{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1386796", "citation": "Res. 16434-2026 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Consulta legislativa sobre contratos de préstamo para proyecto de tren rápido inadmisible por falta de fundamentación", "title_en": "Legislative consultation on loan contracts for rapid train project inadmissible due to lack of reasoning", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional declara inadmisible la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad planteada por un grupo de diputados respecto al proyecto de ley que aprueba contratos de préstamo para el Tren Rápido de Pasajeros (TRP). Los consultantes alegaron dudas sobre el cumplimiento de normas ambientales, seguridad jurídica e impacto en la deuda pública, pero no individualizaron los artículos del proyecto ni las cláusulas contractuales que estimaban inconstitucionales, ni explicaron los motivos concretos de sus objeciones. La Sala reitera su jurisprudencia en el sentido de que la consulta facultativa exige un memorial razonado con expresión clara de los aspectos cuestionados y los motivos de duda, y al no cumplirse con esa carga argumentativa, la consulta resulta inadmisible.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber declares inadmissible the optional legislative consultation filed by a group of deputies regarding the bill approving loan contracts for the Rapid Passenger Train (TRP). The petitioners expressed doubts about compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and the impact on public debt sustainability, but they did not identify the specific articles or contractual clauses they considered unconstitutional, nor did they explain the concrete grounds for their objections. The Chamber reiterates its jurisprudence that an optional consultation requires a reasoned brief clearly stating the challenged aspects and the reasons for doubt; since this argumentative burden was not met, the consultation is inadmissible.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "07/05/2026", "year": "2026", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad", "inadmisibilidad", "memorial razonado", "Sala Constitucional", "artículo 99 Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional", "primer debate", "aprobación de contratos de préstamo", "incofer" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "consulta legislativa facultativa", "inadmisibilidad", "Sala Constitucional", "Tren Rápido de Pasajeros", "contrato de préstamo", "seguridad jurídica", "deuda pública", "fundamentación insuficiente", "diputados", "normativa ambiental" ], "keywords_en": [ "optional legislative consultation", "inadmissibility", "Constitutional Chamber", "Rapid Passenger Train", "loan contract", "legal certainty", "public debt", "insufficient grounds", "deputies", "environmental regulations" ], "excerpt_es": "En el sub iudice, observa este Tribunal que la fundamentación de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad que nos ocupa resulta insuficiente para ser considerada admisible. Las personas diputadas consultantes refieren que el proyecto de Ley nro. 25.291, ... les causa dudas en cuanto al “cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y finalmente el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública”. No obstante, tal manifestación la hacen de manera general, sin individualizar los artículos del proyecto o las estipulaciones o cláusulas de los contratos que, en su criterio, podrían transgredir normativa ambiental, provocar incerteza jurídica o evidencien de algún modo un impacto desmedido en el buen manejo de las finanzas públicas. Se fundan en la supuesta falta de criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que el proyecto no provocará las trasgresiones que escasamente insinúan, sin explicar concretamente los motivos por los que se extrañan tales criterios. En consecuencia, dado que no se logra identificar alguna consulta fundamentada de constitucionalidad que pueda ser objeto de este proceso y tomando en cuenta lo dispuesto en el voto precitado, la Sala considera que la consulta que nos ocupa incumple con los requerimientos previstos por este Tribunal para ser admitida y, por ende, debe ser declarada inadmisible.", "excerpt_en": "In the case at hand, this Court observes that the grounds for the optional consultation on constitutionality before us are insufficient to be considered admissible. The petitioning deputies state that Bill No. 25,291 … raises doubts regarding 'compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty, and finally the impact of the financing on public debt sustainability.' However, they make this statement in a general manner, without identifying the articles of the bill or the stipulations or clauses of the contracts that, in their view, could violate environmental regulations, cause legal uncertainty, or somehow reveal an excessive impact on sound public financial management. They rely on the alleged lack of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the project will not cause the infringements they barely hint at, without specifically explaining the reasons why they find such criteria lacking. Consequently, since no reasoned constitutional query susceptible of being examined in this proceeding can be identified, and taking into account the provisions of the aforementioned ruling, the Chamber finds that the consultation at hand does not meet the requirements established by this Court for admission and must therefore be declared inadmissible.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Inadmissible", "label_es": "Inadmisible", "summary_en": "The optional consultation is declared inadmissible due to insufficient reasoning, as the petitioners failed to identify the challenged articles or explain specific grounds of unconstitutionality.", "summary_es": "Se declara inadmisible la consulta facultativa por falta de fundamentación suficiente, al no individualizar los artículos cuestionados ni exponer motivos concretos de inconstitucionalidad." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law clearly states that an optional consultation on constitutionality must be filed by means of a reasoned brief, setting forth the aspects of the bill being challenged and the reasons for any doubt or objections regarding its constitutionality.", "quote_es": "El artículo 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, señala claramente que en tratándose de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad, la misma deberá plantearse mediante un memorial razonado, en el cual se exprese los aspectos que se cuestionan del proyecto de ley, así como los motivos por los cuales se tuviere duda u objeciones sobre la constitucionalidad de este." }, { "context": "Considerando II", "quote_en": "If a consultation is imprecise in citing the articles or in setting forth the grounds on which there are well-founded doubts of unconstitutionality, it is inadmissible and cannot be adjudicated.", "quote_es": "si una consulta resulta ser imprecisa en citar los artículos o en exponer los motivos por los cuales existen dudas fundadas de constitucionalidad, la misma resulta inadmisible e inevacuable." }, { "context": "Por tanto", "quote_en": "The consultation filed is dismissed.", "quote_es": "No ha lugar a evacuar la consulta formulada." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1386796", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Revisión del Documento\n\n\n\nExp: 26-015438-0007-CO \n\nRes. Nº 2026016434\n\n \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del siete de mayo de dos mil veintiseis .\n\n Consulta legislativa facultativa de constitucionalidad interpuesta por los diputados y las diputadas [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], [Nombre 003], [Nombre 004], [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011], [Nombre 012] y [Nombre 013], referente al proyecto de Ley denominado “APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo número 25.291.\n\nRESULTANDO\n\n1.- Mediante escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 10:54 horas del 30 de abril de 2026, las diputadas y los diputados firmantes plantean consulta legislativa respecto del proyecto de ley denominado “APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA”, que se tramita en el expediente legislativo n.