{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-455478", "citation": "Res. 08917-2009 Sala Constitucional", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "title_es": "Rechazo de acción de inconstitucionalidad contra Ley 8702 por omisiones legislativas", "title_en": "Dismissal of unconstitutionality action against Law 8702 for legislative omissions", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano una acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por la Asociación para la Protección Agropecuaria (ASOPROA) contra los artículos 1, 7 y 8 de la Ley 8702, Trámite de Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos. Los accionantes alegaban que dichas normas omiten requisitos técnicos esenciales para el registro de agroquímicos, lo que vulnera los derechos a la salud y a un ambiente sano consagrados en el artículo 50 constitucional. La Sala determinó que la acción era inadmisible por dos razones: primero, porque las omisiones denunciadas no derivan de un mandato constitucional expreso, único supuesto en que procede el control de omisiones legislativas; segundo, porque lo pretendido era que el Tribunal actuara como legislador positivo, estableciendo los requisitos que la ley debería contener, función que le está vedada. La Sala reafirmó su rol de legislador negativo, limitado a expulsar normas inconstitucionales, y subrayó que la fijación de requisitos técnicos para el registro de agroquímicos es competencia discrecional del legislador.", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismissed an unconstitutionality action brought by the Agricultural Protection Association (ASOPROA) against Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law 8702, Procedure for Agro-Chemical Registration Applications. The plaintiffs argued that these norms omit essential technical requirements for the registration of agrochemicals, thereby violating the rights to health and a healthy environment enshrined in Article 50 of the Constitution. The Chamber found the action inadmissible on two grounds: first, the alleged omissions do not stem from an express constitutional mandate—the only circumstance permitting review of legislative omissions; second, the plaintiffs were effectively seeking that the Court act as a positive legislator by prescribing the requirements the law should contain, a function beyond its powers. The Chamber reaffirmed its role as a negative legislator, limited to striking down unconstitutional norms, and emphasized that the establishment of technical requirements for agrochemical registration is a matter of legislative discretion.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Constitucional", "date": "27/05/2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [], "primary_topic_id": null, "es_concept_hints": [ "legislador negativo", "omisiones legislativas", "mandato constitucional expreso", "intereses difusos", "numerus clausus", "principio de razonabilidad", "registro de agroquímicos", "Sala Constitucional" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Trámite de las Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8702", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Trámite de las Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8702", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Trámite de las Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos", "article": "8", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8702", "article": "8", "doc_id": "norm-64772", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "acción de inconstitucionalidad", "Sala Constitucional", "Ley 8702", "agroquímicos", "legislador negativo", "omisiones legislativas", "salud pública", "ambiente sano", "intereses difusos", "rechazo de plano" ], "keywords_en": [ "constitutionality action", "Constitutional Chamber", "Law 8702", "agrochemicals", "negative legislator", "legislative omissions", "public health", "healthy environment", "diffuse interests", "summarily dismissed" ], "excerpt_es": "III.- INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA ACCIÓN EN RAZÓN DEL OBJETO DE IMPUGNACIÓN. ... Al respecto, cabe mencionar que si bien este Tribunal Constitucional se encuentra facultado para actuar como un legislador negativo, con la potestad de anular del ordenamiento jurídico todas aquellas normas que considere inconstitucionales, lo cierto es que se encuentra impedido para actuar como un legislador positivo creador de normas. ... solo aquellas omisiones que se producen como consecuencia de un mandato expreso y directo contenido en el derecho de la Constitución pueden ser objeto de control de constitucionalidad por la vía de la acción. Ahora bien, en el caso concreto, las omisiones impugnadas por los accionantes no provienen de un mandato expreso del constituyente... Asimismo, al ser éste un Tribunal que actúa como legislador negativo, que queda claro que una eventual sentencia estimatoria, con la consecuente eliminación de la norma, no repararía las omisiones indicadas por los accionantes... Por otro lado, se observa que, en el fondo, lo que los accionantes pretenden es que esta Sala determine si los requisitos que las normas exigen para el registro de un agroquímico son técnica y científicamente procedentes o no... es preciso indicar que este Tribunal no es el órgano competente para ejercer esa función, pues ello es una competencia asignada al legislador...", "excerpt_en": "III.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE OBJECT OF THE CHALLENGE. ... In this regard, it should be noted that although this Constitutional Court is authorized to act as a negative legislator, with the power to annul from the legal system all those norms it considers unconstitutional, the fact is that it is prevented from acting as a positive legislator creating norms. ... only those omissions that arise as a consequence of an express and direct mandate contained in the Constitution can be subject to constitutional review by way of the action. Now, in the specific case, the omissions challenged by the plaintiffs do not derive from an express mandate of the constituent power... Likewise, since this is a Court that acts as a negative legislator, it is clear that a hypothetical granting judgment, with the consequent elimination of the norm, would not cure the omissions indicated by the plaintiffs... Furthermore, it is observed that, in essence, what the plaintiffs seek is for this Chamber to determine whether the requirements that the norms demand for the registration of an agrochemical are technically and scientifically appropriate or not... it is necessary to point out that this Court is not the competent body to exercise that function, since that is a power assigned to the legislator...", "outcome": { "label_en": "Inadmissible", "label_es": "Inadmisible", "summary_en": "The Constitutional Chamber summarily dismissed the unconstitutionality action as inadmissible, since it sought to have the Court act as a positive legislator and the alleged omissions did not stem from an express constitutional mandate.", "summary_es": "La Sala Constitucional rechazó de plano la acción de inconstitucionalidad por considerarla improcedente, al pretenderse que el Tribunal actuara como legislador positivo y al no derivar las omisiones alegadas de un mandato constitucional expreso." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "this Constitutional Court is authorized to act as a negative legislator, with the power to annul from the legal system all those norms it considers unconstitutional, the fact is that it is prevented from acting as a positive legislator creating norms.", "quote_es": "este Tribunal Constitucional se encuentra facultado para actuar como un legislador negativo, con la potestad de anular del ordenamiento jurídico todas aquellas normas que considere inconstitucionales, lo cierto es que se encuentra impedido para actuar como un legislador positivo creador de normas." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "only those omissions that arise as a consequence of an express and direct mandate contained in the Constitution can be subject to constitutional review by way of the action.", "quote_es": "solo aquellas omisiones que se producen como consecuencia de un mandato expreso y directo contenido en el derecho de la Constitución pueden ser objeto de control de constitucionalidad por la vía de la acción." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "a hypothetical granting judgment, with the consequent elimination of the norm, would not cure the omissions indicated by the plaintiffs, so the action brought in those terms is lacking in utility and therefore is manifestly inadmissible.", "quote_es": "una eventual sentencia estimatoria, con la consecuente eliminación de la norma, no repararía las omisiones indicadas por los accionantes, por lo que la acción planteada en esos términos, carece de utilidad y por ende es manifiestamente improcedente." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1161590", "citation": "Res. 26651-2022 Sala Constitucional", "title_en": "Constitutionality of Decree 39995-MAG on pesticide registration updates", "title_es": "Constitucionalidad del Decreto 39995-MAG sobre actualización de registros de plaguicidas", "doc_type": "constitutional_decision", "date": "09/11/2022", "year": "2022" }, { "id": "norm-64772", "citation": "Ley 8702", "title_en": "Agrochemical Registration Processing Law", "title_es": "Trámite de las Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/01/2009", "year": "2009" } ], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-1161590", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "" }, { "target_id": "norm-64772", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 8702 Art. 1" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-455478", "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": [ "sen-1-0007-1161590" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "* 090012980007CO * \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n* 090012980007CO * \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nExp: 09-001298-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\nRes. Nº 2009008917 \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nSALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA\r\nCORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas y cincuenta y uno\r\nminutos del veintisiete de Mayo del dos mil nueve. \n\r\n\r\n\n \r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nAcción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por JOSÉ\r\nPABLO SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ y PATRICIA CASTRO MOLINA, abogados, en\r\nsu calidad de apoderados especiales de la ASOCIACIÓN PARA LA PROTECCIÓN\r\nAGROPECUARIA (ASOPROA); contra de los ARTÍCULOS 1, 7 Y 8 DE LA LEY 8702\r\nDENOMINADA TRÁMITE DE SOLICITUDES DE REGISTRO DE AGROQUÍMICOS. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nResultando: \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 11:50 horas del 29\r\nde enero del 2009, los accionantes solicitan que se declare la\r\ninconstitucionalidad de los artículos 1, 7 y 8 de la Ley número 8702,\r\ndenominada Trámite de Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos. Alegan que de\r\nconformidad con el artículo 75, párrafo segundo, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción\r\nConstitucional, tienen legitimación para actuar dado que acuden en defensa de intereses\r\ndifusos por tratarse de la vulneración del derecho a la salud y a un medio\r\nambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, así como la defensa de\r\nintereses colectivos de la asociación que representan, por cuanto tienen\r\nla obligación de velar por la calidad de los agroquímicos que se registran.\r\nExplican que desde su génesis la ley ha sido altamente cuestionada por la\r\nMinistra de Salud, la Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, empresas dedicadas\r\na la agricultura y agricultores en general, por la falta de exigencia de\r\nrequisitos esenciales que permitan evaluar el riesgo de los agroquímicos.\r\nSostienen que pese a dichas advertencias, el Poder Legislativo decidió aprobar\r\nlos artículos cuestionados, en perjuicio de la salud y el ambiente. Aducen que\r\nla ley solo se aplicará a las solicitudes de registro nuevo y modificaciones de\r\nplaguicidas que hayan sido presentadas con anterioridad a la publicación\r\ndel Decreto Número 33495-MAG-S-MINAE- MEIC del 31 de octubre del 2006, por lo\r\nque está creando un doble estándar de registro para productos que temporalmente\r\npueden tener su entrada al mercado. Manifiestan que la ley no se ajusta a\r\nla ciencia y la técnica, en cuanto a protección ambiental y sanitaria, dado que\r\nprevé una disminución de requisitos. Indican que ciertamente, una ley y un\r\nreglamento no se encuentran en la misma escala jerárquica, según lo establecido\r\nen el artículo número 7 de la Constitución Política; sin embargo, debe quedar\r\npatente que el Decreto Ejecutivo citado fue redactado por técnicos basados en requerimientos\r\nestablecidos por organismos internacionales como FAO, IMS y OECD y, \r\npor otro lado, la ley fue redactada por políticos con el único fin de\r\nbeneficiar a un determinado sector empresarial. Aseguran que el procedimiento\r\npara otorgar el registro de un plaguicida no es un acto de mera acumulación de\r\ndocumentos. Los requisitos solicitados a quien pretenda registrar un\r\nplaguicida, son elementos necesarios para que la autoridad de registro, basada\r\nen información técnica y científica que corresponda al producto solicitado,\r\nevalúe el mismo y pueda garantizarle a todos los costarricenses que su\r\ncomercialización y utilización no representa un riesgo inaceptable para la\r\nsalud y el ambiente. Mencionan que como consumidores de productos agrícolas, no\r\nse tiene la capacidad de escoger con qué productos químicos o biológicos fue\r\ntratado el cultivo de donde viene el alimento o producto que se está comprando\r\npara alimentar a la familia. Dicha función social ha sido delegada en el\r\nServicio Fitosanitario del Estado del Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería,\r\nquien a su vez se encuentra obligado a apoyarse en los Ministerios de Salud y\r\nde Ambiente. Por lo tanto, los requisitos que se exijan para otorgar un\r\nregistro o permiso de venta de un producto de uso agrícola deben permitir\r\nque las mencionadas dependencias gubernamentales garanticen que los\r\nconsumidores costarricenses o de mercados de productos agrícolas de exportación\r\nno corran ningún riesgo derivado de residuos de los agroquímicos con que han\r\nsido tratados los cultivos, o residuos de contaminantes que éstos puedan tener\r\ny que deben ser reportados en su totalidad y analizado su riesgo, según\r\ndirectrices internacionales generadas por organismos como la FAO y la OMS.\r\nBasados en lo anterior, afirman que no se puede registrar plaguicidas sin\r\ncontar con toda la información necesaria para resguardar los derechos\r\nfundamentales a la salud y a un ambiente sano, de conformidad con la técnica y\r\nla ciencia. Agregan que el artículo 1 de la Ley 8702 es inconstitucional, ya que\r\nel mismo establece una limitación a los derechos a la salud y al ambiente\r\nestablecidos en el artículo 50 de la Constitución Política, fuera de los\r\nparámetros de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. Afirman que el artículo\r\nestablece por la vía legal, requisitos de registro bajo ek esquema de\r\n“numerus clausus”, limitando a las autoridades de registro poder\r\nsolicitar la información que sea necesaria para garantizar a todos los\r\ncostarricenses que los productos que se registran no representan un riesgo\r\ninaceptable. Sostienen que la ley deja de lado importantes requisitos que son\r\nnecesarios para efectuar una correcta evaluación del riesgo y poder\r\ncumplir los fines del registro. En cuanto al artículo 7 impugnado,\r\nexplican que éste omite requisitos relevantes, pues según el mismo, no es\r\nnecesario que el solicitante presente las tres muestras del ingrediente activo,\r\npero este elemento es importante para que el laboratorio oficial pueda\r\nverificar las propiedades físico-químicas del producto. Reclaman que no se solicita\r\nque el registrante aporte información básica del producto, como la etiqueta, el\r\npanfleto y la hoja de seguridad, lo cual permite identificar el producto y la\r\npeligrosidad del material; no se solicita la presentación del certificado de\r\norigen del producto, lo cual es fundamental para fines de trazabilidad del\r\nmismo y la identificación de la empresa productora. Tampoco se exige la\r\npresentación referente a la composición cuali-cuantitativa del producto\r\nformulado, proveniente del análisis de al menos cinco lotes típicos. De este\r\nmodo, la autoridad no cuenta con información del contenido del ingrediente\r\nactivo de los componentes. Además, la citada ley exime de la presentación\r\nde la ruta de formulación del producto, para determinar su composición química\r\ny si existe otro componente que pudiera ser de relevancia toxicológica.