the petitioning party files an amparo petition and states that, since approximately the year 2017, an informal settlement (asentamiento informal) has been developing in mountainous areas of the Concepción district of the canton of Alajuelita. The party indicates that this settlement is located on steeply sloped terrain with characteristics typical of environmental fragility (fragilidad ambiental), with the presence of forest cover (cobertura forestal) and a potential water recharge (recarga hídrica) function. The party notes that the occupation has entailed progressive deforestation (deforestación), earthworks (movimientos de tierra) without any visible technical studies, construction of makeshift structures without municipal permits, accumulation of solid waste, and the absence of adequate wastewater treatment systems. Sanitary discharges and waste generated in the area, lacking formal infrastructure, seep directly into the soil, creating a risk of contamination to aquifers (mantos acuíferos) and environmental pollution. The settlement not only persists but is progressively expanding toward the San Josecito district, directly affecting the community the petitioner represents. The party asserts that the situation has been public, well-known, and prolonged over time, without the Municipalidad de Alajuelita having adopted effective and sustained measures to halt the expansion, prevent environmental degradation, or mitigate the associated risks. The party adds that the settlement's location in a mountainous area with significant slope generates: a potential risk of landslides, danger to the life and physical integrity of persons living in the area, risk to neighboring communities from possible mass-movement events, contamination of water resources through infiltration of wastewater, and deterioration of forest cover with an impact on soil stability. The party alleges that the municipal omission has allowed the progressive consolidation of a situation that may lead to grave and irreversible consequences. The party further states that, as evidence of institutional awareness of this situation, the record contains minutes No. 80 of the ordinary session held by the Municipal Council on November 9, 2021, in which the problem of irregular settlements in the area was expressly discussed. The party adds that the situation has not only been known to the respondent municipality for years, but continues to be discussed in recent sessions of the Municipal Council. The party notes that this is also reflected in minutes No. 88 of the ordinary session held on February 10, 2026, in which a motion was presented regarding the proliferation of informal settlements, illegal logging, and illegal construction in the Lámparas and Calle El Boquete areas.\n\n---\n\nWith due respect, I dissent from the majority opinion granting the petition, for the following reasons:\n\nProtection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment within the Costa Rican legal order is safeguarded not only by article 50 of the Political Constitution, but also by a series of currently effective laws and executive decrees (regulations), including the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), Law N° 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), Law N° 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Wildlife Conservation Law (Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre), Law N° 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 of May 24, 2004, the General Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Procedures — to name only a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to distinguish between constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) and legality review (control de legalidad). In this regard, it is the view of the undersigned that this Court, through the amparo mechanism, should hear a case alleging a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment only when the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, readily verifiable, of some significance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the matter must be raised and addressed through the legality track (vía de legalidad). For this reason, the simple failure to comply with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is properly heard through the legality track — administrative or judicial — where the alleged failures or omissions can be scrutinized with far greater scope. It must be borne in mind that the amparo petition is a summary, informal, simple, and expeditious proceeding, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter in the exercise of its competencies and conducts proceedings resulting in administrative acts, cognizance thereof falls outside the scope of this specialized jurisdiction. Accordingly, review of administrative actions taken in connection with an environmental matter — review that requires, for its proper assessment, a full evidentiary process — is possible only in the ordinary courts, since the design of the amparo proceeding is incompatible with contesting or reviewing technical or legal findings developed pursuant to applicable laws or regulations, or with the gathering of new and broader elements of conviction needed to contest or review the findings already appearing in the administrative case file. The contrary would transform the amparo into an ordinary plenary proceeding, which would distort its nature and render nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, causing it to lose its character as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, it is my view that when a public entity or body has intervened in various ways, or has issued administrative acts, in connection with an environmental matter, cognizance and oversight thereof belongs to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction (jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo). It is precisely the verification of the existence of such administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls within the competence of the legality track. Accordingly, this petition should have been dismissed outright, since its subject matter is a question properly to be debated, analyzed, and resolved through the legality track. However, since that did not occur, the appropriate disposition is to deny it, without making any pronouncement on the merits of the issue raised, since it is for the ordinary courts — specifically the contentious-administrative courts — to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct challenged do or do not conform, in substance, to what is prescribed by the legal order at the statutory level regarding the protection, oversight, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\nVI.- Partial Dissent with Respect to the Dispositivo of This Judgment by Justice Garro Vargas. While I agree with the Court majority that the petition should be granted in part, I differ on where to situate the execution phase of the matter, due to the absence of adequate mechanisms provided by the rules governing this constitutional jurisdiction to monitor a judgment that presents highly complex technical aspects — namely, the resolution of the problems afflicting the petitioning party in these proceedings. By contrast, the execution provisions of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (article 155 et seq.) offer evident advantages, such as the ability to request timetables, impose fines, establish liability, oversee stages of compliance, and more. Therefore, pursuant to article 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, it is my view that the execution phase must be carried out before the Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the enforcement rules of that Code.\n\nVII.- Documentation Submitted to the Case File. The parties are put on notice that, if they have submitted any document in paper form, as well as any objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology device, these must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of thirty business days, counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within that period will be destroyed, pursuant to the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,\" approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as pursuant to the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in Session No. 43-12, held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe petition is granted in part. María del Rosario Siles Fernández, known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as Mayor (alcaldesa) of Alajuelita, or whoever may hold that position, is hereby ordered to: 1) within THREE MONTHS from notification of this judgment, conduct a comprehensive technical and legal analysis of the environmental dimension of the problem reported, in order to determine with clarity which actions fall within the municipality's area of competence and which exceed it; 2) having made that determination, with respect to matters within its area of competence, adopt and implement the necessary measures to effectively address and resolve them, within TWELVE MONTHS from notification of this judgment; 3) with respect to matters that exceed its area of competence, formally, timely, and duly document their transfer to the competent authorities, within FOUR MONTHS — likewise counted from notification of this ruling — so that the corresponding measures may be adopted; and 4) additionally, coordinate with the involved institutions and report to this Court, within the stated deadlines, on the actions taken, the determinations made, and the transfers effected. The respondent authority, or whoever holds that position, is hereby warned that, pursuant to article 71 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prison term of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that they must comply with or enforce, issued within an amparo proceeding, and fails to comply with it or to enforce it, provided the offense is not more severely punishable under other provisions. The Municipalidad de Alajuelita is condemned to pay court costs, damages, and losses arising from the facts underlying this declaration, to be assessed in the execution of judgment before the contentious-administrative courts. Justice Salazar Alvarado dissents and denies the petition, as it falls to the ordinary courts — specifically the contentious-administrative courts — to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct challenged do or do not conform, in substance, to what is prescribed by the legal order at the statutory level regarding the protection, oversight, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Justice Garro Vargas dissents with respect to the execution of this judgment and, pursuant to article 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, orders that execution must be carried out before the Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the enforcement rules established in articles 155 et seq. of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. She likewise orders that a copy of the judgment be sent to that court so that the enforcement proceedings for this ruling may commence. In all other respects, the petition is denied. Notify the parties.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresident\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nPaul Rueda L.\n\nLuis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verification Code --\n\nVFHX433RJ0QM61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-007151-0007-CO\n\nPhone numbers: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. Sur de la iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).\n\nIt reiterates that the respondent authority (autoridad recurrida) has had direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported problem for several years, without an effective solution having been achieved that comprehensively addresses the situation.\n\n**2.