{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1386975",
  "citation": "Res. 17528-2026 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Amparo inadmisible contra proyecto de ley en trámite legislativo",
  "title_en": "Amparo inadmissible challenging bill pending in legislature",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano un recurso de amparo interpuesto contra el expediente legislativo n.° 23.991, que pretende segregar aproximadamente 167.716 m² de un inmueble del centro educativo de Cóbano —utilizado para fines educativos, agropecuarios, técnicos, ambientales y formativos, incluidos laboratorios vivos— para asignarlo parcialmente a ASOCHOZA y destinar 46.353 m² a un hogar de adultos mayores. Los recurrentes alegaron ausencia de consultas previas, falta de estudios de impacto ambiental, ausencia de justificación de necesidad pública y afectación a programas educativos. La Sala declaró el recurso inadmisible al reiterar su doctrina consolidada: el amparo no procede para ejercer control constitucional sobre proyectos de ley en trámite porque los actos dictados en ese proceso son internos y preparatorios del órgano legislativo, carecen de efectos externos y están sujetos exclusivamente al procedimiento constitucional previsto para su aprobación o improbación conforme al artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily rejected an amparo filed against legislative bill No. 23,991, which would segregate approximately 167,716 m² from a school property in Cóbano—used for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and formative purposes including living laboratories—to assign part to ASOCHOZA and dedicate 46,353 m² to an elderly care facility. Petitioners alleged lack of prior consultation, absence of environmental impact studies, no public necessity justification, and harm to educational programs. The Chamber declared the amparo inadmissible, reiterating its settled doctrine: amparo does not lie to exercise constitutional review over pending legislative bills because acts performed in the legislative process are internal and preparatory to the legislature, lack external effects, and are subject exclusively to the procedure established under Article 121(4) of the Constitution.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "15/05/2026",
  "year": "2026",
  "topic_ids": [],
  "primary_topic_id": null,
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "amparo (acción constitucional de tutela de derechos fundamentales)",
    "rechazar de plano (rechazo liminar sin trámite)",
    "actos preparatorios internos (actos legislativos no revisables por amparo)",
    "expediente legislativo (dossier de un proyecto de ley en la Asamblea)",
    "laboratorios vivos (áreas agropecuarias/ambientales de uso educativo)",
    "segregación de inmueble (partición registral de un bien)",
    "consulta previa (obligación de consultar antes de decisiones que afecten a una comunidad)",
    "estudio de impacto ambiental / EIA (requisito previo para ciertos proyectos)"
  ],
  "article_citations": [],
  "keywords_es": [
    "amparo inadmisible",
    "proyecto de ley",
    "control constitucional",
    "trámite legislativo",
    "actos preparatorios internos",
    "efectos externos",
    "segregación de terreno",
    "centro educativo Cóbano",
    "laboratorios vivos",
    "estudios de impacto ambiental",
    "necesidad pública",
    "ASOCHOZA",
    "rechazar de plano",
    "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional",
    "potestades legislativas exclusivas"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "inadmissible amparo",
    "legislative bill",
    "constitutional review",
    "legislative process",
    "internal preparatory acts",
    "external effects",
    "land segregation",
    "school property Cóbano",
    "living laboratories",
    "environmental impact study",
    "public necessity",
    "outright rejection",
    "exclusive legislative powers",