\r\nAsimismo, insisten en que la norma no solicita la presentación de métodos de\r\nanálisis para la determinación del contenido de ingrediente activo en el\r\nproducto formulado, no detalla el mínimo de propiedades físicas y\r\nquímicas que deben aportarse de modo que la autoridad nacional pueda contar con\r\nuna caracterización completa del producto formulado, lo que sirve no solo para\r\ncaracterizar el material, sino para la interpretación y evaluación del riesgo\r\nasociado a la sustancia. Afirman que tampoco solicita información sobre\r\naspectos relacionados con el uso del ingrediente activo, para determinar el\r\nadecuado desempeño en el campo cuando se preparen las mezclas o caldos de\r\naplicación y para garantizar a los agricultores que el producto actúa\r\npara los fines que el solicitante estaría recomendando. Además, exonera de la\r\npresentación de información referente a los envases y embalajes propuestos, así\r\ncomo de la presentación de datos sobre el manejo del producto, información que\r\npermite conocer las características de los materiales de empaque, garantizar\r\nque el producto no afecte dichos materiales y asegurar el adecuado destino a\r\nlos empaques para evitar el impacto ambiental. Manifiestan también que la norma\r\nexime por completo la presentación de información referente a la toxicidad\r\naguda para mamíferos que muestre el riesgo para la vida humana, así como la\r\nrelacionada con la información médica como el diagnóstico y síntomas de\r\nintoxicación, tratamientos propuestos y primeros auxilios, entre otros.\r\nRespecto del artículo 8, aducen que dicho numeral carece de los siguientes\r\nrequisitos: exigencia de certificado analítico de composición química emitido\r\npor el fabricante, a efecto de garantizar la concentración del ingrediente\r\nactivo, lo cual es básico para el control de calidad y fiscalización post\r\nregistro que debe realizar la autoridad. Según dicho artículo no es necesario\r\nque el solicitante presente patrón analítico, ni las tres muestras de\r\ningrediente activo que pretende registrar, pero estos elementos son importantes\r\npara que el laboratorio oficial pueda validar los métodos de análisis, mismos\r\nque servirán para el control de calidad. Tampoco solicita que el registrante\r\naporte información del producto que pretende registrar como la etiqueta y hoja\r\nde seguridad, ni exige la presentación referente a la concentración de\r\nimpurezas proveniente del análisis de al menos cinco lotes típicos, ni solicita\r\nlos análisis de identidad ni los cromatogramas, ni la justificación de la\r\npresencia de las impurezas ni los métodos analíticos para su\r\ndeterminación, así como la información sobre quién es el fabricante. No\r\nexige la presentación de información química básica para la identidad del\r\ningrediente activo, como el fabricante, nombre común, número CAS o CIPAC,\r\nfórmula y masa molecular, fórmula estructural y grupo químico, para así contar\r\ncon un perfil de identidad de sustancias. Reclaman que el artículo no detalla\r\nel mínimo de propiedades físicas y químicas que deben aportarse, de modo que la\r\nautoridad nacional pueda contar con una caracterización completa de la\r\nsustancia. No solicita información sobre el uso del ingrediente activo, para\r\ntener una referencia inicial sobre las intenciones del uso del solicitante. Exime\r\npor completo la presentación de estudios sobre metabolismo y cinética, para\r\nconocer el comportamiento de la sustancia en animales, información que sirve de\r\nbase para establecer posibles procedimientos de manejo de pacientes ante una\r\neventual intoxicación. Aunado a ello, no solicita estudios toxicológicos\r\nsubcrónicos y crónicos, así como estudios ecotoxicológicos propios del\r\ningrediente activo que se pretende registrar, para conocer la peligrosidad y\r\nefectos en seres humanos y animales. No requiere de estudios sobre\r\nel destino ambiental del ingrediente activo, relevante para determinar el\r\ncomportamiento y los efectos de la sustancia en el suelo, agua y aire, así como\r\nlos métodos analíticos para la determinación de residuos en plantas, suelo,\r\nagua y aire. Exonera la presentación de métodos para depuración de aguas y\r\nmétodos de almacenamiento. Por lo anterior, sostienen los accionantes, que\r\neximir de los requisitos sin un sustento técnico y científico, tal como \r\nha sido explicado, para los productos químicos de uso agrícola que establece la\r\nley 8702, viola el principio de razonabilidad como parámetro de\r\nconstitucionalidad. Refieren que la redacción de los artículos 1, 7 y 8\r\nde la Ley número 8702 suponen o pueden producir un riesgo inaceptable a la\r\nsalud y el ambiente, al existir una flagrante incertidumbre científica sobre\r\nsus potenciales efectos, con lo cual es claro que se vulneran los artículos 21,\r\n46, 50 y 69 de la Constitución Política, el artículo 15 de la Declaración de\r\nRío, y el numeral 11 del Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre\r\nDerechos Humanos. Solicitan se declare la inconstitucionalidad de los artículos\r\nimpugnados. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n2.- El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala\r\na rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su\r\npresentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte\r\nser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de\r\njuicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o\r\nreproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n3.- En los procedimientos se han cumplido las prescripciones de ley. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nRedacta la Magistrada Calzada Miranda; y, \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nConsiderando: \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nI.- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS FORMALES DE\r\nADMISIBIILIDAD DE LA ACCIÓN. La acción de inconstitucionalidad es un proceso con determinadas\r\nformalidades, que deben ser satisfechas a efecto de que la Sala pueda\r\nválidamente conocer el fondo de la impugnación. En ese sentido, el artículo 75\r\nde la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establece los presupuestos de\r\nadmisibilidad de la acción de inconstitucionalidad. En un primer término, se\r\nexige la existencia de un asunto previo pendiente de resolver, sea en vía\r\njudicial, o bien, en el procedimiento para agotar de la vía\r\nadministrativa, en que se haya invocado la inconstitucionalidad como\r\nmedio razonable para amparar el derecho o interés que se considera lesionado.