-** In a ruling issued at 10:43 a.m. on March 6, 2026, the petitioning party (parte recurrente) was directed to provide the following:\n\n*\"• Whether it has formally and in writing submitted the corresponding request in order to report to the acting authority the situation set forth in the petition initiating this appeal; • If the answer is affirmative, it must provide a complete, legible copy together with the corresponding acknowledgment of receipt or email delivery confirmation of the complaint filed; • If any ruling has been received, it must clearly indicate the result obtained and provide the documentation generated in connection with such proceedings; • If said complaint remained pending resolution as of the date this appeal was filed, it must also expressly so advise this Chamber; • Likewise, if the complaint has not been submitted formally and in writing, this must be clarified. Similarly, any additional evidence on which its statements are based must also be provided.\"*\n\n**3.-** In a brief incorporated into the digital case file (expediente digital) on March 11, 2026, the petitioning party states the following:\n\n*\"FIRST. ON THE NATURE OF THE PROTECTED INTEREST (INTERÉS TUTELADO)*\n\n*The situation reported in this appeal is not an individual or private matter; it is a problem affecting the community's diffuse interests (intereses difusos), related to environmental protection, personal safety, and territorial planning (ordenamiento territorial) in the canton of Alajuelita.*\n\n*In that regard, the problem described bears directly on legally protected collective interests (bienes jurídicos de carácter colectivo), which is why any citizen is entitled to come before this Chamber in defense of those interests, particularly in situations that could give rise to environmental harm or risks to public safety.*\n\n*SECOND. ON THE MUNICIPALITY'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE*\n\n*The reported problem is neither new nor unknown to the municipal authorities; it has been the subject of repeated community complaints and formal discussions within the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) of the Municipalidad de Alajuelita. On numerous occasions, residents of the canton have appeared before the Municipal Council to present the situation relating to informal settlements (asentamientos informales), tree felling, illegal construction, and the risks associated with these occupancies, demonstrating that the municipal administration has had full and repeated knowledge of these facts for several years.*\n\n*THIRD. FORMAL DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IN THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL*\n\n*As evidence of the institution's awareness of this situation, it is recorded in Minutes N.° 80 of the ordinary session held by the Municipal Council on November 9, 2021, in which the problem related to irregular settlements (asentamientos irregulares) in the area was expressly discussed.*\n\n*At that session, Council Member (Regidora) Iris Figeac stated, among other things:*\n\n*\"…what they actually did was invade a property and move in approximately five years ago…\"*\n\n*Likewise, Alternate Council Member (Regidor suplente) Kleyber Álvarez stated:*\n\n*\"…when they moved in there were not that many families, and now there are a great many families… so I think the more families they bring in, the more problematic the situation becomes… they should be careful not to bring more people in there… because they stripped away a great deal of forest from us…\"*\n\n*For his part, Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal) Modesto Alpízar Luna stated at that same session:*\n\n*\"…the regulatory plan (plan regulador) was clear that this land is not suitable and is not designated for housing…\"*\n\n*The foregoing demonstrates that the municipal authorities themselves have publicly acknowledged the existence of the irregular settlement and the environmental harm arising from it.*\n\n*FOURTH. PERSISTENCE AND ESCALATION OF THE PROBLEM*\n\n*The situation has not only been known to the Municipalidad for years; it continues to be discussed in recent sessions of the Municipal Council, demonstrating that the problem persists and has worsened over time.*\n\n*This is evidenced by Minutes N. 88 of the ordinary session held on February 10, 2026, in which a motion was presented concerning the proliferation of informal settlements and illegal construction in the area of Lámparas and Calle El Boquete.*\n\nThat motion expressly acknowledges that:\n\n\"…the Municipal Council has on multiple occasions received formal community complaints (denuncias) indicating that there are irregularly established informal settlements (asentamientos) in the area…\"\n\nThe motion also notes that the situation has persisted and escalated, including reports of new construction, tree felling, fires, and possible irregular sales of lots or property rights.\n\nFIFTH. ON THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERVENTION\n\nFrom the foregoing it follows that the Municipalidad de Alajuelita has had direct, formal, and repeated notice of the reported problem for several years, without having achieved an effective solution that comprehensively addresses the reported situation.\n\nAccordingly, the present writ is filed in defense of the community's diffuse interests (intereses difusos), related to environmental protection, land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial), and the safety of residents of the canton (cantón), in the face of a situation known to municipal authorities that has been the subject of repeated community complaints.\n\n(…)\n\nPor tanto\n\nI respectfully request that this honorable Chamber consider the court notice (prevención) to have been responded to in a timely manner, and that it proceed with the processing of the present Recurso de Amparo.\"\n\n**4.-** In an order issued at 15:26 hours on 31 March 2026, the case was admitted and the mayor of Alajuelita was requested to submit a report on the facts alleged by the petitioner.\n\n**5.-** María del Rosario Siles Fernández, also known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as mayor of Alajuelita, reports under oath as follows:\n\n\"FIRST: The informal settlement in question is located approximately two hundred meters south, three hundred meters east, and one hundred fifty meters south of the last bus stop in Concepción debajo de Alajuelita.\n\nIt involves an irregular occupation (ocupación irregular) of privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and the company Empresarial Moracha S.A.\n\nIn response to the settlement's progressive growth, the Local Government promoted the formation of an inter-institutional coordination body, with participation from public entities with jurisdiction over social, sanitary, security, and housing matters.\n\nSECOND: Initial inter-institutional coordination\n\nDuring 2018, various meetings were held with participation from public institutions, the property owners, and national authorities, in which the problem was analyzed and courses of action were defined, including the potential pursuit of administrative evictions (desalojos administrativos) by the landowners.\n\nTHIRD: Sanitary intervention\n\nThe Ministry of Health conducted on-site inspections and found widespread unsanitary conditions, including violations of applicable sanitary and construction regulations, which gave rise to corresponding administrative actions within its area of jurisdiction.\n\nThe situation in which the petitioners live is deplorable: they are people living in unsanitary conditions, most of them without drinking water service, electricity, or any means to attend to their physiological needs, as sewage flows down the hillside. For this reason, Sanitary Order N° 103-2018 was issued by the Ministry of Health.\n\nHowever, neither this Municipality nor even the central government is under any obligation to resolve the housing situation or living conditions of the squatters (invasores). This Municipality does not have the financial resources to provide housing to the occupants of the area — it is one of the most vulnerable and problematic cantons with respect to this issue. The petitioners cannot claim that by occupying private property they are entitled to housing, particularly when many of them are persons with irregular immigration status who are breaking the law. To expect the government to help them improve their living conditions is to place upon both the local and the national government a burden that is not theirs to bear, when it is the occupants themselves who must provide for and improve the quality of life of their own families.\n\nFOURTH: Social and census-based approach\n\nDuring 2019, population data-gathering actions were carried out and coordination took place with institutions in the social sector, particularly IMAS and MIVAH, with a view to channeling potential housing solutions.\n\nHowever, limited participation on the part of the occupants was observed.\n\nFIFTH: Operational and Security Limitations\n\nIn 2020, a deterioration in security conditions in the area became evident, which prevented regular access by public officials and made individualized notifications impossible, given the risks to the physical safety of institutional personnel.\n\nLikewise, the public health emergency arising from COVID-19 led to the temporary suspension of various administrative actions.\n\nSIXTH: Reactivation and Recent Situation\n\nIn 2022, inter-institutional coordination channels were reactivated; however, technical disagreements arose regarding health notification mechanisms, particularly concerning the requirement for individual notification, which has affected the continuity of the process.\n\nSEVENTH: According to data available as of 2023, the settlement comprises approximately:\n\n• 183 structures\n• 567 persons\n• 167 family units (núcleos familiares)\n\nIt is noted that these figures are estimates, given the difficulty of obtaining complete and verifiable information on site.\n\nAdditionally, the area has been classified as highly vulnerable, with complex sanitary and social conditions.\n\nEIGHTH: Under Article 11 of the Political Constitution and the guiding principles of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, administrative action is subject to the principle of legality, by virtue of which public institutions may only exercise the powers expressly assigned to them by the legal order.\n\nIn this context, it is pertinent to clarify:\n\n1. The Municipalidad de Alajuelita does not hold title to the occupied land and therefore lacks the authority to dispose of it or carry out evictions directly.\n\n2. Eviction procedures involving private property require the action of:\n\n2.1 The owners of the properties\n2.2 The Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Ministry of Public Security)\n2.3 The competent authorities in health matters\n\n3. The issuance and enforcement of health orders is the responsibility of the Ministerio de Salud (Ministry of Health), in the exercise of its legal powers.\n\n4. Operational security and territorial control actions are the responsibility of the competent police forces.\n\nIn this regard, Resolution N° 2019018061, issued in Expediente 19-015547-0007-CO, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twentieth of September two thousand nineteen, in the constitutional rights petition (Recurso de Amparo) filed by Cindy Rebeca Rojas González and others against the Municipalidad de Alajuelita, in section IV — On the specific case — this Court states verbatim: \"the Municipalidad de Alajuelita is warned that it may not participate directly or indirectly in de facto actions (vías de hecho) carried out by the owners of properties invaded by squatters (precaristas). In that regard, the authorities must respect the procedures established for administrative eviction (in any of its forms, including ongoing invasions) and for the demolition of structures built without municipal permits. Even in cases involving properties that pose an imminent danger to the persons living in them, the authorities must immediately coordinate with the competent institutions so that the relevant acts and orders may be issued to safeguard the safety and physical integrity of those persons.\"\n\nNINTH: In accordance with the foregoing, this Municipalidad has carried out actions consistent with its jurisdictional scope, aimed at:\n\n• Inter-institutional coordination\n• A comprehensive approach to the situation\n• Channeling social assistance alternatives\n• Ongoing monitoring of the case\n\nHowever, the implementation of definitive measures is contingent upon the intervention of other authorities with specific jurisdiction.\n\nTENTH: From the foregoing background, it is concluded that:\n\n• The Local Government has acted diligently and in accordance with the legal order.