    "Constitutional Chamber jurisdiction"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "debe tenerse presente que se trata de un proyecto de Ley pendiente de aprobación, cuyo expediente ha ingresado a la corriente legislativa y que debe tramitarse conforme al procedimiento legislativo correspondiente, a fin de que dicho Poder de la República, en ejercicio de sus potestades legislativas propias y exclusivas, lo apruebe o impruebe, según lo dispone el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política. De manera que todos los actos que se dicten en torno a ese procedimiento son internos y preparatorios del órgano legislativo, no administrativos, los cuales no pueden en principio ser conocidos por este Tribunal, pues son actos que carecen de efectos externos.\n\nAl igual que el precedente en cuestión, este Tribunal no encuentra razones para variar el criterio vertido, ni motivos que lo hagan valorar de manera distinta la situación planteada. Nótese que la parte recurrente acude ante esta Sala por un proyecto de ley que tan siquiera consta que se haya votado en primer debate. Aunado a todo ello, como su palabra lo dice, es un proyecto. No necesariamente todo proyecto se convierte en ley, pues debe pasar por los procedimientos constitucionales y legales creados al efecto. En consecuencia, se rechaza de plano el recurso.",
  "excerpt_en": "It must be borne in mind that this is a bill pending approval, whose docket has entered the legislative stream and must be processed in accordance with the corresponding legislative procedure, so that said Branch of the Republic, in the exercise of its own and exclusive legislative powers, may approve or reject it, as provided by Article 121(4) of the Political Constitution. Accordingly, all acts issued in connection with that procedure are internal and preparatory to the legislative organ, not administrative acts, which in principle cannot be reviewed by this Tribunal, as they lack external effects.\n\nJust as in the precedent at issue, this Tribunal finds no reasons to depart from the criterion expressed, nor grounds that would lead it to evaluate the situation presented differently. Note that the petitioner comes before this Chamber regarding a bill that has not even been confirmed to have been voted on in first debate. Moreover, as its very name indicates, it is a bill. Not every bill necessarily becomes law, as it must pass through the constitutional and legal procedures created for that purpose. Consequently, the appeal is summarily rejected.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Inadmissible",
    "label_es": "Inadmisible",
    "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily rejected the amparo as inadmissible: amparo does not lie to challenge legislative bills in process, as their internal preparatory acts lack external effects subject to judicial review.",
    "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano el recurso de amparo por improcedente: el amparo no es la vía para controlar proyectos de ley en trámite legislativo, cuyos actos internos y preparatorios carecen de efectos externos revisables."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando II (citando Sentencia 2010-007289)",
      "quote_en": "All acts issued in connection with that procedure are internal and preparatory to the legislative organ, not administrative acts, which in principle cannot be reviewed by this Tribunal, as they are acts that lack external effects.",
      "quote_es": "todos los actos que se dicten en torno a ese procedimiento son internos y preparatorios del órgano legislativo, no administrativos, los cuales no pueden en principio ser conocidos por este Tribunal, pues son actos que carecen de efectos externos."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando II",
      "quote_en": "Note that the petitioner comes before this Chamber regarding a bill that has not even been confirmed to have been voted on in first debate. Moreover, as its very name indicates, it is a bill. Not every bill necessarily becomes law, as it must pass through the constitutional and legal procedures created for that purpose.",
      "quote_es": "Nótese que la parte recurrente acude ante esta Sala por un proyecto de ley que tan siquiera consta que se haya votado en primer debate. Aunado a todo ello, como su palabra lo dice, es un proyecto. No necesariamente todo proyecto se convierte en ley, pues debe pasar por los procedimientos constitucionales y legales creados al efecto."