° 25.291, por los siguientes motivos: \n\n“1. RESUMEN DEL PROYECTO\n\nEl presente proyecto de ley tiene como propósito someter a aprobación legislativa los contratos de financiamiento suscritos entre la Republica de Costa Rica, el Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE) y el Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), por un monto conjunto de aproximadamente ochocientos millones de dólares (US$800 millones), destinados a la ejecución del proyecto de construcción, equipamiento y puesta en operación de las líneas 1 y 2 del sistema de Tren Rápido de Pasajeros en la Gran Área Metropolitana.\n\nDicho financiamiento permitirá la ejecución de una primera etapa del proyecto, orientada al diseño, construcción, equipamiento y puesta en marcha de la infraestructura ferroviaria, bajo la rectoría del Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER), como organismo ejecutor. En términos técnicos, la iniciativa contempla la reconstrucción integral del corredor ferroviario existente entre Cartago y Alajuela, su ampliación mediante doble vía, la electrificación del sistema y la extensión hacia puntos estratégicos de conexión, configurando en la practica una infraestructura moderna que sustituye y supera las limitaciones del sistema actual.\n\n2. TRÁMITE DEL PROYECTO DE LEY\n\nEste proyecto presenta la siguiente tramitación:\n\n-Presentación del proyecto, 12 de noviembre de 2025.\n\n-Ingreso en el orden del día, 11 de diciembre de 2025.\n\nSe recibieron las siguientes audiencias: \n\n-Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER), 24 de febrero de 2026.\n\n-Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica (MIDEPLAN), 03 de marzo de 2026.\n\n-Ministerio de Hacienda, 10 de marzo de 2026.\n\n-Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), 18 de marzo de 2026.\n\n-Contraloría General de la República (CGR), 24 de marzo de 2026.\n\n-Guillermo Santana, 25 de marzo de 2026.\n\n-Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE), 7 de abril de 2026.\n\n-Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos (CFIA), 08 de abril de 2026.\n\n-Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes (MOPT), 14 de abril de 2026\n\n-Cámara Costarricense de la Construcción (CCC), 14 de abril de 2026\n\n-Se votó en primer debate el 21 de abril de 2026.\n\n3. LEGITIMACIÓN\n\nLos Artículos 96, inciso b), 97 y 98 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, establecen como parámetro de legitimación para plantear consulta de constitucionalidad, que la soliciten al menos diez diputados y que se plantee después de haber sido aprobada en primer debate. Ambos requisitos se cumplen, por cuanto la presente consulta la suscribimos al menos diez diputados, y la planteamos luego de que el proyecto de referencia \n\nA continuación el detalle de interés sobre aspectos particulares:\n\nI. El interés general, en el supremo resguardo del cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y finalmente el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública deben inspirar el análisis del EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.291, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA.\n\nA todas luces es evidente que la iniciativa de ley presenta un verdadero desafío al cumplimiento de las normas ambientales y sociales toda vez que pretende construir un tren rápido de pasajeros en la Gran Área Metropolitana y puesta en operación de de las líneas 1 y 2 por medio de contratos de financiamiento suscritos entre la Republica de Costa Rica, el Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE) y el Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), por un monto conjunto de aproximadamente ochocientos millones de dólares (US$800 millones).\n\nEl riesgo al que se expone el país para realizar este proyecto sin transgredir las normativa ambiental vigente es exponencial, por lo tanto se solicita considerar si se estarla ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que no hay estudios técnicos ni ambientales que señalen que no se afectara ambientalmente las áreas por donde transitaran estas líneas de tren rápido. Consideramos que la afectación ambiental para llevar a cabo este proyecto no es percata minuta, al contrario, será de gran impacto para la sostenibilidad ambiental de las zonas por donde se vaya a construir.\n\nII. PRINCIPIO DE LA SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA COMO PRINCIPIO FUNDANTE DEL ORDENAMIENTO JURÍDICO. \n\nEste es el segundo precepto que se somete a revisión de la Sala ya que la seguridad jurídica constituye un principio general del Derecho, que también puede conceptualizarse como la garantía de todo individuo, por la cual, tiene la certeza de que su situación jurídica no será modificada más que por procedimientos regulares, establecidos previamente, es decir, representa la garantía de la aplicación objetiva de la ley, en tanto los individuos saben en cada momento cuáles son sus derechos y obligaciones.\n\nDesde el punto de vista subjetivo, la seguridad equivale a la certeza moral que tiene el individuo de sus bienes le serán respetados; Lo cual requiere de ciertas condiciones, tales como la organización judicial, el cuerpo de policía, las leyes, por lo que, desde el punto de vista objetivo, la seguridad jurídica equivale a la existencia de un orden social justo y eficaz cuyo cumplimiento está asegurado por la coacción pública.\n\nAl respecto, debe entenderse que al no contarse con criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que se trata de un proyecto de alto impacto ambiental, social, de obra pública y financiero. Es necesario contar con la certeza de que al aprobar este tipo de proyecto no se están transgrediendo derechos individuales, sociales ni ambientales.\n\nIII. IMPACTO FINANCIERO EN LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA DEUDA PÚBLICA. \n\nEste es el tercer precepto que se somete a revisión de los señores magistrados, siendo que el impacto del financiamiento del proyecto de ley en revisión podría afectar la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública. El costo total del Programa es por la suma de aproximadamente ochocientos millones de dólares (US$800 millones), destinados a la ejecución del proyecto de construcción, equipamiento y puesta en operación de las líneas 1 y 2 del sistema de Tren Rápido de Pasajeros en la Gran Área Metropolitana.\n\nEl alto monto al que se verá sometido el país para pagar este crédito pone en duda la capacidad económica para hacerle frente a esa deuda y por ende más bien podría generar un alto impacto financiero en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública.\n\nPor esta razón y al no contar con criterios jurídicos y financieros suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que el país hace grandes esfuerzos para dar sostenibilidad a la deuda pública y proyectos como este endeudan más al país sin tener la certeza de si le podrá hacer frente a tan grande compromiso\n\n4. CUESTIONES DE TRAMITE\n\nInterlocutoriamente: La Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa tiene agendado realizar segundo debate para el 28 de abril de 2026 a las dieciséis horas. Por lo que solicitamos se comunique formalmente a la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa de la presente Consulta Facultativa y que se suspenda toda discusión del proyecto de ley N.° 25291 y su votación en segundo debate.\n\n5. PETITORIA\n\nEn razón del fundamento constitucional, legal y jurisprudencial expuesto, solicitamos respetuosamente a este Tribunal estime la presente Consulta Facultativa planteada, y valore si lo aquí señalado violenta la Constitución Política según se formula en esta consulta”. \n\n2.- Por oficio de la Presidencia de esta Sala, número PSC-0024-2026 del 30 de abril de 2026, se comunicó a la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa de la presentación de esta consulta.\n\n3.- En los procedimientos seguidos se han observado las prescripciones legales.\n\n Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\nI.- Sobre la admisibilidad de la consulta. De conformidad con el inciso b) del artículo 96 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este tipo de consulta debe ser planteada por diez diputados(as) o más, una vez que el proyecto ha sido aprobado en primer debate. En este caso, el requisito se cumple con la firma de 13 diputaciones. Por otro lado, el proyecto de ley fue aprobado en primer debate por el Pleno de la Asamblea Legislativa en la sesión del 21 de abril de 2026. Tales requisitos formales se cumplen en este caso. Un requisito adicional se refiere a la fundamentación de las dudas de constitucionalidad, según se analiza de seguido con mayor detenimiento.\n\nII.