\n• The situation described is the result of a complex, multi-sectoral problem.\n• No omission attributable to the Municipalidad de Alajuelita in the exercise of its powers has been established.\n\nVIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\nFor all the foregoing reasons, I request that the appeal be declared without merit. The situation currently faced by the canton of Alajuelita, particularly in that settlement, is a ticking time bomb; it entails health, economic, social, educational, and security problems. The people who live there do so in dismal and unsanitary conditions, without access to basic services such as potable water or electricity, without sanitary facilities, and without proper disposal of sewage, stormwater, or solid waste.\n\nInsecurity in the area has increased; the occupants have terraced (terraceado) the hillsides and, according to the most recent report of the National Emergency Commission, since the zone is not fit for habitation, they are exposed to the risk of collapses (derrumbes). This is, however, a situation that the Municipality of Alajuelita cannot and must not address alone, but rather together with the National Police Force (Fuerza Pública), the National Directorate of Migration and Immigration (Dirección Nacional de Migración y Extranjería), the National Children's Trust (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia), the Ministry of Health, the Costa Rican Institute of Water and Sewage Systems (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados), the National Power and Light Company (Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz), MINAE, SENASA, IMAS, the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements, and others.\n\nCoordination with all the above-mentioned institutions is required in order to relocate the families settled in that area, which entails working in a far more coordinated manner with the Central Government, given that the Municipality on its own lacks the logistical or financial capacity to immediately and single-handedly resolve the serious problem afflicting the canton (cantón), as the petitioner demands.\n\nAs matters stand, it has been established that this Municipality has not failed in its duties as a local government by neglecting the problem. Rather, two overriding considerations — reiterated throughout this brief — must be taken into account: first, in a rights-guaranteeing state such as ours, due process (debido proceso) cannot be violated; and second, relocating the families settled in that area inherently requires joint and more coordinated work with the other institutions of the Executive Branch.\n\nThis Municipality has not violated any constitutional or human right; rather, it fulfills its duty as a local government — as administrator of the general interests of those it governs, as stipulated by the Código Municipal — endeavoring to prevent the continued encroachment upon the hillsides with all the health, economic, social, educational, and security problems that this entails for the canton of Alajuelita and all its residents. The reality, however, is that there is neither the installed administrative capacity nor the policing capacity to control the social disorder in the area.\"\n\n6.- Legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.\n\nDrafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Subject of the appeal. The petitioner alleges that, since approximately 2017, an informal settlement (asentamiento informal) has developed and expanded in the mountainous areas of the district of Concepción, canton of Alajuelita, areas characterized by their environmental fragility (fragilidad ambiental), steep slopes, and potential aquifer recharge function (función de recarga hídrica). This has generated deforestation (deforestación), earthworks (movimientos de tierra) without technical justification, construction without permits, accumulation of waste, and the absence of adequate sanitation systems, causing the infiltration of wastewater (aguas residuales) and risks of contamination of aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos). The petitioner states that this occupation has progressively spread toward the district of San Josecito, generating landslide (deslizamientos) risks, threats to the life and physical integrity of persons, impacts on neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover (cobertura forestal). The petitioner asserts that this situation has been public, notorious, and prolonged, and that the Municipality of Alajuelita has had repeated notice of the problem — as recorded in municipal minutes from 2021 and 2026 — without adopting effective measures, which, in the petitioner's view, constitutes an omission that has allowed the consolidation and worsening of a situation with potentially serious and irreversible consequences.\n\nII.- Proven facts. The following facts are considered duly established as relevant to the decision in this matter:\n\na) That since approximately 2017 an irregular human settlement (asentamiento humano en condición irregular) has developed in the mountainous areas of the district of Concepción in the canton of Alajuelita (uncontested fact).\n\nb) The settlement is located approximately two hundred meters to the south, three hundred meters to the east, and one hundred fifty meters to the south of the last bus stop in Concepción, below Alajuelita, on privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and the company Empresarial Moracha S.A. (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nc) That interventions have been carried out at the site without technical backing or municipal permits, including deforestation, earthworks, and construction of makeshift structures (uncontested fact).\n\nd) It is situated on land with steep slopes and conditions of environmental fragility, with forest cover present and potential aquifer recharge function (see report of the respondent authority).\n\ne) It exhibits unsanitary conditions, with the absence of adequate systems for managing wastewater and solid waste (residuos sólidos), causing soil infiltration and risk of harm to aquifer layers (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nf) The Ministry of Health conducted inspections at the site and issued sanitary order (orden sanitaria) No. 103-2018, finding widespread unsanitary conditions (see report of the respondent authority).\n\ng) The Municipality of Alajuelita has participated in inter-institutional coordination activities with various public entities, including the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), and the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements (MIVAH), aimed at addressing the social, health, and security dimensions of the problem (see report of the respondent authority).\n\nh) The situation of the settlement poses risks to the life, physical integrity of persons, and the environment, including the possibility of landslides, harm to neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover (cobertura forestal) (see the report of the respondent authority).\n\n**III.- Unproven fact.** The following fact of relevance to this ruling is not considered established: **Sole finding.** That the respondent authority undertook formal, specific, and duly documented steps to refer the issues of deforestation, soil degradation, and environmental deterioration to the technically competent environmental authorities.\n\n**IV.- On the specific case.** After reviewing the evidentiary record and the sworn report filed by the respondent authority, with due notice of the consequences set forth in article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, it is established that the matter brought before this Chamber concerns the consolidation and progressive expansion of an informal human settlement (asentamiento humano en condición irregular) located in a mountainous area of high environmental fragility, characterized by steep slopes, forest cover, and potential aquifer recharge function (función de recarga hídrica), all of which entails significant risks to the environment, public health, and the physical integrity of persons.\n\nIndeed, the case record reveals that the settlement presents unsanitary conditions, the absence of basic infrastructure for the management of wastewater and solid waste, and human interventions (intervenciones antrópicas) lacking technical authorization — such as earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and deforestation — that negatively affect the stability of the terrain and increase the risk of landslides. It is likewise established that this situation is not recent, having developed since at least 2017, and has been known to the Municipalidad de Alajuelita, as evidenced by the municipal minutes and the inter-institutional coordination efforts referenced in the sworn report.\n\nTurning now to the conduct of the respondent authority, this Tribunal notes that, while the lands in question are privately owned and eviction proceedings do not fall directly within the Municipalidad's purview, that circumstance does not relieve the local administration of its duty to diligently exercise its competencies in environmental protection.\n\nIn this regard, it is established that the Municipalidad has undertaken inter-institutional coordination actions, information gathering, and social outreach concerning the problem. Likewise, regarding the public health component, the record shows that the matter was referred to the competent authority, with the Ministerio de Salud intervening through on-site inspections and the issuance of the corresponding health order, which demonstrates that, within that specific domain, steps were taken to channel the problem to the appropriate body.\n\nHowever, for purposes of clearly delineating the scope of administrative responsibility, the record contains insufficient evidence that the Municipalidad took concrete, formal, and specific steps to refer the issues of deforestation, soil degradation, and possible environmental harm to the technically competent environmental authorities. While the sworn report reflects inter-institutional coordination activities oriented primarily toward social, public health, and public safety responses — involving, among others, the Ministerio de Salud, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), the Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), and law enforcement bodies — there is no showing that specific, formal, and duly documented actions were taken directed precisely at activating the intervention mechanisms of the authorities with environmental jurisdiction.\n\nIn this regard, this Chamber finds that, regardless of the specific scope of municipal competencies in this area, the respondent authority is obligated to exercise, within its sphere of authority, all powers of control, supervisory oversight (fiscalización), and prevention that fall to it, and, where applicable, to refer the matter in a timely, formal, and effective manner to the competent bodies, even when the issues involved exceed its direct sphere of action.\n\nThus, in the event of a potential overlap of jurisdictions, or even in scenarios of reasonable doubt as to their scope, the appropriate course of action is the diligent activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms, in order to ensure comprehensive attention to the problem and effective protection of the fundamental rights involved.\n\nThat said, this Chamber finds it necessary to distinguish between the different spheres of action: on one hand, the conduct of the respondent authority with respect to the sanitary component is not reproachable, given that it did manage to refer the situation to the competent body; however, the absence of equally diligent action regarding the environmental component related to deforestation, land use, and slope stability is insufficient, and therefore constitutionally reproachable, since these aspects bear directly on the protection of the right to a healthy environment.\n\nConsequently, while the Municipalidad de Alajuelita cannot be characterized as having committed a complete failure to act, its response to the full scope of the reported problem was partial and incomplete, which justifies the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction to order the adoption of specific, coordinated measures within the scope of its competencies, particularly as regards the activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms in environmental matters, so as to prevent the occurrence of serious or irreversible environmental harm.