    },
    {
      "context": "Resultando 1 / Considerando I (alegatos de la parte recurrente)",
      "quote_en": "There is no evidence of technical studies by the MEP, environmental impact studies, or justification of public necessity for that specific parcel.",
      "quote_es": "no existe evidencia de estudios técnicos del MEP, estudios de impacto ambiental ni justificación de necesidad pública en ese terreno específico."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando I",
      "quote_en": "Legislative docket No. 23,991 seeks to segregate approximately 167,716 m² from a property used for the operation of the educational center, employed for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and formative purposes.",
      "quote_es": "el expediente legislativo n.° 23.991 pretende segregar aproximadamente 167.716 m² de un inmueble destinado al funcionamiento del centro educativo, utilizado para fines educativos, agropecuarios, técnicos, ambientales y formativos."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1386975",
  "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": "\n\nExp: 26-015774-0007-CO \n\nRes. Nº 2026017528\n\n \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinte minutos del quince de mayo de dos mil veintiseis .\n\n \n\n Recurso de amparo que se tramita en expediente número 26-015774-0007-CO, interpuesto por [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], contra ASOCHOZA, ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO, ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA, ESTADO y el MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA.\n\nRESULTANDO\n\n \n\n1. Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala el 4 de mayo de 2026, la parte recurrente interpone recurso de amparo contra ASOCHOZA, ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO, ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA, ESTADO y el MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA y manifiesta que el expediente legislativo n.° 23.991 pretende segregar aproximadamente 167.716 m² de un inmueble destinado al funcionamiento del centro educativo, utilizado para fines educativos, agropecuarios, técnicos, ambientales y formativos. Señala que se pretende destinar parte del terreno a fines distintos al educativo y asignar un área a ASOCHOZA, asociación que, según afirma, no representa los intereses de la comunidad social y educativa de Cóbano, no tiene historial de desarrollo ni aportación a la comunidad, no cuenta con establecimiento definido y no está adscrita a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cóbano. Alega que también se pretende destinar 46.353 m² para la construcción de un Hogar de Cuido Integral para Adultos Mayores, pese a que en Cóbano ya existe una casa de adulto mayor reconocida. Indica que no se realizó consulta previa a la Dirección del centro educativo, a la Junta Administrativa, a la comunidad educativa ni a la Municipalidad correspondiente. Agrega que no existe evidencia de estudios técnicos del MEP, estudios de impacto ambiental ni justificación de necesidad pública en ese terreno específico. Finalmente, sostiene que la reducción del terreno afecta directamente los programas educativos técnicos, los laboratorios vivos y el desarrollo integral del estudiantado, y que existen denuncias de posibles irregularidades en la obtención de firmas mediante engaño.\n\n2. El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.\n\n Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,\n\n CONSIDERANDO\n\nI. OBJETO DEL RECURSO. La parte recurrente reclama la violación de sus derechos fundamentales, pues acusa que el expediente legislativo n.° 23.991 pretende segregar aproximadamente 167.716 m² de un inmueble destinado al funcionamiento del centro educativo, utilizado para fines educativos, agropecuarios, técnicos, ambientales y formativos. Señala que se pretende destinar parte del terreno a fines distintos al educativo y asignar un área a ASOCHOZA, asociación que, según afirma, no representa los intereses de la comunidad social y educativa de Cóbano, no tiene historial de desarrollo ni aportación a la comunidad, no cuenta con establecimiento definido y no está adscrita a la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cóbano. Alega que también se pretende destinar 46.353 m² para la construcción de un Hogar de Cuido Integral para Adultos Mayores, pese a que en Cóbano ya existe una casa de adulto mayor reconocida. Indica que no se realizó consulta previa a la Dirección del centro educativo, a la Junta Administrativa, a la comunidad educativa ni a la Municipalidad correspondiente. Agrega que no existe evidencia de estudios técnicos del MEP, estudios de impacto ambiental ni justificación de necesidad pública en ese terreno específico. Finalmente, sostiene que la reducción del terreno afecta directamente los programas educativos técnicos, los laboratorios vivos y el desarrollo integral del estudiantado, y que existen denuncias de posibles irregularidades en la obtención de firmas mediante engaño.\n\nII. INADMISIBILIDAD DEL RECURSO. Esta Sala en la sentencia No. 2019011991 -ante un reclamo similar- resolvió: \n\n“ I.