- Sobre la fundamentación de las consultas facultativas. En reiteradas ocasiones, este Tribuna ha señalado que, en un proceso de consulta legislativa facultativa, la carga de fundamentar adecuadamente las dudas de constitucionalidad recae sobre las personas diputadas consultantes (artículo 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). En este sentido, al evacuar una consulta anterior, este Tribunal hizo la siguiente precisión:\n\n“II.- SOBRE LA FUNDAMENTACIÓN DE LA CONSULTA. El artículo 99 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, señala claramente que en tratándose de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad, la misma deberá plantearse mediante un memorial razonado, en el cual se exprese los aspectos que se cuestionan del proyecto de ley, así como los motivos por los cuales se tuviere duda u objeciones sobre la constitucionalidad de este. Esta disposición determina -y así ha sido reconocido de manera reiterada por la jurisprudencia constitucional- que en el libelo de interposición deba expresarse los artículos del proyecto cuya constitucionalidad se cuestiona o consulta, y manifestarse de manera clara los motivos por los cuales se estima que una norma del proyecto puede ser inconstitucional, pues caso contrario la consulta sería inadmisible -ver, en este sentido, las sentencias números 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544- 95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9345, entre otras-. En efecto, sobre el particular ha dicho la Sala que:\n\n“…En este caso los consultantes no indican los artículos del proyecto que cuestionan, ni los motivos por los cuales tienen dudas u objeciones sobre su constitucionalidad, y simplemente señalan el tema consultado, prescindiendo de realizar algún tipo de argumento de constitucionalidad, por lo que no procede evacuar la consulta. Así lo ha resuelto reiteradamente la jurisprudencia constitucional y por ese motivo lo procedente es no ha lugar a evacuar la consulta formulada.” Más allá de la cita puntual de los artículos cuya constitucionalidad se consulta, tal como se ha indicado, los motivos por los cuales se formula la consulta legislativa también deben ser claros y expresos, detallando las razones por las cuales las personas legisladoras mantienen dudas razonables sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas consultadas. Al respecto, ha dicho la Sala que, si las argumentaciones resultan omisas, insuficientes, o vagas, la consulta debe resultar inadmisible y, por ende, invaluable (sic), por cuanto no contaría este Tribunal con los motivos expresos por los cuales pronunciarse. En efecto, ha dicho la Sala que: “…Ha de recordarse también que la misma ley dispone en su artículo 101 que la Sala evacuará la consulta dictaminando \"sobre los aspectos y motivos consultados o sobre cualesquiera otros que considere relevantes desde el punto de vista constitucional\", pero el tribunal interpreta que \"los aspectos y motivos consultados\" son los que, de acuerdo con el artículo 99, cuestionan u objetan el proyecto, o fundamentan la duda que pudieran tener los legisladores acerca de éste. Dado, pues, que la consulta se aparta de lo legalmente establecido, no es de recibo; si el tribunal, no obstante, la admitiera y absolviera, se colocaría en situación que está fuera de los alcances de sus atribuciones”. (Sentencia nro. 2001-11643, reiterada en las sentencias números 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204 y 2022-9345, entre otras). De tal forma, si una consulta resulta ser imprecisa en citar los artículos o en exponer los motivos por los cuales existen dudas fundadas de constitucionalidad, la misma resulta inadmisible e inevacuable. Este criterio fue reiterado y consolidado por la jurisprudencia de la Sala, al determinar, en la ya citada sentencia número 2012-9253, reiterada en la 2022-9345, que: “[E]sto es así por cuanto «tratándose de consultas legislativas de tipo facultativo, «la competencia de la Sala Constitucional tiene origen en las dudas o reparos de constitucionalidad que formulen los legisladores» - sentencia 2001-12459-, de forma que si tales argumentos no existen como tal, o bien, cuando los propios diputados consultantes manifiesten carecer de dudas sobre la constitucionalidad de las normas o proyectos consultados, resultaría impropio para la Sala emitir criterio alguno, pues se estaría en supuestos que trascienden las competencias de la Sala en materia de consultas legislativas de constitucionalidad -sentencia 2002-3460-.” (Resolución nro. 2024036153 de las 9:45 horas del 3 de diciembre de 2024, criterio reiterado en la resolución nro. 2026-001374 de las 10:05 horas del 13 de enero de 2026).\n\nIII.- Sobre la fundamentación de la consulta planteada. En el sub iudice, observa este Tribunal que la fundamentación de la consulta facultativa de constitucionalidad que nos ocupa resulta insuficiente para ser considerada admisible. Las personas diputadas consultantes refieren que el proyecto de Ley nro. 25.291, denominado “APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA”, les causa dudas en cuanto al “cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y finalmente el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública”. No obstante, tal manifestación la hacen de manera general, sin individualizar los artículos del proyecto o las estipulaciones o cláusulas de los contratos que, en su criterio, podrían transgredir normativa ambiental, provocar incerteza jurídica o evidencien de algún modo un impacto desmedido en el buen manejo de las finanzas públicas. Se fundan en la supuesta falta de criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que el proyecto no provocará las trasgresiones que escasamente insinúan, sin explicar concretamente los motivos por los que se extrañan tales criterios. En consecuencia, dado que no se logra identificar alguna consulta fundamentada de constitucionalidad que pueda ser objeto de este proceso y tomando en cuenta lo dispuesto en el voto precitado, la Sala considera que la consulta que nos ocupa incumple con los requerimientos previstos por este Tribunal para ser admitida y, por ende, debe ser declarada inadmisible.\n\n IV.- 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 30 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 N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\n No ha lugar a evacuar la consulta formulada.\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 LRPFB43EXOSC61 \n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-015438-0007-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": "Document Review\n\n****\n\n**Exp: 26-015438-0007-CO**\n\n**Res. Nº 2026016434**\n\n**CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours thirty minutes on May seventh, two thousand twenty-six.**\n\nOptional legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by the deputies [Name 001], [Name 002], [Name 003], [Name 004], [Name 005], [Name 006], [Name 007], [Name 008], [Name 009], [Name 010], [Name 011], [Name 012], and [Name 013], regarding the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA,” processed under legislative file number 25.291.\n\n**WHEREAS**\n\n1.- By a brief received at the Chamber's Secretariat at 10:54 a.m. on April 30, 2026, the undersigned deputies filed a legislative consultation regarding the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA,” processed under legislative file No. 25.291, on the following grounds:\n\n“1. PROJECT SUMMARY\n\nThis bill aims to submit for legislative approval the financing contracts entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE), and the European Investment Bank (BEI), for a combined amount of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million), allocated for the execution of the project for the construction, equipment, and commissioning of lines 1 and 2 of the Rapid Passenger Train system in the Greater Metropolitan Area.\n\nSaid financing will allow the execution of a first stage of the project, aimed at the design, construction, equipment, and commissioning of the railway infrastructure, under the stewardship of the Costa Rican Railroad Institute (INCOFER), as the executing agency. In technical terms, the initiative contemplates the comprehensive reconstruction of the existing railway corridor between Cartago and Alajuela, its expansion via double track, the electrification of the system, and the extension to strategic connection points, in practice configuring modern infrastructure that replaces and overcomes the limitations of the current system.\n\n2. PROCESSING OF THE BILL\n\nThis project presents the following procedural history:\n\n-Presentation of the bill, November 12, 2025.\n\n-Placed on the agenda, December 11, 2025.\n\nThe following hearings were received:\n\n-Costa Rican Railroad Institute (INCOFER), February 24, 2026.