{
  "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-353817",
  "citation": "Res. 10970-2006 Sala Constitucional",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
  "title_es": "Rechazo de plano de acción de inconstitucionalidad por ausencia de asunto previo",
  "title_en": "Flat rejection of unconstitutionality action for lack of prior pending matter",
  "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional conoció una acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por un ciudadano en calidad de candidato a alcalde contra la reforma al artículo 148 del Código de Trabajo, que permite trasladar el disfrute de días feriados que caen entre semana al lunes siguiente. El accionante alegó que dicha reforma empaña la historia patria, no fue consultada y violenta derechos del niño, además de hacer referencia tangencial a un decreto sobre la administración de territorios en Puntarenas. La Sala rechazó de plano la acción por manifiestamente improcedente, ya que el accionante no cumplió con el requisito de legitimación de contar con un asunto previo o caso pendiente de resolver donde la norma cuestionada le cause un agravio concreto. La Sala recordó que la acción de inconstitucionalidad no es una vía abstracta o popular de control, sino que exige un interés personal y directo del gestionante en un litigio o procedimiento administrativo previos, lo cual no fue demostrado ni siquiera mencionado en el libelo.",
  "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber reviewed an unconstitutionality action filed by a citizen, as a candidate for mayor, against the reform of Article 148 of the Labor Code, which allows moving the observance of midweek holidays to the following Monday. The plaintiff argued that this reform tarnishes national history, was not consulted, and violates children's rights, also tangentially referring to a decree on the administration of territories in Puntarenas. The Chamber flatly rejected the action as manifestly inadmissible because the plaintiff failed to meet the standing requirement of having a prior pending matter where the challenged norm causes a concrete harm. The Chamber reiterated that the unconstitutionality action is not an abstract or popular means of review; it requires a personal and direct interest of the petitioner in a prior litigation or administrative proceeding, which was neither demonstrated nor even mentioned in the petition.",
  "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional",
  "date": "26/07/2006",
  "year": "2006",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "acción de inconstitucionalidad",
    "asunto previo",
    "legitimación",
    "rechazo de plano",
    "libelo",
    "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional",
    "control de constitucionalidad"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Código de Trabajo",
      "article": "148",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 5089",
      "article": "148",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "acción de inconstitucionalidad",
    "asunto previo",
    "legitimación",
    "rechazo de plano",
    "Código de Trabajo",
    "art. 148",
    "feriados",
    "Sala Constitucional",
    "improcedente",
    "Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional",
    "art. 9"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "unconstitutionality action",
    "prior pending matter",
    "standing",
    "flat rejection",
    "Labor Code",
    "Art. 148",
    "holidays",
    "Constitutional Chamber",
    "inadmissible",
    "Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction",
    "Art. 9"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "En el caso que nos ocupa, el señor Nombre01 plantea su acción sin el cumplimiento de los requerimientos mínimos establecidos en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, entre ellos, de importancia e insalvable, de contar con un asunto previo como medio razonable, del cual ni siquiera se menciona en el libelo, razón por la cual, la acción de inconstitucionalidad resulta improcedente.",
  "excerpt_en": "In the case at hand, Mr. [Name] files his action without fulfilling the minimum requirements established in the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, among them, critically and unavoidably, the need for a prior pending matter as a reasonable means, which is not even mentioned in the petition, for which reason the unconstitutionality action is inadmissible.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Flatly rejected",
    "label_es": "Rechazada de plano",
    "summary_en": "The unconstitutionality action is flatly rejected for failure to meet the prior pending matter requirement.",
    "summary_es": "Se rechaza de plano la acción de inconstitucionalidad por no cumplir con el requisito del asunto previo."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando Único",
      "quote_en": "The strictness in standing to access constitutional jurisdiction, rather than being an obstacle to prevent the review of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel for the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a 'prior pending matter' that has raised that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution.",
      "quote_es": "El rigor en la legitimación para acceder a la jurisdicción constitucional, más que constituir un obstáculo para impedir el control de la constitucionalidad de las leyes, constituye el cauce del derecho de acceso a la justicia, derivado de la existencia de un 'asunto previo' que haya motivado aquella discordancia o contradicción entre la ley y la Constitución."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando Único",
      "quote_en": "Thus, it is not a matter of a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision, to file an action without requiring the existence of a pending matter to be resolved, but rather it is necessary to show that it constitutes a reasonable means to protect the right or interest believed to be injured.",
      "quote_es": "No se trata, entonces, de una consideración particular de la inconstitucionalidad de una disposición normativa, para interponer una acción sin requerir la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sino, que es necesario que se demuestre que constituye un medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se estima lesionado."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-82278",
      "citation": "Res. 01319-1997 Sala Constitucional",