-Objeto del recurso. El recurrente afirma que no está de acuerdo con el proyecto “Ley para brindar seguridad jurídica sobre la huelga y sus procedimientos”, y el que fue aprobado en primer debate por la Asamblea Legislativa el 13 de mayo de 2019 para declarar como un servicio público a comedores y albergues que atienden población en condición de vulnerabilidad con fondos públicos. \n\n II.- El recurrente pretende que por la vía del amparo se aplique control de constitucionalidad a un proyecto de ley, que actualmente tramita la Asamblea Legislativa. Sobre tal materia, mediante sentencia N° 2010-007289 de las 19:05 horas del 20 de abril de 2010, la Sala dispuso:\n\n“(…) El recurrente acude ante esta Sala pues estima que el Proyecto de Ley número 17264, que modifica el artículo 52 de la Ley de Protección de Procedimientos de Observancia de Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual, número 8039 de doce de octubre de dos mil, es violatorio de los derechos fundamentales de los comerciantes patentados. En ese sentido, debe tenerse presente que se trata de un proyecto de Ley pendiente de aprobación, cuyo expediente ha ingresado a la corriente legislativa y que debe tramitarse conforme al procedimiento legislativo correspondiente, a fin de que dicho Poder de la República, en ejercicio de sus potestades legislativas propias y exclusivas, lo apruebe o impruebe, según lo dispone el artículo 121 inciso 4) de la Constitución Política. De manera que todos los actos que se dicten en torno a ese procedimiento son internos y preparatorios del órgano legislativo, no administrativos, los cuales no pueden en principio ser conocidos por este Tribunal, pues son actos que carecen de efectos externos. (…)” (en igual sentido ver sentencia 2019-5056 de las 9:40 horas del 19 de marzo de 2019) \n\n El anterior razonamiento es aplicable a su pretensión de que se anule por inconstitucional el proyecto aprobado en primer debate que cuestiona. Por las razones expuestas y que son aplicables al caso en estudio, este Tribunal no encuentra razones para variar el criterio vertido, ni motivos que lo hagan valorar de manera distinta la situación planteada, por lo que el recurso debe rechazarse”.\n\nAl igual que el precedente en cuestión, este Tribunal no encuentra razones para variar el criterio vertido, ni motivos que lo hagan valorar de manera distinta la situación planteada. Nótese que la parte recurrente acude ante esta Sala por un proyecto de ley que tan siquiera consta que se haya votado en primer debate. Aunado a todo ello, como su palabra lo dice, es un proyecto. No necesariamente todo proyecto se convierte en ley, pues debe pasar por los procedimientos constitucionales y legales creados al efecto. En consecuencia, se rechaza de plano el recurso. \n\nIII. DOCUMENTACIÓN APORTADA AL EXPEDIENTE. Debe prevenir esta Sala a las partes que de haber aportado algún documentos en papel, así como objetos o pruebas respaldadas por medio de cualquier dispositivo adicional, o por medio de soporte electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, éstos deberán ser retirados del despacho, en un plazo de 30 días hábiles, después de recibida la notificación de esta sentencia, de lo contrario todo ello será destruido de conformidad con lo establecido 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 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 No. 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nSe rechaza de plano el recurso.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \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 SAGYQ75LS47A61 \n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-015774-0007-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: 26-015774-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2026017528\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fifteenth of May, two thousand twenty-six.\n\nWrit of amparo (recurso de amparo) proceeding under case number **26-015774-0007-CO**, filed by [Nombre 001], [Nombre 002], against ASOCHOZA, ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO, ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA, ESTADO, and the MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\n**1.** By written submission received at the Clerk's Office of the Chamber on May 4, 2026, the petitioning party files a writ of amparo against ASOCHOZA, ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO, ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA, ESTADO, and the MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA, and states that legislative file (expediente legislativo) n.° 23.991 seeks to partition (segregar) approximately 167,716 m² from a property devoted to the operation of an educational center used for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and training purposes. The petitioner states that part of the land is intended to be redirected to non-educational purposes and that an area is to be assigned to ASOCHOZA, an association that, as alleged, does not represent the social and educational community interests of Cóbano, has no track record of development or contribution to the community, has no defined establishment, and is not affiliated with the ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO. The petitioner further alleges that 46,353 m² are also intended for the construction of a Comprehensive Care Home for Older Adults (Hogar de Cuido Integral para Adultos Mayores), even