\n\n**V.- Dissenting opinion (voto salvado) of Justice Salazar Alvarado.** With due respect, I dissent from the majority opinion granting the writ of amparo (recurso de amparo), for the following reasons:\n\nThe right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, within the Costa Rican legal order (Ordenamiento Jurídico Costarricense), is protected not only under Article 50 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), but also under a series of currently effective statutes and executive decrees (regulations), such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; the Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; and the Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), to cite only a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to distinguish constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) from legality review (control de legalidad). In my view, this Chamber, through amparo proceedings, should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged when the Administration has not yet intervened, and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily ascertainable, of some significance or gravity, and directly affecting a specific person or community. Otherwise, the matter must be raised and resolved through the legality track (vía de legalidad). For this reason, the mere failure to comply with obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is properly addressed through the legality track, whether administrative or jurisdictional, where the failures and omissions alleged can be scrutinized with far greater scope. It must be kept in mind that the writ of amparo is a summary, informal, straightforward, and expeditious proceeding, such that the moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its competencies, and conducts proceedings through the issuance of administrative acts (actos administrativos), review of that intervention falls outside the scope of this specialized jurisdiction. For this reason, review of administrative actions taken in connection with an environmental matter that requires, for its proper assessment, full-cognizance proceedings (proceso de conocimiento pleno) is only possible in the ordinary courts, given that the structure of the amparo proceeding is incompatible with the examination or review of technical or legal determinations made pursuant to applicable statutes or regulations, or with the introduction of additional evidentiary elements needed to examine or review the findings already contained in the administrative case file (expediente administrativo). The contrary approach would transform the writ of amparo into an ordinary full-cognizance proceeding, thereby distorting it and rendering nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, causing it to lose its status as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, it is my view that when a public entity or body has intervened in various ways, or has issued administrative acts in connection with an environmental matter, review and oversight of that matter belongs to the administrative-contentious jurisdiction (jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo). It is precisely the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines whether the matter falls under the legality track. Accordingly, this writ should have been dismissed outright, since its subject matter is an issue properly to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved through the legality track. However, since that was not done, the appropriate course is to deny the writ, without making any ruling on the merits of the matter raised, as it falls within the ordinary jurisdiction, specifically the administrative-contentious courts, to determine whether the administrative acts and conduct challenged do or do not, in substance, conform to what is prescribed by the legal order with respect to the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\n**VI.- Partial dissenting opinion regarding the dispositional section of this judgment, by Justice Garro Vargas.** While I agree with the majority of the Chamber that the writ should be partially granted, I differ as to where the enforcement phase should be lodged, given the absence of adequate mechanisms under the rules governing this constitutional jurisdiction for monitoring a judgment that involves highly complex technical aspects, such as the resolution of the problem affecting the petitioner in this proceeding. By contrast, the enforcement provisions of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo (Code of Administrative Procedure) (Article 155 et seq.) offer clear advantages, such as the ability to request compliance schedules, impose fines, assign liability, and supervise compliance stages, among others. Therefore, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional (Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction), it is my view that the enforcement phase should be conducted before the Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda (Enforcement Division of the Administrative-Contentious and Civil Treasury Court), under the judgment-enforcement rules of that Code.\n\n**VII.- Documentation submitted to the case file.**\n\nThe parties are hereby advised that, if they have submitted any paper document, as well as any objects or evidence contained in any additional device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, such materials must be retrieved from the court office within a maximum period of thirty business days (días hábiles), counted from the date of notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not retrieved within this period will be destroyed, pursuant to the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,\" approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11, dated August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in the Boletín Judicial No. 19, dated January 26, 2012, as well as pursuant to the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in Session No. 43-12, held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) is declared partially granted. María del Rosario Siles Fernández, also known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as mayor (alcaldesa) of Alajuelita, or whoever holds the office in her stead, is hereby ordered to: **1)** within a period of **THREE MONTHS**, counted from notification of this judgment, **conduct a comprehensive technical and legal analysis** of the problem reported in its environmental dimension, in order to clearly determine which actions fall within the municipality's scope of authority and which exceed it; **2)** once the foregoing has been determined, with respect to those matters falling within its scope of authority, the respondent authority must **adopt and carry out the necessary measures for their effective attention and resolution**, within a period of **TWELVE MONTHS**, counted from notification of this judgment; **3)** with respect to those matters that exceed its scope of authority, **make the formal, timely, and duly documented referral to the competent authorities**, within a period of **FOUR MONTHS**, likewise counted from notification of this resolution, so that the corresponding measures may be adopted; and **4)** furthermore, must **coordinate with the institutions involved and report to this Chamber, within the stated periods**, on the actions taken, the determinations made, and the referrals effected. The respondent authority, or whoever holds the office, is hereby warned that, pursuant to Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, a prison term of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on any person who receives an order that they must comply with or enforce, issued within a writ of amparo proceeding, and fails to comply with or enforce it, provided the offense is not subject to a more severe penalty. The Municipalidad de Alajuelita is ordered to pay court costs (costas) and damages (daños y perjuicios) caused by the facts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in enforcement proceedings before the administrative courts. Justice Salazar Alvarado files a dissenting vote and declares the appeal dismissed, on the grounds that it falls to the ordinary courts — specifically, the administrative courts — to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct at issue conform, in substance, to the provisions of statutory law with respect to the protection, guardianship, and preservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Justice Garro Vargas files a dissenting vote with respect to the enforcement of this judgment and, pursuant to Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, holds that enforcement must be carried out before the Enforcement Division (Área de Ejecución) of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the enforcement rules set forth in Articles 155 and following of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. She likewise orders that a copy of the judgment be sent to that body so that enforcement proceedings for this ruling may be initiated. In all other respects, the appeal is declared dismissed.\n\nLet this be notified.\n\n---\n\n| | | |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| | [signature image] | |\n| | Fernando Castillo V. | |\n| | President | |\n\n| | | | |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| [signature image] | | | [signature image — excerpt ends] |\n| Fernando Cruz C. | | | |\n\nThe chunk you have provided contains no Spanish legal text to translate. Its content consists entirely of:\n\n1. Raw base64-encoded JPEG image data (binary content encoded as an ASCII string), and\n2. HTML markup (`<img>`, `<p>`, `<td>`, `<tr>`, `<span>` tags) wrapping those images.\n\nThe only human-readable text present is the name **Paul Rueda L.**, which appears in a subscript `<span>` and is a Costa Rican proper noun (person name) that must be preserved verbatim per the translation instructions.\n\nThis chunk appears to be a signature block or stamp section of the source document, rendered in HTML with embedded images rather than text. There is no Spanish prose, article text, considerandos, por tantos, or table content to translate.\n\n**Please provide the correct text chunk** — the portion of the document containing Spanish legal prose — and I will translate it immediately according to the specified guidelines.\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n-- Verification Code --\n\nVFHX433RJ0QM61\n\n**EXPEDIENTE N° 26-007151-0007-CO**\n\nTelephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).\n\nExp: 26-007151-0007-CO\nRes. Nº 2026015374\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the thirtieth of April, two thousand twenty-six.\n\nAmparo petition (recurso de amparo) filed by [Nombre 001], national identification number [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA.\n\nBackground:\n\n1.- By written submission incorporated into the digital case file on 27 de marzo de 2026, the petitioner files an amparo petition and states that, since approximately the year 2017, an informal settlement has been developing in the mountainous areas of the Concepción district of the cantón (cantón) of Alajuelita. The petitioner indicates that said settlement is located on steeply sloped terrain with characteristics typical of environmental fragility (fragilidad ambiental), with the presence of forest cover (cobertura forestal) and a potential groundwater recharge (recarga hídrica) function.\n\n---\n\n015374-26. ENVIRONMENT. MUNICIPALITY. CHARGES THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRAGILE ZONES, PRODUCING DEFORESTATION, EARTHWORKS (MOVIMIENTOS DE TIERRA), CONTAMINATION, AND RISK OF CONTAMINATION IN AQUIFERS. DECLARED PARTIALLY GRANTED, ORDERING THE MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA: 1) WITHIN THREE MONTHS, TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE TECHNICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE REPORTED PROBLEM IN ITS ENVIRONMENTAL DIMENSION, IN ORDER TO CLEARLY DETERMINE WHICH ACTIONS FALL WITHIN ITS PURVIEW AND WHICH DO NOT. 2) WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, TO ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT THE NECESSARY MEASURES, WITHIN ITS PURVIEW, FOR EFFECTIVE ATTENTION AND RESOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM; 3) AS TO MATTERS EXCEEDING ITS SCOPE OF COMPETENCE, WITHIN FOUR MONTHS, TO FORMALLY, TIMELY, AND WITH PROPER DOCUMENTATION REFER THE MATTER TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITIES. 