      "title_en": "Right of every minor to appeal adverse criminal decisions",
      "title_es": "Derecho de todo menor a recurrir decisiones penales adversas",
      "doc_type": "constitutional_decision",
      "date": "04/03/1997",
      "year": "1997"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-353817",
  "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": "*060085870007CO*\n\n*060085870007CO*\n\nExp: 06-008587-0007-CO \n\nRes. Nº 2006-010970 \n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las dieciocho horas y dos minutos del veintiséis de julio del dos mil seis.\n\nAcción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Nombre01, mayor, casado dos veces, agricultor, portador de la cédula de identidad número CED01, vecino de Nicoya, en su calidad de candidato a Alcalde de la ciudad de Nicoya; contra la reforma al artículo 148 del Código de Trabajo mediante ley número 7619 de 24 de julio de 1996.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- Por escrito recibido vía fax en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 13:03 horas del 13 de julio de 2006, el accionante alega que en la vida política nacional se ha dado una aberración en los últimos años en muchos aspectos como el aumento en los hidrocarburos, los alimentos, los servicios públicos, la corrupción y la delincuencia, lo que no pudo sostener el anterior gobierno y para colmo se reformó el artículo 148 del Código de Trabajo beneficiando a algunos y pasando por encima a la clase social y a la historia del país. Indica que la reforma permite que cuando un feriado quede entre semana su disfrute sea trasladado al lunes siguiente, como ha sucedido con el 25 de julio y el 15 de agosto, lo que a su juicio empaña la historia patria, dejando de lado que la anexión voluntaria costó sangre, por lo que se pregunta cómo se le explicará a los estudiantes que el 25 de julio es la fecha de celebración, pero que por una ley ahora lo será en otra, violentando los derechos del niño, pues se le deben inculcar valores y verdades. Expresa que dicho cambio nunca se consultó a las personas, ya que lo que ha quedado marcado por la historia no debe ser cambiado por lo filibusteros modernos. Además, se refiere a lo lamentable que fue otorgarle a la Municipalidad de Puntarenas, vía decreto, la administración de Cóbano, Lepanto y Paquera, lo que nunca se determinó en el acta de anexión, y no ha habido forma de que la Sala Constitucional entienda que ese decreto es inconstitucional.\n\n2.- El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.\n\nRedacta la Magistrada Calzada Miranda; y,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nUNICO.- Sobre la admisibilidad. En cuanto a la necesidad de contar con un asunto previo para la presentación de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, esta Sala en sentencia número 1997-01319 de las catorce horas y cincuenta y un minutos del cuatro de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y siete, estableció:\n\n\"…El rigor en la legitimación para acceder a la jurisdicción constitucional, más que constituir un obstáculo para impedir el control de la constitucionalidad de las leyes, constituye el cauce del derecho de acceso a la justicia, derivado de la existencia de un \"asunto previo\" que haya motivado aquella discordancia o contradicción entre la ley y la Constitución, para mantener la función jurisdiccional especial, y no distorsionar la pureza del sistema de relación de los poderes constitucionales del Estado, del que es parte la Sala, porque como integrante de aquellos, no es enteramente libre e ilimitada en sus acciones. Por esta causa, es que la acción de inconstitucionalidad necesita de su existencia -del asunto previo- como medio razonable para amparar la defensa del derecho o interés que se considera lesionado. Empero, la razonabilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad como medio de defensa del accionante no debe analizarse solo dentro del contexto del asunto previo, sino inmersa en el marco jurídico constitucional que rige las actuaciones de esta Sala. No se trata, entonces, de una consideración particular de la inconstitucionalidad de una disposición normativa, para interponer una acción sin requerir la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver, sino, que es necesario que se demuestre que constituye un medio razonable de amparar el derecho o interés que se estima lesionado…\"\n\nEn el caso que nos ocupa, el señor Nombre01 plantea su acción sin el cumplimiento de los requerimientos mínimos establecidos en la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, entre ellos, de importancia e insalvable, de contar con un asunto previo como medio razonable, del cual ni siquiera se menciona en el libelo, razón por la cual, la acción de inconstitucionalidad resulta improcedente.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nSe rechaza de plano la acción. \n\nAna Virginia Calzada M. \n\nPresidenta a.i. \n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B. \n\nGilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C. \n\nHoracio González Q. Jorge Araya G.",
  "body_en_text": "*060085870007CO*\n\n*060085870007CO*\n\nExp: 06-008587-0007-CO\n\nRes. Nº 2006-010970\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at eighteen hours and two minutes of July twenty-six, two thousand six.\n\nAction of unconstitutionality brought by Nombre01, of legal age, married twice, farmer, holder of identity card number CED01, resident of Nicoya, in his capacity as candidate for Mayor of the city of Nicoya; against the amendment to Article 148 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) through Law No. 7619 of July 24, 1996.\n\nResultando:\n\n1.- By brief received via fax at the Secretariat of the Chamber at 13:03 hours on July 13, 2006, the petitioner claims that in national political life an aberration has occurred in recent years in many aspects such as the increase in hydrocarbons, food, public services, corruption, and crime, which the previous government could not sustain, and to top it off, Article 148 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) was amended, benefiting some and overriding the social class and the country's history. He indicates that the amendment allows that when a holiday (feriado) falls midweek, its enjoyment is transferred to the following Monday, as has happened with July 25 and August 15, which in his judgment tarnishes national history, disregarding that the voluntary annexation cost blood, for which reason he wonders how it will be explained to students that July 25 is the date of celebration, but that by law it will now be on another date, violating the rights of the child, since values and truths must be instilled in them. He expresses that this change was never consulted with the people, since what has been marked by history should not be changed by modern filibusters. Furthermore, he refers to how regrettable it was to grant the Municipality of Puntarenas, via decree, the administration of Cóbano, Lepanto, and Paquera, which was never established in the annexation act, and there has been no way for the Constitutional Chamber to understand that that decree is unconstitutional.