\n\n-Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy (MIDEPLAN), March 3, 2026.\n\n-Ministry of Finance, March 10, 2026.\n\n-European Investment Bank (BEI), March 18, 2026.\n\n-Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR), March 24, 2026.\n\n-Guillermo Santana, March 25, 2026.\n\n-Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE), April 7, 2026.\n\n-Federated College of Engineers and Architects (CFIA), April 8, 2026.\n\n-Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), April 14, 2026\n\n-Costa Rican Chamber of Construction (CCC), April 14, 2026\n\n-It was voted on in the first debate on April 21, 2026.\n\n3. STANDING\n\nArticles 96, subsection b), 97, and 98 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law establish as parameters for standing to file a consultation on constitutionality that it be requested by at least ten deputies and that it be filed after having been approved in the first debate. Both requirements are met, as this consultation is signed by at least ten deputies, and we file it after the referenced bill\n\nBelow is the detail of concern regarding specific aspects:\n\nI. The general interest, in the supreme safeguarding of compliance with environmental standards, legal certainty, and ultimately the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt, must inspire the analysis of FILE No. 25.291, APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA.\n\nIt is clearly evident that the legislative initiative presents a real challenge to compliance with environmental and social standards, given that it seeks to build a rapid passenger train in the Greater Metropolitan Area and commission lines 1 and 2 through financing contracts entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE), and the European Investment Bank (BEI), for a combined amount of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million).\n\nThe risk to which the country is exposed in carrying out this project without violating the current environmental regulations is exponential; therefore, it is requested to consider whether this would be a case of unconstitutionality, given that there are no technical or environmental studies indicating that the areas through which these rapid train lines will pass will not be environmentally affected. We believe that the environmental impact of carrying out this project is not insignificant; on the contrary, it will have a major impact on the environmental sustainability of the areas where construction is to take place.\n\nII. PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.\n\nThis is the second precept submitted for the Chamber's review, as legal certainty constitutes a general principle of Law, which can also be conceptualized as the guarantee for every individual by which they have the certainty that their legal situation will not be modified except through regular, previously established procedures; that is, it represents the guarantee of the objective application of the law, insofar as individuals know at every moment what their rights and obligations are.\n\nFrom a subjective point of view, certainty is equivalent to the moral assurance that the individual has that their property will be respected; this requires certain conditions, such as a judicial organization, a police force, and laws. Therefore, from an objective point of view, legal certainty is equivalent to the existence of a just and effective social order, the enforcement of which is secured by public coercion.\n\nIn this regard, it must be understood that by not having sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the bill's objectives do not violate legal certainty, it could be a case of unconstitutionality, since it is a project with a high environmental, social, public works, and financial impact. It is necessary to have the certainty that in approving this type of project, individual, social, and environmental rights are not being violated.\n\nIII. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PUBLIC DEBT.\n\nThis is the third precept submitted for the review of the magistrates, given that the financing impact of the bill under review could affect the sustainability of the public debt. The total cost of the Program is the sum of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million), allocated for the execution of the project for the construction, equipment, and commissioning of lines 1 and 2 of the Rapid Passenger Train system in the Greater Metropolitan Area.\n\nThe high amount to which the country will be subjected to pay off this credit calls into question the economic capacity to meet this debt, and therefore, it could instead generate a high financial impact on the sustainability of the public debt.\n\nFor this reason, and not having sufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the bill's objectives do not violate legal certainty, it could be a case of unconstitutionality, given that the country makes great efforts to sustain the public debt, and projects such as this one indebt the country further without having the certainty of whether it will be able to meet such a large commitment.\n\n4. PROCEDURAL MATTERS\n\nInterlocutorily: The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly has scheduled a second debate for April 28, 2026, at sixteen hours. Therefore, we request that the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly be formally notified of this Optional Consultation and that all discussion of bill No. 25291 and its voting in the second debate be suspended.\n\n5. PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\nBased on the constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential grounds set forth, we respectfully request that this Court consider this Optional Consultation, and assess whether what is indicated herein violates the Political Constitution as formulated in this consultation.”\n\n2.- By official communication of the Presidency of this Chamber, number PSC-0024-2026 of April 30, 2026, the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly was notified of the filing of this consultation.\n\n3.- The legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings followed.\n\nMagistrate Castillo Víquez writes; and,\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\nI.- On the admissibility of the consultation. In accordance with subsection b) of Article 96 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, this type of consultation must be filed by ten or more deputies once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, the requirement is met with the signature of 13 deputies. Furthermore, the bill was approved in the first debate by the Plenary of the Legislative Assembly in the session of April 21, 2026. Such formal requirements are met in this case. An additional requirement refers to the substantiation of the doubts of constitutionality, as analyzed in greater detail below.\n\nII.- On the substantiation of optional consultations. On repeated occasions, this Court has indicated that, in an optional legislative consultation process, the burden of adequately substantiating the doubts of constitutionality falls on the consulting deputies (Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law). In this regard, when resolving a previous consultation, this Court made the following clarification:\n\n“II.- ON THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CONSULTATION. Article 99 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law clearly states that in the case of an optional consultation on constitutionality, it must be raised by a reasoned brief, which expresses the aspects of the bill that are being questioned, as well as the grounds on which doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality are held. This provision determines—and it has been repeatedly recognized by constitutional jurisprudence—that the filing brief must express the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is questioned or consulted, and clearly state the reasons why a provision of the bill is considered potentially unconstitutional, as otherwise the consultation would be inadmissible—see, in this sense, rulings numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544-95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9345, among others—. Indeed, on this matter, the Chamber has stated that:\n\n\"…In this case, the consultants do not indicate the articles of the bill they question, nor the grounds on which they have doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality, and they simply point out the subject matter consulted, omitting to make any kind of constitutional argument; therefore, it is not proper to resolve the consultation. This is how constitutional jurisprudence has repeatedly resolved it, and for this reason, it is proper to dismiss the formulated consultation.