4) TO COORDINATE WITH THE INVOLVED INSTITUTIONS AND REPORT TO THE CHAMBER WITHIN THE INDICATED TIMEFRAMES. VCG05/2026\n\n\"(…) IV.- On the specific case. After analyzing the evidentiary elements and the report submitted under oath by the respondent authority, with the timely warning of the consequences provided for in article 44 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, it is established that the problem brought before this Chamber concerns the consolidation and progressive expansion of a human settlement in an irregular condition, located in a mountainous area of high environmental fragility, characterized by steep slopes, forest cover, and a potential groundwater recharge function, which entails significant risks to the environment, public health, and the integrity of persons.\n\nIndeed, the case file reveals that said settlement presents conditions of unsanitary living, absence of basic infrastructure for the management of wastewater and solid waste, as well as anthropogenic interventions without technical backing—such as earthworks and deforestation—that negatively affect terrain stability and increase the risk of landslides. It is likewise established that the situation is not recent, but rather has been developing since at least the year 2017, and has been known to the Municipalidad de Alajuelita, as evidenced by the municipal records and the inter-institutional coordination efforts referred to in the submitted report.\n\nNow, with regard to the conduct of the respondent authority, this Tribunal notes that, although the lands in question are privately owned and eviction proceedings are not a direct responsibility of the Municipality, this circumstance does not relieve the local administration of its duty to diligently exercise its competencies in the area of environmental protection.\n\nIn this regard, it is established that the Municipality has carried out inter-institutional coordination actions, information-gathering, and social outreach regarding the problem. Likewise, with respect to the sanitary component, it is on record that the situation was referred to the competent authority, and that the Ministry of Health intervened through on-site inspections and the issuance of the corresponding sanitary order, demonstrating that, in that specific area, steps were taken to channel the problem to the appropriate body.\n\nNevertheless, and in order to clearly delineate the scope of administrative responsibility, it is established that the case file does not contain sufficient evidence that the municipality concretely, formally, and specifically managed the referral of the problem relating to deforestation, soil impact (afectación del suelo), and possible environmental degradation to the technically competent authorities in that area. Although the submitted report indicates that inter-institutional coordination actions were carried out, aimed primarily at social, sanitary, and security concerns—with the participation, among others, of the Ministry of Health, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), the Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), and police forces—no specific, formal, and duly documented actions are shown to have been taken to specifically activate the intervention mechanisms of the authorities with competence in environmental matters.\n\nIn this regard, this Chamber finds that, regardless of the specific scope of municipal competencies in this area, the respondent authority is obligated to exercise, within its sphere of attributions, all powers of control, oversight, and prevention that fall to it, and, where applicable, to manage in a timely, formal, and effective manner the referral of the situation to the competent bodies, even when the matters exceed its sphere of direct action. Thus, in the event of a possible overlap of competencies, or even in scenarios of reasonable doubt as to their scope, the appropriate course is the diligent activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms, in order to ensure a comprehensive response to the problem and the effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.\n\nThis being the case, this Chamber finds it necessary to differentiate the areas of action: on the one hand, the conduct of the respondent authority with respect to the sanitary component is not censurable, as it did manage the referral of the situation to the competent body; however, the absence of equally diligent management with respect to the environmental component relating to deforestation, land use (uso del suelo), and terrain stability is insufficient—and therefore constitutionally censurable—as these aspects directly affect the protection of the right to a healthy environment.\n\nConsequently, although an absolute omission on the part of the Municipalidad de Alajuelita is not established, a partial and incomplete response to the totality of the reported problem is evident, which justifies the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction in order to order the adoption of specific and coordinated measures, within the scope of its competencies, particularly with regard to activating the relevant institutional mechanisms in environmental matters, in order to prevent the materialization of serious or irreversible environmental damage (daño ambiental). (…)\"\n\nV.- Dissenting vote of Justice Salazar Alvarado. With due respect, I dissent from the majority vote granting the petition, based on the following reasons:\n\nThe protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment in the Costa Rican legal system is safeguarded not only by article 50 of the Political Constitution, but also by a series of laws and executive decrees (regulations) currently in force, such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Law No. 7554 of October 4, 1995; the Ley de Biodiversidad, Law No. 7788 of April 30, 1998; the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Law No. 7317 of October 21, 1992; and Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 of May 24, 2004, Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA), to cite only a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to separate constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) from legality review (control de legalidad). In this regard, it is the view of the undersigned that this Chamber, by way of an amparo petition, should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged if the Administration has not yet intervened, and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of a certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the matter must be raised and discussed through the legality avenue. For this reason, the mere failure to comply with obligations and duties imposed by law on the various public administrations in environmental matters is properly heard through the legality avenue—administrative or judicial—where, with much greater scope, alleged failures or omissions can be scrutinized. It must be borne in mind that the amparo petition is a summary, informal, simple, and swift process, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its competencies, and processes a proceeding with the issuance of administrative acts, its review falls outside the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. Therefore, the review of administrative actions taken in connection with an environmental matter that requires, for its proper assessment, a full-cognizance proceeding (proceso de conocimiento pleno), is only possible in ordinary jurisdiction, since the design of the amparo process is incompatible with the comparison or review of technical or legal criteria elaborated pursuant to applicable legal or regulatory provisions, or with the reception of new and additional elements of conviction needed to compare or review the criteria already contained in the administrative case file. The contrary would transform the amparo into an ordinary full-cognizance proceeding, which would distort it and render nugatory the purposes for which it was designed, thereby causing it to lose its character as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, it is my view that when a public entity or body has intervened—in various ways—or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, its review and oversight fall to the contentious-administrative (contencioso-administrativo) jurisdiction. It is precisely the verification of the existence of that administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls within the competence of the legality avenue. Consequently, this petition should have been rejected outright, since its subject matter is a question that is properly to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved in the legality avenue. However, since that was not done, the appropriate course is to declare it denied on the merits, without making any pronouncement with respect to the substance of the question raised, since it falls to the ordinary jurisdiction—specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction—to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct alleged comply or do not comply, in substance, with the provisions of the legal order concerning the protection, safeguarding, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\nVCG05/2026\n\nVI.- Partial dissenting vote regarding the operative part of this judgment by Justice Garro Vargas. Although I agree with the majority of the Chamber that the petition should be declared partially granted, I disagree on where to situate the enforcement phase of the matter, due to the lack of adequate mechanisms provided by the rules governing this constitutional jurisdiction for following up on a judgment that involves technical aspects of great complexity—such as the resolution of the problem suffered by the petitioner in these proceedings. In contrast, the provisions of the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo concerning enforcement (article 155 and following) have evident advantages, such as the ability to request timelines, impose fines, establish liability, and oversee compliance stages, among others. For this reason, in accordance with article 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, it is my view that the enforcement phase should be conducted before the Área de Ejecución del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the judgment enforcement rules of that Code.\n\nVCG05/2026\n\n---\n\nFax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 meters south of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro).\n\nIt states that the occupation has entailed progressive deforestation, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) carried out without any visible technical studies, construction of improvised structures without municipal permits, accumulation of solid waste, and the absence of adequate sewage treatment systems. The sanitary discharges and waste generated in the area, in the absence of formal infrastructure, infiltrate directly into the soil, creating a risk of harm to aquifers (mantos acuíferos) and environmental contamination. The settlement not only persists but is progressively expanding toward the district of San Josecito, directly affecting the community that the petitioner represents. It is asserted that the situation has been public, notorious, and long-standing, without the Municipalidad de Alajuelita having adopted effective and sustained measures to halt the expansion, prevent environmental degradation, or mitigate the associated risks. It is further stated that the location of the settlement in a mountainous area with a significant slope gives rise to: a potential risk of landslides, danger to the life and physical integrity of persons living in the area, risk to neighboring communities from possible debris flows, contamination of water resources through infiltration of wastewater, and deterioration of forest cover (cobertura forestal) with an impact on soil stability. It is charged that the municipal omission has allowed the progressive consolidation of a situation that may lead to serious and irreversible consequences. It is further noted that, as evidence of the institutional awareness of this situation, the minutes of ordinary session No. 80 held by the Concejo Municipal on 09 de noviembre del 2021 record an express discussion of the problems related to irregular settlements in the area. It is additionally noted that not only has the respondent municipality been aware of the situation for several years, but it continues to be discussed in recent sessions of the Concejo Municipal. It is mentioned that this is evidenced in the minutes of ordinary session No. 88 held on 10 de febrero del 2026, at which a motion was presented concerning the proliferation of informal settlements, illegal logging, and illegal construction in the area of Lámparas and Calle El Boquete. It is reiterated that the respondent authority has had direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported problem for several years, without an effective solution having been achieved that comprehensively addresses the situation.