though a recognized senior care home already exists in Cóbano. The petitioner indicates that no prior consultation was conducted with the school administration (Dirección del centro educativo), the Administrative Board (Junta Administrativa), the educational community, or the relevant municipal government. The petitioner adds that there is no evidence of technical studies by MEP, environmental impact studies, or justification of public need for that specific parcel of land. Finally, the petitioner argues that the reduction of the land directly affects the technical educational programs, the living laboratories (laboratorios vivos), and the comprehensive development of students, and that there are complaints of possible irregularities in the collection of signatures through deception.\n\n**2.** Article 9 of the Law on Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) authorizes the Chamber to summarily reject (rechazar de plano) or reject on the merits, at any time—even from the moment of filing—any petition brought before it that is manifestly inadmissible, or when it finds there are sufficient grounds to reject it, or when it involves the mere repetition or reproduction of a previously rejected petition of the same or similar nature.\n\nOpinion drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,\n\nWHEREAS\n\n**I. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PETITION.** The petitioning party claims a violation of their fundamental rights, alleging that legislative file n.° 23.991 seeks to partition approximately 167,716 m² from a property devoted to the operation of an educational center used for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and training purposes. The petitioner states that part of the land is intended to be redirected to non-educational purposes and that an area is to be assigned to ASOCHOZA, an association that, as alleged, does not represent the social and educational community interests of Cóbano, has no track record of development or contribution to the community, has no defined establishment, and is not affiliated with the ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO. The petitioner further alleges that 46,353 m² are also intended for the construction of a Comprehensive Care Home for Older Adults, even though a recognized senior care home already exists in Cóbano. The petitioner indicates that no prior consultation was conducted with the school administration, the Administrative Board, the educational community, or the relevant municipal government. The petitioner adds that there is no evidence of technical studies by MEP, environmental impact studies, or justification of public need for that specific parcel of land. Finally, the petitioner argues that the reduction of the land directly affects the technical educational programs, the living laboratories, and the comprehensive development of students, and that there are complaints of possible irregularities in the collection of signatures through deception.\n\n**II. INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PETITION.** In ruling No. 2019011991, this Chamber—faced with a similar claim—held:\n\n\"I. Subject matter of the petition. The petitioner states that he disagrees with the bill 'Law to provide legal certainty regarding the strike and its procedures,' and with the bill approved on first reading (primer debate) by the ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA on May 13, 2019, to declare as a public service the dining halls and shelters serving vulnerable populations with public funds.\n\nII. The petitioner asks this Chamber, by way of the writ of amparo, to conduct a constitutional review of a bill currently before the ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA. On that matter, ruling N° 2010-007289 of 19:05 hours on April 20, 2010, the Chamber stated:\n\n'(…) The petitioner comes before this Chamber contending that Bill number 17264, which amends Article 52 of the Law on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Procedures, number 8039 of October twelve, two thousand, violates the fundamental rights of licensed merchants. In this regard, it must be noted that this involves a bill pending approval, whose legislative file has entered the legislative process and must be handled in accordance with the corresponding legislative procedure, so that this Branch of the Republic may, in the exercise of its own and exclusive legislative powers, approve or reject it, as provided in article 121, paragraph 4) of the Constitution. Accordingly, all acts taken in connection with that procedure are internal and preparatory acts of the legislative body, not administrative acts, which this Tribunal may not in principle review, as they produce no external effects. (…)' (see also ruling 2019-5056 of 9:40 hours on March 19, 2019)\n\nThe foregoing reasoning applies to the petitioner's request that the bill approved on first reading that is being challenged be annulled as unconstitutional. For the reasons stated, which are applicable to the case at hand, this Tribunal finds no reason to depart from the expressed criterion, nor any grounds to evaluate the situation presented differently, and therefore the petition must be rejected.