\" Beyond the specific citation of the articles whose constitutionality is being consulted, as has been indicated, the grounds on which the legislative consultation is formulated must also be clear and explicit, detailing the reasons why the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions being consulted. In this regard, the Chamber has stated that if the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be declared inadmissible and, therefore, unevaluable (sic), as this Court would not have the express grounds on which to rule. Indeed, the Chamber has stated that: \"…It must also be remembered that the same law provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber will resolve the consultation by issuing an opinion 'on the aspects and grounds consulted or on any others it considers relevant from a constitutional point of view,' but the court interprets that 'the aspects and grounds consulted' are those which, in accordance with Article 99, question or object to the bill, or substantiate the doubt that the legislators may have about it. Given, therefore, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not admissible; if the court, nevertheless, were to admit it and resolve it, it would place itself in a situation that is outside the scope of its powers.\" (Ruling No. 2001-11643, reiterated in rulings numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204, and 2022-9345, among others). Thus, if a consultation proves to be imprecise in citing the articles or in setting forth the grounds on which there are founded doubts of constitutionality, it is inadmissible and unanswerable. This criterion was reiterated and consolidated by the Chamber's jurisprudence upon determining, in the aforementioned ruling number 2012-9253, reiterated in 2022-9345, that: \"[T]his is so because 'in the case of optional legislative consultations, the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Chamber originates from the doubts or objections of constitutionality formulated by the legislators'—ruling 2001-12459—, such that if such arguments do not exist as such, or rather, when the consulting deputies themselves state that they have no doubts about the constitutionality of the provisions or bills consulted, it would be inappropriate for the Chamber to issue any opinion, as it would be in scenarios that transcend the Chamber's jurisdiction in matters of legislative consultations on constitutionality—ruling 2002-3460—.\" (Resolution No. 2024036153 of 9:45 a.m. on December 3, 2024, criterion reiterated in resolution No. 2026-001374 of 10:05 a.m. on January 13, 2026).\n\nIII.- On the substantiation of the consultation filed. In the sub iudice, this Court observes that the substantiation of the optional consultation on constitutionality before us is insufficient to be considered admissible. The consulting deputies state that bill No. 25.291, entitled “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION, AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA,” causes them doubts regarding \"compliance with environmental standards, legal certainty, and finally the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt.\" However, they make this statement in a general manner, without specifying the articles of the bill or the stipulations or clauses of the contracts that, in their view, could violate environmental regulations, cause legal uncertainty, or in some way evidence a disproportionate impact on the sound management of public finances. They base their claim on the alleged lack of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the project will not cause the violations they barely insinuate, without specifically explaining the reasons why such criteria are missed. Consequently, given that no substantiated consultation on constitutionality that could be the subject of this process can be identified, and considering the provisions of the aforementioned ruling, the Chamber deems that the consultation before us fails to meet the requirements provided by this Court to be admitted and, therefore, must be declared inadmissible.\n\nIV.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE FILE. Parties are forewarned that if any paper document has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided for in the \"Electronic File Regulations before the Judicial Branch,\" approved by the Full Court in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\n**THEREFORE:**\n\nThe consultation formulated is dismissed.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\n\nPresidente\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\n****\n\n**LRPFB43EXOSC61**\n\n**FILE No. 26-015438-0007-CO**\n\nPhones: 2549-1500 / 800-SALA-4TA (800-7252-482). Fax: 2220-4607 / 2220-4844. Email: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Address: (Sabana Sur, Calle Morenos, 100 mts. South of the Perpetuo Socorro Church).\n\nSan José, at nine hours thirty minutes on the seventh of May, two thousand twenty-six.\n\nDiscretionary legislative consultation on constitutionality filed by the deputies [Name 001], [Name 002], [Name 003], [Name 004], [Name 005], [Name 006], [Name 007], [Name 008], [Name 009], [Name 010], [Name 011], [Name 012], and [Name 013], regarding the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA”, processed under legislative file number 25.291.\n\n**WHEREAS**\n\n**1.-** By means of a document received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 10:54 hours on April 30, 2026, the undersigned deputies filed a legislative consultation regarding the bill entitled “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT AND COMMISSIONING OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA”, processed under legislative file No. 25.291, on the following grounds:\n\n*“1. PROJECT SUMMARY*\n\n*The purpose of this bill is to submit for legislative approval the financing contracts entered into between the Republic of Costa Rica, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE) and the European Investment Bank (BEI), for a combined amount of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million), intended for the execution of the project for the construction, equipment and commissioning of lines 1 and 2 of the Rapid Passenger Train system in the Greater Metropolitan Area.*\n\n*Said financing will allow the execution of a first stage of the project, aimed at the design, construction, equipment and start-up of the railway infrastructure, under the stewardship of the Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER), as the executing agency. In technical terms, the initiative contemplates the comprehensive reconstruction of the existing railway corridor between Cartago and Alajuela, its expansion by means of a double track, the electrification of the system, and the extension toward strategic connection points, in practice configuring a modern infrastructure that replaces and overcomes the limitations of the current system.*\n\n*2. PROCESSING OF THE BILL*\n\n*This project presents the following processing:*\n\n*-Presentation of the project, November 12, 2025.*\n\n*-Placement on the agenda, December 11, 2025.*\n\n*The following hearings were received:*\n\n*-Instituto Costarricense de Ferrocarriles (INCOFER), February 24, 2026.*\n\n*-Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy (MIDEPLAN), March 03, 2026.*\n\n*-Ministry of Finance, March 10, 2026.*\n\n*-European Investment Bank (BEI), March 18, 2026.*\n\n*-Comptroller General of the Republic (CGR), March 24, 2026.*\n\n*-Guillermo Santana, March 25, 2026.*\n\n*-Central American Bank for Economic Integration (BCIE), April 7, 2026.*\n\n*-Federated College of Engineers and Architects (CFIA), April 08, 2026.*\n\n*-Ministry of Public Works and Transport (MOPT), April 14, 2026*\n\n*-Costa Rican Chamber of Construction (CCC), April 14, 2026*\n\n*-It was voted on in the first debate on April 21, 2026.*\n\n*3. LEGITIMACY*\n\n*Articles 96, subsection b), 97 and 98 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establish as a parameter of legitimacy to file a consultation on constitutionality, that it be requested by at least ten deputies and that it be filed after having been approved in the first debate.*\n\nBoth requirements are met, since this consultation is signed by at least ten deputies, and we submit it after the referenced project