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition submitted to its knowledge that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is the mere reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar previous petition that was rejected.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,\n\nConsiderando:\n\nÚNICO.- On admissibility. Regarding the need to have a prior case (asunto previo) for the filing of an action of unconstitutionality, this Chamber, in judgment number 1997-01319 of fourteen hours and fifty-one minutes of March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, established:\n\n\"…The rigor in standing to access the constitutional jurisdiction, rather than constituting an obstacle to prevent the review of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel of the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a 'prior case' (asunto previo) that has motivated that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution, to maintain the special jurisdictional function, and not to distort the purity of the system of relationship of the constitutional powers of the State, of which the Chamber is a part, because as a member of those, it is not entirely free and unlimited in its actions. For this reason, the action of unconstitutionality requires its existence—of the prior case—as a reasonable means to protect the defense of the right or interest considered injured. However, the reasonableness of the action of unconstitutionality as a means of defense of the petitioner should not be analyzed only within the context of the prior case, but immersed in the constitutional legal framework that governs the actions of this Chamber. It is not, then, a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision, to file an action without requiring the existence of a pending case to be resolved, but rather it is necessary to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest deemed injured…\"\n\nIn the case before us, Mr. Nombre01 files his action without complying with the minimum requirements established in the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), among them, of paramount and insurmountable importance, that of having a prior case (asunto previo) as a reasonable means, which is not even mentioned in the petition, for which reason the action of unconstitutionality is inadmissible.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\n\nPresidenta a.i.\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.\n\nGilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.\n\nHoracio González Q. Jorge Araya G.\n\nAdditionally, he refers to how regrettable it was to grant the Municipalidad de Puntarenas, via decree, the administration of Cóbano, Lepanto, and Paquera, something never determined in the acta de anexión, and there has been no way for the Sala Constitucional to understand that this decree is unconstitutional.\n\n**2.-** Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Sala to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition submitted for its consideration that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is the simple reiteration or reproduction of an equal or similar previous petition that was rejected.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate **Calzada Miranda**; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**SOLE.- On admissibility.** Regarding the need to have a pending matter (asunto previo) for the filing of an acción de inconstitucionalidad, this Sala, in judgment number 1997-01319 of fourteen hours and fifty-one minutes on March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven, established:\n\n*\"…The rigor in the standing to access the constitutional jurisdiction, more than constituting an obstacle to impede the control of the constitutionality of laws, constitutes the channel of the right of access to justice, derived from the existence of a 'pending matter' (asunto previo) that has motivated that discordance or contradiction between the law and the Constitution, to maintain the special jurisdictional function, and not distort the purity of the system of relations of the constitutional powers of the State, of which the Sala is a part, because as a member of those, it is not entirely free and unlimited in its actions. For this reason, the acción de inconstitucionalidad requires its existence –of the pending matter (asunto previo)– as a reasonable means to protect the defense of the right or interest that is considered harmed. However, the reasonableness of the acción de inconstitucionalidad as a means of defense for the petitioner should not be analyzed solely within the context of the pending matter (asunto previo), but immersed in the constitutional legal framework that governs the actions of this Sala. It is not, then, a particular consideration of the unconstitutionality of a normative provision, to file an action without requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution, but rather, it is necessary to demonstrate that it constitutes a reasonable means of protecting the right or interest that is deemed harmed…\"*\n\nIn the case before us, Mr. Nombre01 files his action without fulfilling the minimum requirements established in the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, among them, of critical and insurmountable importance, having a pending matter (asunto previo) as a reasonable means, which is not even mentioned in the petition, for which reason, the acción de inconstitucionalidad is improper.\n\n**Therefore:**\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\n\nActing President\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Adrián Vargas B.\n\nGilbert Armijo S. Fernando Cruz C.\n\nHoracio González Q. Jorge Araya G."
}