\n\n**2.-** In a ruling issued at 10:43 hours on 06 de marzo de 2026, the petitioning party was directed to provide the following:\n\n*\"• Whether it has formally and in writing filed the appropriate complaint before the respondent authority regarding the situation described in the brief introducing this appeal; • If the answer is affirmative, it must provide a complete and legible copy together with the corresponding acknowledgment of receipt or email transmission confirmation of the complaint submitted; • If any ruling has been received, it must clearly indicate what outcome was obtained and provide the documentation generated in connection with such proceedings; • If said complaint remains pending resolution as of the date of filing of this appeal, it must also expressly so inform this Court; • Likewise, if no formal written complaint has been submitted, it must so clarify. It must equally provide any additional evidence on which it bases its claims.\"*\n\n**3.-** By a written submission incorporated into the digital case file on 11 de marzo de 2026, the petitioning party states the following:\n\n*\"FIRST. ON THE NATURE OF THE PROTECTED INTEREST*\n\n*The situation reported in this appeal does not concern an individual or private matter, but rather a problem affecting the diffuse interests (intereses difusos) of the community, related to environmental protection, public safety, and land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial) in the canton of Alajuelita.*\n\n*In this regard, the problem described directly affects legally protected collective interests, which is why any citizen is entitled to come before this Court in defense of those interests, particularly when dealing with situations that could generate environmental harm or risks to public safety.*\n\n*SECOND. ON THE MUNICIPALITY'S PRIOR KNOWLEDGE*\n\n*The reported problem is neither new nor unknown to the municipal authorities; rather, it has been the subject of repeated community complaints and formal discussions within the Concejo Municipal of the Municipalidad de Alajuelita. On numerous occasions, residents of the canton have come before the Concejo Municipal to describe the situation concerning informal settlements, tree-felling, illegal construction, and the risks associated with these occupations, which demonstrates that the municipal administration has had full and repeated knowledge of these facts for several years.*\n\n*THIRD.*\"\n\nFORMAL DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM IN THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL\n\nAs proof of the institutional awareness of this situation, it is recorded in Minutes No. 80 of the ordinary session held by the Municipal Council on November 09, 2021, where the problems related to irregular settlements in the area were expressly discussed.\n\nIn that session, Council Member Iris Figeac stated, among other things:\n\n\"…what they actually did was invade a property and move in approximately five years ago…\"\n\nLikewise, Alternate Council Member Kleyber Álvarez noted:\n\n\"…when they came in there weren't that many families and now there are a whole bunch of families… so I think the more families they bring in, the more problematic the situation becomes… they should be careful not to bring more people in there… because they took away a huge amount of forest from us…\"\n\nFor his part, Municipal Mayor Modesto Alpízar Luna stated in that same session:\n\n\"…the land-use plan was clear that this land is not suitable and is not zoned for housing…\"\n\nThe foregoing demonstrates that the municipal authorities themselves have publicly acknowledged the existence of the irregular settlement and the environmental impacts stemming from it.\n\nFOURTH. PERSISTENCE AND ESCALATION OF THE PROBLEM\n\nThe situation has not only been known to the Municipality for years, but continues to be discussed in recent sessions of the Municipal Council, which evidences that the problem persists and has worsened over time.\n\nThis is recorded in Minutes No. 88 of the ordinary session held on February 10, 2026, where a motion was presented regarding the proliferation of informal settlements and illegal constructions in the area of Lámparas and Calle El Boquete.\n\nIn that motion it is expressly acknowledged that:\n\n\"…the Municipal Council has on multiple occasions received formal community complaints indicating that there are settlements established irregularly in the area…\"\n\nIt is likewise indicated that the situation has persisted and escalated, including reports of new constructions, tree felling, fires, and possible irregular sales of lots or rights.\n\nFIFTH. ON THE NEED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL INTERVENTION\n\nFrom the foregoing it follows that the Municipality of Alajuelita has had direct, formal, and repeated knowledge of the reported problem for several years, without an effective solution having been achieved that comprehensively addresses the reported situation.\n\nAccordingly, this petition is filed in defense of the diffuse interests (intereses difusos) of the community, related to environmental protection, land-use planning (ordenamiento territorial), and the safety of the inhabitants of the canton, in the face of a situation known to the municipal authorities and which has been the subject of repeated community complaints.\n\n(…)\n\nPor tanto\n\nI respectfully request that this honorable Court consider the procedural notice to have been duly addressed in a timely manner and continue with the processing of this Recurso de Amparo.\n\n**4.-** In a ruling at 15:26 hours on March 31, 2026, the proceeding is admitted and the Mayor of Alajuelita is requested to submit a report on the facts alleged by the petitioning party.\n\n**5.-** María del Rosario Siles Fernández, also known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as mayor of Alajuelita, testifies under oath as follows:\n\n*\"FIRST: The settlement (asentamiento) in question is located approximately two hundred meters to the south, three hundred meters to the east, and one hundred fifty meters to the south of the last bus stop in Concepción below Alajuelita.*\n\n*This is an irregular occupation (ocupación irregular) on privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and the company Empresarial Moracha S.A.*\n\n*In response to the progressive growth of the settlement, the Local Government promoted the formation of an inter-institutional coordination body, with participation from public entities with jurisdiction over social, health, security, and housing matters.*\n\n*SECOND: Initial inter-institutional coordination*\n\n*During 2018, various meetings were held with participation from public institutions, property owners, and national authorities. At those meetings, the problem was analyzed and courses of action were defined, including the possible pursuit of administrative evictions by the landowners.*\n\n*THIRD: Health intervention*\n\n*The Ministry of Health conducted on-site inspections and found widespread unsanitary conditions, with violations of applicable health and construction regulations, which gave rise to the corresponding administrative actions within its area of competence.*\n\n*The situation experienced by the petitioners is deplorable; they are people living in unsanitary conditions, with most of them lacking access to drinking water, electricity, or sanitary facilities, since sewage flows down the hillside. For this reason, sanitary order N° 103-2018 was issued by the Ministry of Health.*\n\n*Nevertheless, neither this Municipality nor even the central government is obligated to resolve the housing situation or living conditions of the squatters (invasores). This Municipality does not have the financial resources to provide housing to the occupants of the area; it is one of the most vulnerable and troubled cantons in this regard. The petitioners cannot expect that merely by unlawfully occupying private property they should be given housing, given that many of them are persons with irregular immigration status who are breaking the law. Expecting the government to help them improve their living conditions places upon the local and national government a burden that is not theirs to bear, when it is they themselves who must provide for and improve the quality of life of their own families.*\n\n*FOURTH: Social outreach and census-taking*\n\n*During 2019, population data-gathering activities (levantamiento de información poblacional) were carried out and coordination was established with social-sector institutions, particularly IMAS and MIVAH, in order to channel possible housing solutions. However, limited participation was observed on the part of the occupants.*\n\n*FIFTH: Operational and security limitations*\n\n*In 2020, a deterioration in the security conditions of the area became evident, which made it impossible for public officials to enter the area on a regular basis and to carry out individualized notifications, given the risks to the physical safety of institutional personnel.*\n\n*Likewise, the public health emergency arising from COVID-19 led to the temporary suspension of various administrative actions.*\n\n*SIXTH: Reactivation and recent situation*\n\n*In 2022, inter-institutional coordination forums were reactivated; however, technical disagreements arose regarding the mechanisms for issuing health notifications, particularly with respect to the requirement of individual notification, which has affected the continuity of the process.*\n\n*SEVENTH: According to data available as of 2023, the settlement comprises approximately:*\n\n*• 183 structures*\n\n*• 567 persons*\n\n*• 167 family units (núcleos familiares)*\n\n*It is noted that these figures are estimates, due to the difficulty of obtaining complete and verifiable information on site.*\n\n*Additionally, the area has been classified as one of high vulnerability, with complex sanitary and social conditions.*\n\n*EIGHTH: Pursuant to article 11 of the Constitución Política and the guiding principles of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, administrative action is subject to the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), under which public institutions may only exercise the powers expressly conferred upon them by the legal order.*\n\n*In this context, it is pertinent to clarify:*\n\n*1. The Municipalidad de Alajuelita does not hold title to the occupied land and therefore lacks the authority to dispose of it or carry out evictions directly.*\n\n*2.*\n\nEviction proceedings (procedimientos de desalojo) on privately owned property require the action of:\n\n2.1 The property owners\n\n2.2 The Ministry of Public Security\n\n2.3 The competent authorities in sanitary matters\n\n3. The issuance and execution of sanitary orders falls to the Ministry of Health, in the exercise of its legal competences.\n\n4. Operational security and territorial control activities fall to the competent police bodies.