\"\n\nAs with the foregoing precedent, this Tribunal finds no reason to depart from the expressed criterion, nor any grounds to evaluate the situation presented differently. It should be noted that the petitioning party comes before this Chamber regarding a bill that has not even been shown to have been voted on in first reading. Furthermore, as its name implies, it is a bill. Not every bill necessarily becomes law, as it must go through the constitutional and legal procedures established for that purpose. Accordingly, the petition is summarily rejected.\n\n**III. DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE.** This Chamber must advise the parties that, should any paper documents have been submitted—as well as any objects or evidence supported by any additional device, or by electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or technologically produced media—these must be retrieved from the office within 30 business days after receipt of notice of this ruling; otherwise, all such materials will be destroyed in accordance with the \"Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial,\" approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the resolution approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe petition is summarily rejected.\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresident\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nPaul Rueda L.\nLuis Fdo. Salazar A.\n\nJorge Araya G.\nAnamari Garro V.\n\nIngrid Hess H.\n\nDigitally Signed Document\n\n-- Verification code --\n\nSAGYQ75LS47A61\n\nCASE FILE N° 26-015774-0007-CO\n\nTelephone: 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. south of the Perpetuo Socorro church).\n\nFinally, the petitioner contends that the reduction of the property directly affects the technical educational programs, living laboratories, and the comprehensive development of the student body, and that there are complaints of possible irregularities in the collection of signatures through deception.\n\n**II. INADMISSIBILITY OF THE WRIT.** In ruling No. 2019011991 — faced with a similar claim — this Chamber held:\n\n*\"**I.- Object of the writ.** The petitioner states that he does not agree with the bill \"Ley para brindar seguridad jurídica sobre la huelga y sus procedimientos,\" and with the one approved on first reading (primer debate) by the Asamblea Legislativa on May 13, 2019, to declare as a public service those soup kitchens and shelters that serve vulnerable populations with public funds.*\n\n*              **II.-** The petitioner seeks, through the writ of amparo (amparo), to have constitutional review applied to a bill currently before the Asamblea Legislativa. On this matter, in ruling N° 2010-007289 issued at 19:05 hours on April 20, 2010, the Chamber held:*\n\n*\"(…) The petitioner comes before this Chamber because he considers that Bill No. 17264, which amends article 52 of the Law on the Protection of Procedures for Observance of Intellectual Property Rights, No. 8039 of October twelve, two thousand, violates the fundamental rights of licensed merchants. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that this is a bill pending approval, whose file has entered the legislative process and must be processed in accordance with the corresponding legislative procedure, so that that branch of the Republic, in the exercise of its own and exclusive legislative powers, may approve or reject it, as provided under article 121, paragraph 4) of the Political Constitution. Accordingly, all acts issued in connection with that procedure are internal and preparatory acts of the legislative body — not administrative acts — and, as such, cannot in principle be reviewed by this Tribunal, since they produce no external effects. (…)\" (see also ruling 2019-5056 issued at 9:40 hours on March 19, 2019)*\n\n*              The foregoing reasoning applies equally to the petitioner's request that the bill approved on first reading that he challenges be annulled as unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth above, which are applicable to the case at hand, this Tribunal finds no grounds to depart from the criterion previously stated, nor any reason to view the situation presented in a different light; accordingly, the writ must be dismissed.\"*\n\nAs with the precedent in question, this Tribunal finds no grounds to depart from the criterion previously stated, nor any reason to view the situation presented in a different light. It should be noted that the petitioning party comes before this Chamber regarding a bill for which there is not even evidence that it has been voted on first reading. Furthermore, as the word itself suggests, it is a bill. Not every bill necessarily becomes law, since it must pass through the constitutional and legal procedures established for that purpose. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed outright.\n\n**III. DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FILE.** This Chamber must advise the parties that if they have submitted any paper documents, as well as objects or evidence supported by any additional device, or by electronic, computer-based, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology media, these must be retrieved from the court's office within 30 business days (días hábiles) following receipt of notification of this ruling; otherwise, all such materials will be destroyed in accordance with the provisions of 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 the Judicial Gazette (Boletín Judicial) No. 