\r\nSin embargo, en los párrafos segundo y tercero, la ley establece de\r\nmanera excepcional presupuestos en los que no se exige el asunto\r\nprevio, cuando por la naturaleza del asunto no exista una lesión\r\nindividual y directa, o se trate de la defensa de intereses difusos o\r\ncolectivos, o bien cuando es formulada en forma directa por el Contralor\r\nGeneral de la República, el Procurador General de la República, el Fiscal\r\nGeneral de la República y el Defensor de los Habitantes. Asimismo, existen\r\notras formalidades que deben ser cumplidas , a saber, la determinación\r\nexplícita de la normativa impugnada, debidamente fundamentada, con cita\r\nconcreta de las normas y principios constitucionales que se consideren\r\ninfringidos, la autenticación por abogado del escrito en el que se plantea la\r\nacción, las copias necesarias para los magistrados de la Sala, la Procuraduría\r\ny las partes que intervienen en el asunto principal, la acreditación de las\r\ncondiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), así como la\r\ncertificación literal del libelo de impugnación, los cuales, en caso de no ser\r\naportadas por los accionantes, deben ser prevenidos para su cumplimiento por el\r\nPresidente de la Sala. En el caso concreto, los accionantes acuden en\r\ndefensa de intereses difusos por tratarse lo cuestionado de un tema de salud\r\npública y ambiente, por lo que de conformidad con el artículo 75, párrafo\r\nsegundo de la Ley de cita, estarían legitimados para actuar. Por otro lado, se\r\nobserva que omitieron aportar y cancelar el timbre correspondiente al Colegio\r\nde Abogados; no obstante, se omite el trámite de prevención, toda vez que la\r\nacción resulta inadmisible por los motivos que se analizarán a\r\ncontinuación. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nII.- OBJETO DE LA ACCIÓN. Solicitan los accionantes que se declare\r\nla inconstitucionalidad de los artículos 1, 7 y 8 de la Ley número 8702,\r\ndenominada Trámite de Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos, toda vez, que la\r\nley no exige una serie de requisitos técnicos esenciales que a su juicio deben\r\nser requeridos a efecto de registrar un agroquímico. Con tales omisiones\r\nestiman vulnerados los derechos fundamentales a la salud y a un ambiente\r\nsano y ecológicamente equilibrado. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nIII.- INADMISIBILIDAD DE LA ACCIÓN EN RAZÓN DEL\r\nOBJETO DE IMPUGNACIÓN. La\r\nacción resulta inadmisible en razón del objeto, por dos motivos. En primer\r\ntérmino, los accionantes solicitan que se declare la inconstitucionalidad de\r\nlos artículos 1, 7 y 8 de la Ley número 8702, denominada Trámite de\r\nSolicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos, aduciendo que la ley no exige una\r\nserie de requisitos técnicos esenciales que, a su juicio, deben ser\r\nrequeridos a efecto de registrar un agroquímico, por lo que esas omisiones\r\ncontravienen los derechos fundamentales a la salud y a un ambiente sano y\r\necológicamente equilibrado. Al respecto, cabe mencionar que si bien este\r\nTribunal Constitucional se encuentra facultado para actuar como un legislador\r\nnegativo, con la potestad de anular del ordenamiento jurídico todas\r\naquellas normas que considere inconstitucionales, lo cierto es que se encuentra\r\nimpedido para actuar como un legislador positivo creador de normas. Por otra\r\nparte, aún cuando esta Sala es competente para conocer de las omisiones\r\nlegislativas conforme lo establece el artículo 73 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción\r\nConstitucional, es importante aclarar que no toda omisión normativa puede ser\r\nobjeto de impugnación por esta vía. En ese sentido, solo aquellas omisiones que\r\nse producen como consecuencia de un mandato expreso y directo contenido en el\r\nderecho de la Constitución pueden ser objeto de control de constitucionalidad\r\npor la vía de la acción. Ahora bien, en el caso concreto, las omisiones\r\nimpugnadas por los accionantes no provienen de un mandato expreso del\r\nconstituyente, se trata más bien de omisiones que éstos dicen encontrar en el\r\ntexto de la ley, sin que el deber de legislar en el sentido explicado por \r\nlos actores provenga de la Constitución Política. Asimismo, al ser éste\r\nun Tribunal que actúa como legislador negativo, que queda claro que una\r\neventual sentencia estimatoria, con la consecuente eliminación de la\r\nnorma, no repararía las omisiones indicadas por los accionantes, por lo\r\nque la acción planteada en esos términos, carece de utilidad y por ende es\r\nmanifiestamente improcedente. Por otro lado, se observa que, en el\r\nfondo, lo que los accionantes pretenden es que esta Sala determine si los\r\nrequisitos que las normas exigen para el registro de un agroquímico son \r\ntécnica y científicamente procedentes o no y, en caso de no serlo,\r\npronunciarse sobre la lista de requisitos que a su juicio debería contener la\r\nnormativa. Sin embargo, es preciso indicar que este Tribunal no es el órgano\r\ncompetente para ejercer esa función, pues ello es una competencia asignada al\r\nlegislador, quien en uso de sus potestades discrecionales se encarga de\r\ndiseñar los procedimientos y requisitos legales que deben cumplirse para\r\nel registro de agroquímicos en el país. Únicamente, en aquellos casos en los\r\nque el legislador excede esa potestad discrecional en perjuicio directo de los\r\nderechos fundamentales de las personas es que esta Sala puede válidamente\r\nconocer y pronunciarse al respecto. Sin embargo, como en este caso lo impugnado\r\nno es en sí el texto de las normas o la discrecionalidad del\r\nlegislador, sino aquello que a criterio de los actores omite la ley, este\r\nTribunal no puede pronunciarse con el fin suplantar competencias y establecer esos\r\nrequisitos. Bajo tales circunstancias, la acción resulta inadmisible. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- CONCLUSIÓN. En virtud de lo expuesto, se impone rechazar de\r\nplano la acción. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nPor tanto: \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nSe rechaza de plano la acción. \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M. \n\r\n\r\n\nPresidenta a.i. \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n Luis\r\nPaulino Mora M.\r\n Gilbert\r\nArmijo S. \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n Ernesto\r\nJinesta L.\r\n Rosa\r\nMaría Abdelnour G. \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n Horacio\r\nGonzález Q.\r\n Roxana\r\nSalazar C. \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 09-001298-0007-CO \n\r\n\r\n\n \n\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nTeléfonos:\r\n2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica:\r\nwww.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional", "body_en_text": "Exp: 09-001298-0007-CO\n\nRes. No. 2009008917\n\nCONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and fifty-one minutes on the twenty-seventh of May, two thousand nine.\n\nUnconstitutionality action brought by JOSÉ PABLO SÁNCHEZ HERNÁNDEZ and PATRICIA CASTRO MOLINA, attorneys, in their capacity as special representatives of the ASSOCIATION FOR AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION (ASOPROA); against ARTICLES 1, 7, AND 8 OF LAW 8702, CALLED PROCEDURE FOR AGROCHEMICAL REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS.\n\nWhereas:\n\n1.