A continuación el detalle de interés sobre aspectos particulares:

I. El interés general, en el supremo resguardo del cumplimiento de las normas ambientales, la seguridad jurídica y finalmente el impacto del financiamiento en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública deben inspirar el análisis del EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.291, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA.

A todas luces es evidente que la iniciativa de ley presenta un verdadero desafío al cumplimiento de las normas ambientales y sociales toda vez que pretende construir un tren rápido de pasajeros en la Gran Área Metropolitana y puesta en operación de de las líneas 1 y 2 por medio de contratos de financiamiento suscritos entre la Republica de Costa Rica, el Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE) y el Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), por un monto conjunto de aproximadamente ochocientos millones de dólares (US$800 millones).

El riesgo al que se expone el país para realizar este proyecto sin transgredir las normativa ambiental vigente es exponencial, por lo tanto se solicita considerar si se estarla ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que no hay estudios técnicos ni ambientales que señalen que no se afectara ambientalmente las áreas por donde transitaran estas líneas de tren rápido. Consideramos que la afectación ambiental para llevar a cabo este proyecto no es percata minuta, al contrario, será de gran impacto para la sostenibilidad ambiental de las zonas por donde se vaya a construir.

II. PRINCIPIO DE LA SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA COMO PRINCIPIO FUNDANTE DEL ORDENAMIENTO JURÍDICO.

Este es el segundo precepto que se somete a revisión de la Sala ya que la seguridad jurídica constituye un principio general del Derecho, que también puede conceptualizarse como la garantía de todo individuo, por la cual, tiene la certeza de que su situación jurídica no será modificada más que por procedimientos regulares, establecidos previamente, es decir, representa la garantía de la aplicación objetiva de la ley, en tanto los individuos saben en cada momento cuáles son sus derechos y obligaciones.

Desde el punto de vista subjetivo, la seguridad equivale a la certeza moral que tiene el individuo de sus bienes le serán respetados; Lo cual requiere de ciertas condiciones, tales como la organización judicial, el cuerpo de policía, las leyes, por lo que, desde el punto de vista objetivo, la seguridad jurídica equivale a la existencia de un orden social justo y eficaz cuyo cumplimiento está asegurado por la coacción pública.

Al respecto, debe entenderse que al no contarse con criterios jurídicos y técnicos suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que se trata de un proyecto de alto impacto ambiental, social, de obra pública y financiero. Es necesario contar con la certeza de que al aprobar este tipo de proyecto no se están transgrediendo derechos individuales, sociales ni ambientales.

III. IMPACTO FINANCIERO EN LA SOSTENIBILIDAD DE LA DEUDA PÚBLICA.

Este es el tercer precepto que se somete a revisión de los señores magistrados, siendo que el impacto del financiamiento del proyecto de ley en revisión podría afectar la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública. El costo total del Programa es por la suma de aproximadamente ochocientos millones de dólares (US$800 millones), destinados a la ejecución del proyecto de construcción, equipamiento y puesta en operación de las líneas 1 y 2 del sistema de Tren Rápido de Pasajeros en la Gran Área Metropolitana.

El alto monto al que se verá sometido el país para pagar este crédito pone en duda la capacidad económica para hacerle frente a esa deuda y por ende más bien podría generar un alto impacto financiero en la sostenibilidad de la deuda pública.

Por esta razón y al no contar con criterios jurídicos y financieros suficientes para determinar que los objetivos del proyecto de ley no transgredan la seguridad jurídica se podría estar ante una inconstitucionalidad toda vez que el país hace grandes esfuerzos para dar sostenibilidad a la deuda pública y proyectos como este endeudan más al país sin tener la certeza de si le podrá hacer frente a tan grande compromiso

4. CUESTIONES DE TRAMITE

Interlocutoriamente: La Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa tiene agendado realizar segundo debate para el 28 de abril de 2026 a las dieciséis horas. Por lo que solicitamos se comunique formalmente a la Presidencia de la Asamblea Legislativa de la presente Consulta Facultativa y que se suspenda toda discusión del proyecto de ley N.° 25291 y su votación en segundo debate.