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial in session No.\n\n43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe appeal is summarily dismissed.\n\n---\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresident\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nThe content you have provided contains no Spanish legal text to translate. It consists entirely of raw base64-encoded JPEG image data embedded within HTML markup tags (`<img src=\"data:image/jpeg;base64,…\">`), along with HTML table and paragraph structure. The only legible human-readable text in the chunk is the proper name:\n\n**Paul Rueda L.**\n\nThere is no Spanish prose, articles, considerandos, legal provisions, or other translatable text present in this excerpt. Please provide the actual Spanish text of the document chunk you wish to have translated.\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\n SAGYQ75LS47A61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-015774-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 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).\n\n**Exp: 26-015774-0007-CO**\n\n**Res. Nº 2026017528**\n\n**CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at nine hours and twenty minutes on the fifteenth of May, two thousand twenty-six.**\n\nAmparo petition (recurso de amparo) filed under case number **26-015774-0007-CO**, brought by **[Nombre 001]**, **[Nombre 002]**, against **ASOCHOZA**, **ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO**, **ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA**, the **ESTADO**, and the **MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA**.\n\n**BACKGROUND**\n\n**1.** By written submission received at the Chamber's Clerk's Office on May 4, 2026, the petitioning party filed an amparo petition against **ASOCHOZA**, **ASOCIACIÓN DE DESARROLLO INTEGRAL DE CÓBANO**, **ASAMBLEA LEGISLATIVA**, the **ESTADO**, and the **MINISTERIO DE EDUCACIÓN PÚBLICA**, and stated that legislative file n.° 23.991 seeks to partition off (segregar) approximately 167,716 m² from a property dedicated to the operation of the educational center, which is used for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and training purposes. The petitioners indicate that part of the land is intended to be devoted to purposes other than education, and that an area would be assigned to ASOCHOZA—an association that, they contend, does not represent the interests of the social and educational community of Cóbano, has no track record of development or contribution to the community, has no defined place of establishment, and is not affiliated with the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cóbano. They further allege that 46,353 m² are intended for the construction of a Comprehensive Care Home for the Elderly (Hogar de Cuido Integral para Adultos Mayores), even though a recognized elder-care home already exists in Cóbano. They note that no prior consultation was conducted with the school's Principal, the Administrative Board (Junta Administrativa), the educational community, or the relevant Municipal Government. They add that there is no evidence of technical studies by the MEP, environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental), or justification of public necessity with respect to that specific parcel. Finally, they maintain that reducing the size of the property directly affects technical vocational education programs, living laboratories (laboratorios vivos), and the holistic development of the student body, and that there are reports of possible irregularities in the collection of signatures through deception.\n\n**2.** Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber to dismiss outright or on the merits, at any time—including from the moment of filing—any petition brought before it that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when the Chamber considers that there are sufficient grounds to reject it, or when the petition amounts to a mere repetition or reproduction of a previously rejected petition of the same or similar nature.\n\nOpinion drafted by Justice Castillo Víquez; and,\n\n**CONSIDERING**\n\n**I. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PETITION.** The petitioning party claims a violation of their fundamental rights, alleging that legislative file n.° 23.991 seeks to partition off approximately 167,716 m² from a property dedicated to the operation of the educational center, which is used for educational, agricultural, technical, environmental, and training purposes. They indicate that part of the land is intended to be devoted to purposes other than education, and that an area would be assigned to ASOCHOZA—an association that, they contend, does not represent the interests of the social and educational community of Cóbano, has no track record of development or contribution to the community, has no defined place of establishment, and is not affiliated with the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral de Cóbano. They further allege that 46,353 m² are intended for the construction of a Comprehensive Care Home for the Elderly, even though a recognized elder-care home already exists in Cóbano. They note that no prior consultation was conducted with the school's Principal, the Administrative Board, the educational community, or the relevant Municipal Government. They add that there is no evidence of technical studies by the MEP, environmental impact studies, or justification of public necessity with respect to that specific parcel. Finally, they maintain that reducing the size of the property directly affects technical vocational education programs, living laboratories, and the holistic development of the student body, and that there are reports of possible irregularities in the collection of signatures through deception.