\n\nIn this regard, Resolution N° 2019018061, issued in Expediente 19-015547-0007-CO, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the twentieth of September of two thousand nineteen, in a writ of amparo (Recurso de Amparo) filed by Cindy Rebeca Rojas González and others against the Municipalidad de Alajuelita, in section IV — On the specific case — this Court states verbatim: \"the Municipalidad de Alajuelita is warned that it cannot participate directly or indirectly in de facto actions (vías de hecho) carried out by the owners of properties invaded by squatters (precaristas). In that regard, the authorities must respect the procedures established for administrative eviction in any of its forms, including ongoing invasions, and for the demolition of buildings constructed without municipal permits. Even where the properties represent an imminent danger to the people living in them, the authorities must immediately coordinate with the competent institutions so that the relevant acts and orders are issued to safeguard the safety and physical integrity of those persons.\"\n\nNINTH: In accordance with the foregoing, this Municipality has carried out actions consistent with its scope of competence, aimed at:\n\n• Inter-institutional coordination\n\n• A comprehensive approach to the issue\n\n• Channeling social-care alternatives\n\n• Ongoing monitoring of the case\n\nHowever, the implementation of definitive measures is contingent upon the intervention of other authorities with specific competence.\n\nTENTH: From the foregoing background, it is concluded that:\n\n• The Local Government has acted diligently and in accordance with the legal order.\n\n• The situation described reflects a complex, multi-sectoral problem.\n\n• No omission attributable to the Municipalidad de Alajuelita in the exercise of its competences has been established.\n\nVIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\nFor all of the foregoing reasons, I request that the writ be declared WITHOUT MERIT. The problem currently faced by the canton of Alajuelita, particularly in that settlement, is a ticking time bomb; it entails health, economic, social, educational, and security problems. The people who live there do so in dire and unsanitary conditions; they lack basic services such as drinking water or electricity, have no sanitary facilities, and have no proper disposal of sewage, stormwater, or solid waste. Insecurity has increased in the area; the occupants have terraced the hillside and, according to the latest report of the Comisión Nacional de emergencia, since it is not a habitable area, they are exposed to the risk of landslides. However, this is a situation that the Municipalidad de Alajuelita cannot and must not address alone, but rather jointly with the Fuerza Pública, Dirección Nacional de Migración y extranjería, Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Ministerio de Salud, Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, MINAE, SENASA, IMAS, Ministerio de Vivienda y asentamientos humanos, among others.\n\nCoordination with all of the above-mentioned institutions is needed to relocate the families currently settled in that area, which requires carrying out much more coordinated work with the Central Government, since the Municipality on its own lacks the logistical or financial capacity to immediately and definitively resolve the serious problem afflicting the canton, as the petitioner intends.\n\nIt has thus been demonstrated that this Municipality has not failed in its duties as a local government in the sense of neglecting the problem. Rather, two overriding aspects must be considered, reiterated throughout this brief: first, in a rights-guaranteeing state such as ours, we cannot violate due process; and second, relocating the families currently settled in that area inherently requires joint and more coordinated work with the other institutions of the Executive Branch.\n\nThis Municipality has not violated any constitutional right or human right; rather, it fulfills its duty as a local government, administrator of the general interests of those it serves, as stipulated by the Código Municipal, striving to prevent further encroachment on the hillsides with all the health, economic, social, educational, and security problems this entails for the canton of Alajuelita and all its inhabitants. The reality, however, is that it lacks the installed administrative or police capacity to control the social chaos in the area.\"\n\n6.- The legally prescribed requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.\n\nWritten by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- Subject matter of the writ. The petitioner alleges that, since approximately 2017, an informal settlement has developed and expanded in the mountainous areas of the district of Concepción, canton of Alajuelita, characterized by their environmental fragility, steep slopes, and potential aquifer recharge function (función de recarga hídrica), which has generated deforestation, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) without technical support, construction without permits, accumulation of waste, and the absence of adequate sanitation systems, causing the infiltration of wastewater and risks of contamination of aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos). The petitioner notes that this occupation has progressively extended toward the district of San Josecito, generating risks of landslides, threats to the life and physical integrity of persons, impact on neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover (cobertura forestal).\n\nIt claims that this situation has been public, notorious, and prolonged, and that the Municipalidad de Alajuelita has had repeated knowledge of the problem —as recorded in municipal minutes from the years 2021 and 2026— without having adopted effective measures, which, in its view, constitutes an omission that has allowed the consolidation and worsening of a situation with potentially serious and irreversible consequences.\n\n**II.- Proven Facts.** Of importance to the decision in this matter, the following facts are considered duly established:\n\n**a)** That since approximately 2017, an informal human settlement (asentamiento humano en condición irregular) has developed in mountainous areas of the district of Concepción in the canton of Alajuelita (undisputed fact).\n\n**b)** The settlement is located approximately two hundred meters to the south, three hundred meters to the east, and one hundred fifty meters to the south of the last bus stop in Concepción, below Alajuelita, on privately owned land belonging to Fiduciaria UNIBANK and the company Empresarial Moracha S.A. (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**c)** That interventions have been carried out at the site without technical backing or municipal permits, such as deforestation, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and the construction of makeshift structures (undisputed fact).\n\n**d)** It is located on land with steep slopes and conditions of environmental fragility, with the presence of forest cover (cobertura forestal) and a potential water recharge function (recarga hídrica) (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**e)** It presents unsanitary conditions, with the absence of adequate systems for the management of wastewater and solid waste, which causes seepage into the soil and a risk of harm to aquifer layers (mantos acuíferos) (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**f)** The Ministerio de Salud conducted inspections at the site and issued health order No. 103-2018, documenting widespread unsanitary conditions (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**g)** The Municipalidad de Alajuelita has participated in inter-institutional coordination efforts with various public entities, including the Ministerio de Salud, the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS), and the Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos (MIVAH), aimed at addressing the social, sanitary, and security dimensions of the problem (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**h)** The conditions at the settlement pose risks to the lives and physical safety of persons and to the environment, including the possibility of landslides, harm to neighboring communities, and deterioration of forest cover (see report of the challenged authority).\n\n**III.- Unproven Fact.** The following fact of relevance to this ruling is not considered established: **Sole.** That the challenged authority has undertaken formal, specific, and duly documented steps to refer the problems of deforestation, soil degradation, and environmental degradation to the competent technical authorities in environmental matters.\n\n**IV.- On the Specific Case.** After analyzing the evidentiary elements and the report submitted under oath by the challenged authority, with timely notice of the consequences provided for in article 44 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, it is established that the problem brought before this Court concerns the progressive consolidation and expansion of an informal human settlement located in a mountainous area of high environmental fragility, characterized by steep slopes, forest cover, and a potential water recharge function, which poses significant risks to the environment, public health, and the physical safety of persons.\n\nIndeed, the record reveals that this settlement presents unsanitary conditions, the absence of basic infrastructure for the management of wastewater and solid waste, and unauthorized anthropogenic interventions —such as earthworks and deforestation— that negatively affect terrain stability and increase the risk of landslides. It is likewise noted that the situation is not recent but has been developing since at least the year 2017, and is known to the Municipalidad de Alajuelita, as evidenced by the municipal minutes and the inter-institutional coordination efforts referenced in the report submitted.\n\nWith respect to the conduct of the challenged authority, however, this Court notes that, while the land in question is privately owned and eviction proceedings do not fall directly within the Municipality's purview, that circumstance does not relieve the local government of its duty to diligently exercise its powers in the area of environmental protection.\n\nIn this regard, it is established that the Municipality has undertaken inter-institutional coordination efforts, information gathering, and social outreach to address the problem.\n\nLikewise, with respect to the sanitary component, the record shows that the matter was referred to the competent authority, with the Ministry of Health intervening through on-site inspections and the issuance of the corresponding sanitary order, which demonstrates that, in that specific area, steps were taken to channel the issue to the appropriate body.\n\nNevertheless, in order to clearly delineate the scope of administrative responsibility, it is found that the record does not contain sufficient evidence that the municipality formally and specifically took concrete steps to refer the issues of deforestation, soil impact, and potential environmental degradation to the technically competent authorities in that area. While the report submitted indicates that inter-institutional coordination efforts were carried out, directed primarily at addressing social, health, and security concerns—with the participation, among others, of the Ministry of Health, the Mixed Institute of Social Assistance (Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, IMAS), the Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements (Ministerio de Vivienda y Asentamientos Humanos, MIVAH), and police forces—there is no evidence of specific, formal, and properly documented steps taken specifically to activate the intervention mechanisms of the authorities with competence in environmental matters.\n\nIn this regard, this Chamber considers that, regardless of the specific scope of municipal powers in this area, the respondent authority is obligated to exercise, within its sphere of attributions, all the powers of oversight, monitoring, and prevention that fall within its purview, and, where applicable, to formally, promptly, and effectively manage the referral of the matter to the competent bodies, even when the issues at stake exceed its direct sphere of action. Accordingly, where there is a potential overlap of competencies, or even in scenarios of reasonable doubt regarding their scope, the appropriate course of action is the diligent activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms, so as to ensure a comprehensive response to the problem and the effective protection of the fundamental rights at stake.