5.\n\nBelow is the detail of particular interest:\n\nI. The general interest, in the supreme safeguarding of compliance with environmental regulations, legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), and finally the impact of financing on the sustainability of public debt (deuda pública), must inspire the analysis of EXPEDIENTE N.° 25.291, APROBACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATOS DE PRÉSTAMO SUSCRITOS ENTRE LA REPÚBLICA DE COSTA RICA, EL BANCO CENTROAMERICANO DE INTEGRACIÓN ECONÓMICA Y EL BANCO EUROPEO DE INVERSIONES PARA EL PROYECTO DE CONSTRUCCIÓN, EQUIPAMIENTO Y PUESTA EN OPERACIÓN DE LAS LÍNEAS 1 Y 2 DEL SISTEMA DE TREN RÁPIDO DE PASAJEROS (TRP) EN LA GRAN ÁREA METROPOLITANA.\n\nIt is quite evident that the legislative initiative poses a genuine challenge to compliance with environmental and social regulations, since it intends to construct an electric train (tren rápido de pasajeros) in the Gran Área Metropolitana and put lines 1 and 2 into operation through financing contracts signed between the Republic of Costa Rica, the Banco Centroamericano de Integración Económica (BCIE), and the Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI), for a combined amount of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million).\n\nThe risk to which the country is exposed in carrying out this project without violating the current environmental regulations is exponential; therefore, it is requested to consider whether this might be a case of unconstitutionality (inconstitucionalidad), since there are no technical or environmental studies indicating that the areas through which these rapid train lines will travel will not be environmentally affected. We consider that the environmental impact for carrying out this project is not minor; on the contrary, it will be of great impact for the environmental sustainability of the areas where it will be built.\n\nII. PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY AS A FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF THE LEGAL ORDER.\n\nThis is the second precept submitted to the Chamber for review, since legal certainty constitutes a general principle of Law, which can also be conceptualized as the guarantee of every individual, by which they have the certainty that their legal situation will not be modified except through regular, previously established procedures; that is, it represents the guarantee of the objective application of the law, insofar as individuals know at all times what their rights and obligations are.\n\nFrom a subjective point of view, certainty (seguridad) equates to the moral conviction that the individual has that their property will be respected; which requires certain conditions, such as judicial organization, the police force, laws, so that, from an objective point of view, legal certainty equates to the existence of a just and effective social order whose compliance is ensured by public coercion.\n\nIn this regard, it must be understood that by not having sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate legal certainty, one might be facing a case of unconstitutionality since this is a project with high environmental, social, public works, and financial impact. It is necessary to have the certainty that by approving this type of project, individual, social, or environmental rights are not being violated.\n\nIII. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC DEBT.\n\nThis is the third precept submitted to the review of the magistrates, given that the impact of the financing of the bill under review could affect the sustainability of public debt. The total cost of the Program is for the sum of approximately eight hundred million dollars (US$800 million), intended for the execution of the project for the construction, equipment, and commissioning of lines 1 and 2 of the Tren Rápido de Pasajeros system in the Gran Área Metropolitana.\n\nThe high amount to which the country will be subjected to pay this credit casts doubt on the economic capacity to face that debt and, therefore, could rather generate a high financial impact on the sustainability of public debt.\n\nFor this reason and since there are insufficient legal and financial criteria to determine that the objectives of the bill do not violate legal certainty, one might be facing a case of unconstitutionality, given that the country is making great efforts to provide sustainability to the public debt and projects like this indebt the country further without having the certainty of whether it will be able to face such a large commitment.\n\n4. PROCEDURAL MATTERS\n\nInterlocutorily: The Presidency of the Legislative Assembly has scheduled a second debate for April 28, 2026, at sixteen hours. Therefore, we request that the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly be formally notified of this Consulta Facultativa and that all discussion of bill N.° 25291 and its voting in the second debate be suspended.\n\n5.\n\nPETITION

By reason of the constitutional, legal, and jurisprudential basis set forth, we respectfully request that this Court consider this Consultative Consultation filed, and assess whether what is indicated herein violates the Political Constitution as formulated in this consultation”.

2.- By official communication from the Presidency of this Chamber, number PSC-0024-2026 of April 30, 2026, the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly was notified of the filing of this consultation.

3.- The legal requirements have been observed in the proceedings followed.

 Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,

WHEREAS:

I.- On the admissibility of the consultation. In accordance with subsection b) of Article 96 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, this type of consultation must be filed by ten or more deputies (diputados(as)) once the bill has been approved in the first debate. In this case, the requirement is met with the signature of 13 deputies. Furthermore, the bill was approved in the first debate by the Plenary of the Legislative Assembly at the session of April 21, 2026. Such formal requirements are met in this case. An additional requirement refers to the substantiation of the doubts of constitutionality, as analyzed more closely below.

II.- On the substantiation of facultative consultations. On repeated occasions, this Court has indicated that, in a process of facultative legislative consultation, the burden of adequately substantiating the doubts of constitutionality falls upon the consulting deputies (Article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). In this regard, when resolving a prior consultation, this Court made the following clarification:

“II.- ON THE SUBSTANTIATION OF THE CONSULTATION. Article 99 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional clearly states that in the case of the facultative consultation of constitutionality, it must be filed by means of a reasoned brief, which expresses the aspects of the bill that are questioned, as well as the reasons for which there are doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality. This provision determines - and has been repeatedly recognized by constitutional jurisprudence - that the brief of filing must express the articles of the bill whose constitutionality is questioned or consulted, and clearly state the reasons for which it is considered that a norm of the bill may be unconstitutional, otherwise the consultation would be inadmissible - see, in this regard, decisions numbers 5399-95, 501-I-95, 5544- 95, 1999-7085, 2001-11643, 2012-09253, 2022-9345, among others-. Indeed, on the matter, the Chamber has stated that:

“…In this case, the consulting parties do not indicate the articles of the bill they question, nor the reasons for which they have doubts or objections regarding its constitutionality, and they simply indicate the topic consulted, failing to make any type of constitutionality argument, for which reason it is not appropriate to resolve the consultation. This has been repeatedly resolved by constitutional jurisprudence, and for that reason, the appropriate course is to find no grounds to resolve the consultation filed.” Beyond the specific citation of the articles whose constitutionality is consulted, as indicated, the reasons for which the legislative consultation is filed must also be clear and explicit, detailing the reasons for which the legislators maintain reasonable doubts about the constitutionality of the norms consulted. In this regard, the Chamber has stated that, if the arguments are omitted, insufficient, or vague, the consultation must be deemed inadmissible and, therefore, not assessable (sic), since this Court would not have the express reasons on which to rule. Indeed, the Chamber has stated that: “…It must also be remembered that the same law provides in its Article 101 that the Chamber will resolve the consultation by issuing an opinion \\\"on the aspects and reasons consulted or on any others it considers relevant from the constitutional point of view,\\\" but the tribunal interprets that \\\"the aspects and reasons consulted\\\" are those which, in accordance with Article 99, question or object to the bill, or substantiate the doubt that the legislators may have about it. Given, then, that the consultation departs from what is legally established, it is not receivable; if the tribunal, nevertheless, were to admit and resolve it, it would place itself in a situation that is outside the scope of its attributions”. (Decision No. 2001-11643, reiterated in decisions numbers 2012-9253, 2017-11714, 2021-21204 and 2022-9345, among others). Thus, if a consultation turns out to be imprecise in citing the articles or in setting forth the reasons for which well-founded doubts of constitutionality exist, it is inadmissible and cannot be resolved. This criterion was reiterated and consolidated by the jurisprudence of the Chamber, in determining, in the aforementioned decision number 2012-9253, reiterated in 2022-9345, that: “[T]his is so because «in the case of facultative legislative consultations, «the competence of the Constitutional Chamber originates from the doubts or objections of constitutionality formulated by the legislators» - decision 2001-12459-, such that if such arguments do not exist as such, or else, when the consulting deputies themselves state that they lack doubts about the constitutionality of the norms or bills consulted, it would be improper for the Chamber to issue any criterion, since it would be in situations that transcend the competences of the Chamber in matters of legislative consultations of constitutionality -decision 2002-3460-.” (Resolution No. 2024036153 of 9:45 a.m. on December 3, 2024, criterion reiterated in resolution No. 2026-001374 of 10:05 a.m. on January 13, 2026).