\n\n**II. INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PETITION.** In ruling No. 2019011991—faced with a similar claim—this Chamber held:\n\n*\"I.—Subject matter of the petition. The petitioner states that he disagrees with the bill \"Ley para brindar seguridad jurídica sobre la huelga y sus procedimientos\" [Law to Provide Legal Certainty Regarding Strikes and Their Procedures], and with the bill approved on first reading (primer debate) by the Asamblea Legislativa on May 13, 2019, to declare as a public service the canteens and shelters that serve vulnerable populations using public funds.*\n\n*II.— The petitioner seeks, through the amparo proceeding, to have constitutional review (control de constitucionalidad) applied to a bill currently being processed by the Asamblea Legislativa.*\n\nOn this matter, by ruling N° 2010-007289 of 19:05 hours on April 20, 2010, the Chamber ruled:\n\n\"(…) The petitioner (recurrente) comes before this Chamber because he considers that Bill number 17264, which amends article 52 of the Law on Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Procedures, number 8039 of October 12, 2000, violates the fundamental rights of licensed merchants (comerciantes patentados). In that regard, it must be borne in mind that this is a bill pending approval, whose file has entered the legislative process and must be processed in accordance with the applicable legislative procedure, so that said Branch of the Republic, in the exercise of its own and exclusive legislative powers, may approve or reject it, as provided in article 121, paragraph 4) of the Political Constitution. Accordingly, all acts issued in connection with that procedure are internal and preparatory acts of the legislative branch, not administrative acts, and as such cannot in principle be reviewed by this Tribunal, since they are acts that produce no external effects. (…)\"\n(see also ruling 2019-5056 of 9:40 hours on March 19, 2019)\n\nThe foregoing reasoning applies equally to the petitioner's request that the bill approved on first reading (primer debate) that he challenges be annulled as unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth, which are applicable to the case under study, this Tribunal finds no grounds to depart from the criteria expressed, nor any reason to assess the situation presented in a different manner; accordingly, the writ (recurso) must be dismissed.\n\nJust as in the precedent at issue, this Tribunal finds no grounds to depart from the criteria expressed, nor any reason to assess the situation presented in a different manner. It should be noted that the petitioner comes before this Chamber regarding a bill for which there is not even a record of its having been voted on at first reading. Furthermore, and as its very name indicates, it is a bill. Not every bill necessarily becomes law, since it must pass through the constitutional and legal procedures established for that purpose. Accordingly, the writ is summarily dismissed.\n\nIII. DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE. This Chamber must advise the parties that if any paper documents, objects, or evidence backed by any additional device, or by electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic, or new-technology media have been submitted, these must be retrieved from the court's offices within 30 business days (días hábiles) after receiving notice of this ruling; otherwise, all such materials will be destroyed in accordance with the provisions of 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 number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial) in session No.\n\n43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe appeal is summarily dismissed.\n\n---\n\nFernando Castillo V.\nPresident\n\nFernando Cruz C.\n\nThe content you have provided contains no Spanish legal text to translate. It consists entirely of raw base64-encoded JPEG image data embedded within HTML markup tags (`<img src=\"data:image/jpeg;base64,…\">`), along with HTML table and paragraph structure. The only legible human-readable text in the chunk is the proper name:\n\n**Paul Rueda L.**\n\nThere is no Spanish prose, articles, considerandos, legal provisions, or other translatable text present in this excerpt. Please provide the actual Spanish text of the document chunk you wish to have translated.\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\n SAGYQ75LS47A61\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 26-015774-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 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)."
}