\n\nThat being so, this Chamber finds it necessary to distinguish between the different spheres of action: on the one hand, the conduct of the respondent authority with respect to the sanitary component is not reproachable, since it did take steps to refer the matter to the competent body; on the other hand, the absence of equally diligent action regarding the environmental component related to deforestation, land use, and terrain stability is insufficient—and therefore constitutionally reproachable—as these aspects directly bear on the protection of the right to a healthy environment.\n\nConsequently, although the conduct of the Municipalidad de Alajuelita does not amount to a complete omission, there is evidence of a partial and incomplete response to the full scope of the reported problem, which justifies the intervention of this constitutional jurisdiction in order to direct the adoption of specific and coordinated measures, within its sphere of competence, particularly with regard to the activation of the relevant institutional mechanisms in environmental matters, so as to prevent the occurrence of serious or irreversible environmental harm.\n\nV.- Dissenting opinion (voto salvado) of Magistrate Salazar Alvarado. With all due respect, I dissent from the majority opinion upholding the appeal, on the following grounds:\n\nThe protection of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, within the Costa Rican legal system, is safeguarded not only in Article 50 of the Constitución Política, but also in a series of applicable laws and executive decrees (regulations), such as the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, Ley N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995; the Ley de Biodiversidad, Ley N° 7788 de 30 de abril de 1998; the Ley de Conservación de la Vida Silvestre, Ley N° 7317 de 21 de octubre de 1992; and the Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004, General Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures (Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, EIA), to cite but a few. This makes it necessary, in environmental matters, to distinguish constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) from legality review (control de legalidad). In this regard, it is the undersigned's view that this Chamber, by way of the amparo remedy (recurso de amparo), should only hear a matter in which a violation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment is alleged when the Administration has not yet intervened and when the violation of that right is manifest and evident, easily verifiable, of a certain importance or gravity, and directly affects a specific person or community. Otherwise, the matter should be raised and addressed through the legality review process (vía de legalidad). For this reason, the mere failure to fulfill obligations and duties legally imposed on the various public administrations in environmental matters is properly heard through the legality review process—whether administrative or judicial—where non-compliance and omissions can be scrutinized with far greater depth. It must be borne in mind that the amparo remedy is a summary, informal, simple, and expeditious proceeding, such that from the very moment the Administration intervenes in an environmental matter, in the exercise of its powers, and conducts a proceeding culminating in the issuance of administrative acts, the matter falls outside the scope of action of this specialized jurisdiction. For this reason, the review of administrative actions taken in relation to an environmental matter that requires, for its proper assessment, a full evidentiary proceeding is only possible in the ordinary courts, since the design of the amparo proceeding is incompatible with the examination or review of technical or legal criteria developed under applicable statutory or regulatory provisions, or with the gathering of new and additional evidence necessary to examine or review the criteria already on record in the administrative case file. To hold otherwise would be to transform the amparo into an ordinary full-knowledge proceeding, thereby distorting it and rendering nugatory the purposes for which it was designed; it would lose its character as an instrument for the effective protection of fundamental rights. As a consequence of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that when a public entity or body has intervened, in various ways, or has issued administrative acts in relation to an environmental matter, the review and oversight thereof fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts (jurisdicción de lo contencioso-administrativo). It is precisely the verification of the existence of such administrative intervention that determines that the matter falls within the purview of the legality review process.\n\nConsequently, this writ of amparo (recurso de amparo) should have been dismissed outright (rechazado de plano), since its subject matter is a question properly suited to be discussed, analyzed, and resolved through the legality review process (vía de legalidad). However, since that was not done, the appropriate course of action is to deny it (declararlo sin lugar), without making any ruling on the merits of the question raised, as it falls to the ordinary courts—specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction—to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct challenged do or do not conform, in substance, to the provisions of the legal order at the statutory level, with respect to the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.\n\n**VI.-** **Partial dissenting vote (voto salvado) of Justice Garro Vargas with respect to the operative part of this judgment.** While I agree with the majority of the Chamber that the writ should be declared partially granted (parcialmente con lugar), I differ as to where the enforcement phase (fase de ejecución) of the matter should be lodged, due to the absence of adequate mechanisms provided by the rules governing this constitutional jurisdiction to oversee a judgment that involves aspects of great technical complexity, such as the resolution of the problem afflicting the appellant in the present proceedings. By contrast, what is provided by the Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo regarding enforcement (Article 155 and following) has evident advantages, such as the ability to request timetables, impose fines, establish liability, and monitor stages of compliance, etc. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Ley de Jurisdicción Constitucional, I consider that the enforcement phase should be conducted before the Enforcement Division (Área de Ejecución) of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the judgment-enforcement rules of that Code.\n\n**VII.- Documentation submitted to the case file (expediente).** The parties are hereby notified that, if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence contained in any supplementary device of an electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology nature, these must be retrieved from the office (despacho) within a maximum period of thirty business days, counted from notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all such material that is not retrieved within that period shall be destroyed, pursuant to the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,\" approved by the Corte Plena in Session No. 27-11, of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial No. 19, of January 26, 2012, as well as the resolution approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in Session No. 43-12, held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe writ is declared partially granted. María del Rosario Siles Fernández, also known as María del Rocío Siles Fernández, in her capacity as mayor of Alajuelita, or whoever holds that position in her stead, is ordered to: **1)** within a period of **THREE MONTHS**, counted from notification of this judgment, **conduct a comprehensive technical and legal analysis** of the problem reported in its environmental dimension, in order to determine clearly which actions fall within the municipality's scope of competence and which exceed it; **2)** once the foregoing has been determined, with respect to those matters that fall within its scope of competence, the respondent authority shall **adopt and implement the necessary measures for their effective attention and resolution**, within a period of **TWELVE MONTHS**, counted from notification of this judgment; **3)** with respect to those matters that exceed its scope of competence, **make the formal, timely, and duly documented referral to the competent authorities**, within a period of **FOUR MONTHS**, likewise counted from notification of this decision, so that the corresponding measures may be adopted; and **4)** furthermore, she shall **coordinate with the institutions involved and report to this Chamber, within the stated deadlines**, on the actions taken, the decisions adopted, and the referrals made. The respondent authority, or whoever holds that position, is hereby warned that, in accordance with Article 71 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, imprisonment of three months to two years or a fine of twenty to sixty days shall be imposed on anyone who receives an order that they must comply with or cause to be complied with, issued within a writ of amparo, and fails to comply with it or to cause it to be complied with, provided the offense is not more severely penalized. The Municipalidad de Alajuelita is condemned to pay the court costs (costas), damages, and losses (daños y perjuicios) caused by the acts underlying this declaration, which shall be assessed in enforcement of the contentious-administrative judgment. Justice Salazar Alvarado files a dissenting vote and denies the writ, on the grounds that it falls to the ordinary courts—specifically, the contentious-administrative jurisdiction—to determine whether the administrative actions and conduct challenged do or do not conform, in substance, to the provisions of the legal order at the statutory level, with respect to the protection, guardianship, and conservation of the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Justice Garro Vargas files a dissenting vote with respect to the enforcement of this judgment and, in accordance with Article 56 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, provides that enforcement must be conducted before the Enforcement Division of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under the enforcement rules established in Articles 155 and following of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. She likewise orders that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to that court so that enforcement proceedings of this ruling may be initiated. In all other respects, the writ is denied.\n\nLet this be notified.\n\n---\n\n| | | |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| | [signature image] | |\n| | Fernando Castillo V. | |\n| | President | |\n\n| | | | |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| [signature image] | | | [signature image — excerpt ends] |\n| Fernando Cruz C. | | | |\n\nThe chunk you have provided contains no Spanish legal text to translate. Its content consists entirely of:\n\n1. Raw base64-encoded JPEG image data (binary content encoded as an ASCII string), and\n2. HTML markup (`<img>`, `<p>`, `<td>`, `<tr>`, `<span>` tags) wrapping those images.\n\nThe only human-readable text present is the name **Paul Rueda L.**, which appears in a subscript `<span>` and is a Costa Rican proper noun (person name) that must be preserved verbatim per the translation instructions.\n\nThis chunk appears to be a signature block or stamp section of the source document, rendered in HTML with embedded images rather than text. There is no Spanish prose, article text, considerandos, por tantos, or table content to translate.\n\n**Please provide the correct text chunk** — the portion of the document containing Spanish legal prose — and I will translate it immediately according to the specified guidelines.\n\nLuis Fdo.\n\nSalazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\n\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n-- Verification Code --\n\nVFHX433RJ0QM61\n\n**EXPEDIENTE N° 26-007151-0007-CO**\n\nTelephone: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482).\n\nFax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Website: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 m south of the Iglesia del Perpetuo Socorro)."
}