III.- On the substantiation of the consultation filed. In the sub iudice, this Court observes that the substantiation of the facultative consultation of constitutionality at hand is insufficient to be considered admissible. The consulting deputies state that Bill No. 25.291, denominated “APPROVAL OF THE LOAN CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA, THE CENTRAL AMERICAN BANK FOR ECONOMIC INTEGRATION AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK FOR THE PROJECT OF CONSTRUCTION, EQUIPMENT, AND START-UP OF LINES 1 AND 2 OF THE RAPID PASSENGER TRAIN SYSTEM (TRP) IN THE GREATER METROPOLITAN AREA”, causes them doubts regarding the “compliance with environmental standards, legal certainty, and finally the impact of the financing on the sustainability of the public debt”.

\n\nNonetheless, they make such a statement in a general manner, without individualizing the articles of the bill or the stipulations or clauses of the contracts that, in their view, could transgress environmental regulations, cause legal uncertainty, or evidence in some way a disproportionate impact on the sound management of public finances. They base their argument on the alleged lack of sufficient legal and technical criteria to determine that the project will not cause the infractions they scarcely hint at, without concretely explaining the reasons for which such criteria are lacking. Consequently, given that no well-founded consultation of constitutionality that could be the subject of this proceeding can be identified, and taking into account the provisions set forth in the aforementioned vote, the Chamber considers that the consultation at hand fails to meet the requirements established by this Court for admission and, therefore, it must be declared inadmissible.\n\nIV.- DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO THE CASE FILE (EXPEDIENTE). The parties are warned that if any paper document has been provided, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment.\n\nOtherwise, any material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial\", approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nNo ha lugar a evacuar la consulta formulada.\n\n| | | |\n|---|---|---|\n| Fernando Castillo V. Presidente | | |\n| Fernando Cruz C. | | |\n\n**Señor Paul Rueda L.**\n**Mayor a.i.**\n**MUNICIPALIDAD DE PÉREZ ZELEDÓN**\n\n**Estimado señor:**\n\nIn response to your official letter **MPZ-AM-352-2020** dated **August 14, 2020**, through which you request a technical-legal analysis regarding the declaration of the **San Antonio stream (quebrada San Antonio)** found within the property registered under the name of **Jorge Solís Vargas**, this Technical Secretariat respectfully addresses your query as follows, focusing on the immediate protection of this water resource.\n\nRegarding the application of environmental regulations in the matter of *Forest Law No. 7575* and *Regulation No. 31849-MINAE* for declaration of protection areas: Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE) Executive Decree No. 31849-MINAE, entitled \"Regulation for the Determination and Delineation of Protection Areas for Springs, Streams, and Rivers\" published in *La Gaceta* No. 126 on July 2, 2004, establishes the applicable definition and delineation process for this type of designated area. Yet, the protection of permanent water bodies along with their riparian protection areas, such as springs and rivers, is of public interest and must be evaluated within the framework of *Forest Law No. 7575* and its Regulations to *Executive Decree No. 25721-MINAE*, with MINAE being the competent institution for the delimitation of these protection areas.\n\nRegarding the query on the validity of Resolution 320-2004:\n\nUnder current forestry regulations, MINAE, as the governing body in forestry matters, has jurisdiction to determine areas belonging to the State's natural forest heritage (Patrimonio Natural del Estado). Within its organizational framework, it is specifically responsible for activities aimed at the conservation and management of forestry resources. The National System of Conservation Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación, SINAC) is the entity in charge of the administrative management of the State's natural forest heritage and is responsible, among other things, for managing activities within the framework of the *Forest Law*.\n\nIt is this body that must determine the existence of forests or forested lands within protection areas established by the Forest Law or declared as such by the MINAE Executive Authority.\n\nThus, based on the above, it is generically concluded that your municipality has the capacity to determine the fulfillment of requirements for a building permit (visado municipal), but the definition of a protection area falls under the competence of MINAE. The request for information submitted is transferred to the competent authority in accordance with Article 19 of the Regulations to the Forestry Law and other related regulations. A copy of the pronouncement issued will be requested for the determination of what is legally applicable in relation to Resolution 320-2004 and the state of the protection area of the San Antonio stream belonging to the property of Jorge Solís Vargas Long. In this regard, this office will issue its opinion once the corresponding input is available from both the requestor and MINAE for the legal analysis and the determination of the area's status.\n\nThe image and the associated data URI are a technical artifact from the original document and do not contain translatable legal text. Therefore, the provided Spanish legal text excerpt is:\n\nThe image and the associated data URI are a technical artifact from the original document and do not contain translatable legal text. Therefore, the provided Spanish legal text excerpt is:\n\nSalazar A.

 

\\\"\\\"

Jorge Araya G.

\\\"\\\"\n\n\nPotential Environmental Impact Magnitude\nSectoral Capacity for Cumulative or Synergistic Effects\n\n\n\n\nLow (B)\nHigh (A)\n\n\nHigh (A)\nA (EIA)\nA (EIA)\n\n\nLow (B)\nB1 (Partial EIA)\nB2 (Environmental Feasibility Analysis)\n\n\n\n\nSalazar A.

 

\\\"\\\"

Jorge Araya G.