- By written submission received in the Secretariat of the Chamber at 11:50 hours on January 29, 2009, the plaintiffs request that the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law Number 8702, called Procedure for Agrochemical Registration Applications, be declared. They allege that, in accordance with Article 75, second paragraph, of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, they have standing to act given that they appear in defense of diffuse interests because it involves the violation of the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the defense of collective interests of the association they represent, because they have the obligation to ensure the quality of the agrochemicals that are registered. They explain that since its genesis, the law has been highly questioned by the Minister of Health, the Chamber of Exporters of Costa Rica, companies dedicated to agriculture, and farmers in general, for the lack of requirement of essential prerequisites that allow the risk of agrochemicals to be evaluated. They maintain that despite these warnings, the Legislative Branch decided to approve the questioned articles, to the detriment of health and the environment. They argue that the law will only apply to new registration applications and modifications of pesticides that were submitted prior to the publication of Decree Number 33495-MAG-S-MINAE-MEIC of October 31, 2006, thus creating a double registration standard for products that may temporarily enter the market. They state that the law does not conform to science and technique, regarding environmental and sanitary protection, given that it provides for a reduction in requirements. They indicate that certainly, a law and a regulation are not on the same hierarchical scale, as established in Article 7 of the Political Constitution; however, it must be evident that the cited Executive Decree was drafted by technicians based on requirements established by international organizations such as FAO, IMS, and OECD and, on the other hand, the law was drafted by politicians with the sole purpose of benefiting a specific business sector. They assert that the procedure for granting the registration of a pesticide is not an act of mere accumulation of documents. The requirements requested of anyone intending to register a pesticide are necessary elements so that the registration authority, based on technical and scientific information corresponding to the requested product, evaluates it and can guarantee all Costa Ricans that its commercialization and use does not represent an unacceptable risk to health and the environment. They mention that as consumers of agricultural products, one does not have the ability to choose with which chemical or biological products the crop was treated from which the food or product being bought to feed the family comes. This social function has been delegated to the State Plant Protection Service (Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, which in turn is obligated to rely on the Ministries of Health and Environment. Therefore, the requirements demanded to grant a registration or sale permit for an agricultural use product must allow the mentioned governmental dependencies to guarantee that Costa Rican consumers or those of export agricultural product markets do not run any risk derived from residues of the agrochemicals with which the crops have been treated, or residues of contaminants that these may have and that must be reported in their entirety and their risk analyzed, according to international guidelines generated by organizations such as FAO and WHO. Based on the foregoing, they affirm that pesticides cannot be registered without having all the information necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights to health and a healthy environment, in accordance with technique and science. They add that Article 1 of Law 8702 is unconstitutional, since it establishes a limitation on the rights to health and the environment established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, outside the parameters of reasonableness and proportionality. They affirm that the article establishes, by legal means, registration requirements under a \"numerus clausus\" scheme, limiting the registration authorities' ability to request the information necessary to guarantee all Costa Ricans that the products registered do not represent an unacceptable risk. They maintain that the law leaves aside important requirements that are necessary to carry out a correct risk assessment and to fulfill the purposes of registration. Regarding the challenged Article 7, they explain that it omits relevant requirements, since according to it, it is not necessary for the applicant to present the three samples of the active ingredient, but this element is important so that the official laboratory can verify the physicochemical properties of the product. They complain that the registrant is not required to provide basic product information, such as the label, pamphlet, and safety data sheet, which allows the product and the hazardousness of the material to be identified; the presentation of the certificate of origin of the product is not requested, which is fundamental for its traceability purposes and the identification of the producing company. Nor is the presentation required regarding the quali-quantitative composition of the formulated product, coming from the analysis of at least five typical batches. In this way, the authority does not have information on the content of the active ingredient of the components. Furthermore, the cited law exempts from the presentation of the product formulation route, to determine its chemical composition and whether there exists another component that could be of toxicological relevance. Likewise, they insist that the regulation does not request the presentation of analytical methods for the determination of the active ingredient content in the formulated product, does not detail the minimum physical and chemical properties that must be provided so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the formulated product, which serves not only to characterize the material, but also for the interpretation and evaluation of the risk associated with the substance. They affirm that it also does not request information on aspects related to the use of the active ingredient, to determine adequate performance in the field when application mixtures or broths are prepared and to guarantee farmers that the product acts for the purposes that the applicant would be recommending. Moreover, it exempts from the presentation of information regarding the proposed containers and packaging, as well as the presentation of data on product handling, information that allows knowing the characteristics of the packaging materials, guaranteeing that the product does not affect said materials, and ensuring the appropriate destination for packaging to avoid environmental impact. They also state that the regulation completely exempts the presentation of information regarding acute toxicity for mammals that demonstrates the risk to human life, as well as that related to medical information such as diagnosis and symptoms of intoxication, proposed treatments, and first aid, among others. Regarding Article 8, they argue that this article lacks the following requirements: requirement of an analytical certificate of chemical composition issued by the manufacturer, in order to guarantee the concentration of the active ingredient, which is basic for quality control and post-registration oversight that the authority must carry out. According to said article, it is not necessary for the applicant to present an analytical standard, nor the three samples of the active ingredient they intend to register, but these elements are important so that the official laboratory can validate the analytical methods, which will serve for quality control. It also does not request that the registrant provide information on the product they intend to register, such as the label and safety data sheet, nor does it require the presentation regarding the concentration of impurities from the analysis of at least five typical batches, nor does it request identity analyses or chromatograms, nor justification for the presence of impurities, nor the analytical methods for their determination, as well as information on who the manufacturer is. It does not require the presentation of basic chemical information for the identity of the active ingredient, such as the manufacturer, common name, CAS or CIPAC number, formula and molecular mass, structural formula, and chemical group, in order to have a substance identity profile. They complain that the article does not detail the minimum physical and chemical properties that must be provided, so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the substance. It does not request information on the use of the active ingredient, to have an initial reference regarding the applicant's intended uses. It completely exempts the presentation of metabolism and kinetics studies, to understand the behavior of the substance in animals, information that serves as a basis for establishing possible patient management procedures in the event of an eventual intoxication. In addition to this, it does not request subchronic and chronic toxicological studies, as well as ecotoxicological studies specific to the active ingredient intended to be registered, to understand the hazardousness and effects on humans and animals. It does not require studies on the environmental fate of the active ingredient, relevant for determining the behavior and effects of the substance in soil, water, and air, as well as analytical methods for the determination of residues in plants, soil, water, and air. It exempts the presentation of methods for water purification and storage methods. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs maintain that exempting from the requirements without technical and scientific support, as has been explained, for chemical products for agricultural use established by Law 8702, violates the principle of reasonableness as a parameter of constitutionality. They refer that the drafting of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law Number 8702 implies or may produce an unacceptable risk to health and the environment, given the existence of flagrant scientific uncertainty regarding its potential effects, whereby it is clear that Articles 21, 46, 50, and 69 of the Political Constitution, Article 15 of the Rio Declaration, and Article 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights are violated. They request that the unconstitutionality of the challenged articles be declared.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition brought to its attention that turns out to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient grounds for judgment to reject it, or that it involves the simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous, identical, or similar petition that was rejected.\n\n3.- The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- ON THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION. The unconstitutionality action is a process with specific formalities, which must be satisfied so that the Chamber can validly hear the merits of the challenge. In this regard, Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the requirements for admissibility of the unconstitutionality action. In the first instance, the existence of a prior matter pending resolution is required, either through judicial channels, or in the procedure for exhausting the administrative channel, in which the unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest that is considered harmed. However, in the second and third paragraphs, the law exceptionally establishes requirements where the prior matter is not required, when, due to the nature of the matter, no individual and direct harm exists, or it concerns the defense of diffuse or collective interests, or when it is filed directly by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic, and the Ombudsman. Likewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered infringed, authentication by an attorney of the document in which the action is filed, the necessary copies for the magistrates of the Chamber, the Attorney General's Office, and the parties intervening in the main matter, accreditation of the conditions of standing (powers of attorney and certifications), as well as the literal certification of the libel of challenge, which, if not provided by the plaintiffs, must be ordered for their compliance by the President of the Chamber. In the specific case, the plaintiffs appear in defense of diffuse interests because the matter questioned concerns a public health and environmental issue, therefore, in accordance with Article 75, second paragraph of the cited Law, they would have standing to act. On the other hand, it is observed that they omitted to provide and pay for the stamp corresponding to the Bar Association; however, the prevention procedure is omitted, given that the action is inadmissible for the reasons that will be analyzed below.\n\nII.- OBJECT OF THE ACTION. The plaintiffs request that the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law Number 8702, called Procedure for Agrochemical Registration Applications, be declared, given that the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that, in their judgment, must be required in order to register an agrochemical. With such omissions, they estimate that the fundamental rights to health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment are violated.\n\nIII.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION BASED ON THE OBJECT OF CHALLENGE. The action is inadmissible based on the object, for two reasons. In the first instance, the plaintiffs request that the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law Number 8702, called Procedure for Agrochemical Registration Applications, be declared, arguing that the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that, in their judgment, must be required in order to register an agrochemical, such that these omissions contravene the fundamental rights to health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that although this Constitutional Court is empowered to act as a negative legislator, with the power to annul from the legal system all those norms it considers unconstitutional, the truth is that it is prevented from acting as a positive legislator who creates norms. On the other hand, even though this Chamber is competent to hear legislative omissions as established in Article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, it is important to clarify that not every normative omission can be the object of challenge through this channel. In that sense, only those omissions that occur as a consequence of an express and direct mandate contained in the law of the Constitution can be subject to constitutional control through this action. Now, in the specific case, the omissions challenged by the plaintiffs do not arise from an express mandate of the constituent; rather, they are omissions that these parties claim to find in the text of the law, without the duty to legislate in the sense explained by the actors deriving from the Political Constitution. Likewise, given that this is a Court that acts as a negative legislator, it is clear that an eventual favorable ruling, with the consequent elimination of the norm, would not remedy the omissions indicated by the plaintiffs, therefore, the action filed in those terms lacks utility and is, consequently, manifestly improper. On the other hand, it is observed that, in essence, what the plaintiffs seek is for this Chamber to determine whether the requirements that the norms demand for the registration of an agrochemical are technically and scientifically appropriate or not and, if they are not, to rule on the list of requirements that, in their judgment, the regulation should contain. However, it is necessary to indicate that this Court is not the competent body to exercise that function, as this is a competence assigned to the legislator, who, in the use of their discretionary powers, is responsible for designing the legal procedures and requirements that must be met for the registration of agrochemicals in the country. Only in those cases where the legislator exceeds that discretionary power to the direct detriment of the fundamental rights of individuals, can this Chamber validly hear and rule on the matter. However, since in this case what is challenged is not the text of the norms themselves or the discretion of the legislator, but what, in the actors' opinion, the law omits, this Court cannot rule with the aim of supplanting competences and establishing those requirements. Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible.\n\nIV.- CONCLUSION. By virtue of the foregoing, outright rejection of the action is appropriate.\n\nTherefore:\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\nPresident a.i.\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M.\nGilbert Armijo S.\n\nErnesto Jinesta L.\nRosa María Abdelnour G.\n\nHoracio González Q.\nRoxana Salazar C.\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 09-001298-0007-CO\n\nTelephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Electronic address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional\n\nThat social function has been delegated to the State Phytosanitary Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, which in turn is obligated to rely on the Ministries of Health and Environment. Therefore, the requirements demanded to grant a registration or sales permit for an agricultural use product must allow the aforementioned governmental agencies to ensure that Costa Rican consumers or markets for agricultural export products do not run any risk derived from residues of the agrochemicals with which the crops have been treated, or residues of contaminants that these may contain and that must be reported in their entirety and their risk analyzed, according to international guidelines generated by organizations such as the FAO and the WHO. Based on the foregoing, they affirm that pesticides cannot be registered without having all the necessary information to safeguard the fundamental rights to health and a healthy environment, in accordance with technique and science. They add that Article 1 of Law 8702 is unconstitutional, since it establishes a limitation on the rights to health and the environment established in Article 50 of the Political Constitution, outside the parameters of reasonableness and proportionality. They affirm that the article establishes, by legal means, registration requirements under the “numerus clausus” scheme, limiting the registration authorities’ ability to request the information necessary to guarantee to all Costa Ricans that the products being registered do not represent an unacceptable risk. They maintain that the law leaves aside important requirements that are necessary to carry out a correct risk assessment and to be able to fulfill the purposes of registration. Regarding the challenged Article 7, they explain that it omits relevant requirements, since according to it, it is not necessary for the applicant to submit the three samples of the active ingredient (ingrediente activo), but this element is important so that the official laboratory can verify the physicochemical properties of the product. They complain that the registrant is not required to provide basic product information, such as the label, the leaflet, and the safety data sheet, which allows for the identification of the product and the hazardousness of the material; the submission of the certificate of origin of the product is not required, which is fundamental for its traceability purposes and the identification of the producing company. Nor is the submission regarding the qualitative-quantitative composition of the formulated product, from the analysis of at least five typical batches, required. In this way, the authority does not have information on the active ingredient content of the components. In addition, the cited law exempts the submission of the product formulation route, to determine its chemical composition and whether there is another component that could be of toxicological relevance. Likewise, they insist that the regulation does not require the submission of analytical methods for determining the active ingredient content in the formulated product, it does not detail the minimum of physical and chemical properties that must be provided so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the formulated product, which serves not only to characterize the material, but also for the interpretation and assessment of the risk associated with the substance. They affirm that it also does not require information on aspects related to the use of the active ingredient, to determine adequate field performance when application mixtures or sprays are prepared and to guarantee to farmers that the product acts for the purposes that the applicant would be recommending. Furthermore, it exonerates from the submission of information regarding the proposed containers and packaging, as well as the submission of data on product handling, information that allows for knowing the characteristics of the packaging materials, guaranteeing that the product does not affect said materials, and ensuring adequate disposal of the packaging to avoid environmental impact (impacto ambiental). They also state that the regulation completely exempts the submission of information regarding acute mammalian toxicity that shows the risk to human life, as well as information related to medical information such as the diagnosis and symptoms of poisoning, proposed treatments, and first aid, among others. Regarding Article 8, they argue that said numeral lacks the following requirements: requirement of an analytical certificate of chemical composition issued by the manufacturer, in order to guarantee the concentration of the active ingredient, which is basic for quality control and post-registration oversight that the authority must carry out. According to said article, it is not necessary for the applicant to submit an analytical standard, nor the three samples of the active ingredient intended to be registered, but these elements are important so that the official laboratory can validate the analytical methods, which will serve for quality control. Nor does it require that the registrant provide information on the product it intends to register, such as the label and safety data sheet, nor does it demand the submission regarding the concentration of impurities from the analysis of at least five typical batches, nor does it require identity analyses or chromatograms, nor the justification for the presence of impurities nor the analytical methods for their determination, as well as information on who the manufacturer is. It does not require the submission of basic chemical information for the identity of the active ingredient, such as the manufacturer, common name, CAS or CIPAC number, molecular formula and mass, structural formula, and chemical group, in order to have an identity profile for the substance. They complain that the article does not detail the minimum of physical and chemical properties that must be provided, so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the substance. It does not require information on the use of the active ingredient, to have an initial reference on the applicant's intended use. It completely exempts the submission of metabolism and kinetics studies, to understand the behavior of the substance in animals, information that serves as a basis for establishing possible patient management procedures in the event of a potential poisoning. In addition to this, it does not require subchronic and chronic toxicological studies, as well as ecotoxicological studies specific to the active ingredient intended to be registered, to ascertain the hazardousness and effects on humans and animals. It does not require studies on the environmental fate of the active ingredient, relevant for determining the behavior and effects of the substance in soil, water, and air, as well as analytical methods for the determination of residues in plants, soil, water, and air. It exonerates the submission of methods for water purification and storage methods. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs maintain that exempting the requirements without technical and scientific support, as has been explained, for agricultural use chemical products (productos químicos de uso agrícola) established by Law 8702, violates the principle of reasonableness as a parameter of constitutionality. They refer that the wording of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law number 8702 presupposes or may produce an unacceptable risk to health and the environment, as there is a blatant scientific uncertainty about their potential effects, whereby it is clear that Articles 21, 46, 50, and 69 of the Political Constitution, Article 15 of the Rio Declaration, and numeral 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights are violated. They request that the unconstitutionality of the challenged articles be declared.\n\n2.- Article 9 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any motion submitted to its consideration that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a previously rejected equal or similar motion.\n\n3.- In the proceedings, the legal prescriptions have been fulfilled.\n\nDrafted by Magistrate Calzada Miranda; and,\n\nConsidering:\n\nI.- ON THE FORMAL PREREQUISITES FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION. The action of unconstitutionality is a process with certain formalities, which must be satisfied so that the Chamber can validly hear the merits of the challenge. In that sense, Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction establishes the prerequisites for the admissibility of the action of unconstitutionality. First, the existence of a prior pending matter to be resolved is required, whether in judicial proceedings, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative remedy, in which unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered to be harmed. However, in the second and third paragraphs, the law exceptionally establishes prerequisites in which the prior matter is not required, when due to the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct injury, or it involves the defense of diffuse or collective interests (intereses difusos o colectivos), or when it is filed directly by the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Republic, the Prosecutor General of the Republic, and the Ombudsman. Likewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles considered to be infringed, the authentication by a lawyer of the brief in which the action is filed, the necessary copies for the magistrates of the Chamber, the Attorney General's Office, and the parties intervening in the main matter, the accreditation of the conditions of standing (powers of attorney and certifications), as well as the literal certification of the libel of challenge, which, in case they are not provided by the plaintiffs, must be ordered for compliance by the President of the Chamber. In the specific case, the plaintiffs appear in defense of diffuse interests because what is questioned concerns a matter of public health and environment, therefore, in accordance with Article 75, second paragraph of the cited Law, they would have standing to act. On the other hand, it is observed that they omitted to provide and pay the corresponding stamp duty of the Bar Association; however, the procedural step of ordering compliance is omitted, since the action is inadmissible for the reasons that will be analyzed below.\n\nII.- OBJECT OF THE ACTION. The plaintiffs request that the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law number 8702, called Processing of Agrochemical Registration Applications, be declared, since the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that in their judgment must be required in order to register an agrochemical. With such omissions, they consider the fundamental rights to health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment to be violated.\n\nIII.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION DUE TO THE OBJECT OF CHALLENGE. The action is inadmissible due to its object, for two reasons. First, the plaintiffs request that the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 7, and 8 of Law number 8702, called Processing of Agrochemical Registration Applications, be declared, arguing that the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that, in their judgment, must be required in order to register an agrochemical, so that those omissions contravene the fundamental rights to health and a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In this regard, it should be mentioned that although this Constitutional Court is empowered to act as a negative legislator, with the power to annul from the legal system all those norms it considers unconstitutional, the truth is that it is prevented from acting as a positive legislator creator of norms. On the other hand, even though this Chamber is competent to hear legislative omissions as established in Article 73 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, it is important to clarify that not every normative omission can be the subject of challenge through this means. In that sense, only those omissions that occur as a consequence of an express and direct mandate contained in the Constitution can be subject to constitutionality control through the action. Now then, in the specific case, the omissions challenged by the plaintiffs do not originate from an express mandate of the constituent power; they are rather omissions that they claim to find in the text of the law, without the duty to legislate in the sense explained by the plaintiffs originating from the Political Constitution. Likewise, as this is a Court that acts as a negative legislator, it is clear that a potential favorable ruling, with the consequent elimination of the norm, would not remedy the omissions indicated by the plaintiffs, so the action framed in those terms lacks utility and is therefore manifestly inadmissible. On the other hand, it is observed that, in essence, what the plaintiffs intend is for this Chamber to determine whether the requirements that the norms demand for the registration of an agrochemical are technically and scientifically appropriate or not, and, if they are not, to pronounce on the list of requirements that, in their judgment, the regulations should contain. However, it is necessary to indicate that this Court is not the competent body to exercise that function, as that is a competence assigned to the legislator, who in use of their discretionary powers is responsible for designing the legal procedures and requirements that must be met for the registration of agrochemicals in the country. Only in those cases where the legislator exceeds that discretionary power to the direct detriment of the fundamental rights of individuals can this Chamber validly hear and pronounce on the matter. However, as in this case what is challenged is not the text of the norms or the legislator's discretion itself, but rather what in the opinion of the plaintiffs the law omits, this Court cannot pronounce itself for the purpose of supplanting competences and establishing those requirements. Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible.\n\nIV.- CONCLUSION. By virtue of the foregoing, the outright rejection of the action is required.\n\nPor tanto:\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\nPresidenta a.i.\n\n Luis Paulino Mora M. Gilbert Armijo S.\n\n Ernesto Jinesta L. Rosa María Abdelnour G.\n\n Horacio González Q. Roxana Salazar C.\n\nEXPEDIENTE N° 09-001298-0007-CO\n\nTeléfonos: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional\n\nThey allege that, in accordance with article 75, second paragraph, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, they have standing to act given that they appear in defense of diffuse interests as it concerns the violation of the right to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as the defense of collective interests of the association they represent, since they have the obligation to ensure the quality of the agrochemicals that are registered. They explain that since its genesis the law has been highly questioned by the Minister of Health, the Cámara de Exportadores de Costa Rica, companies dedicated to agriculture, and farmers in general, due to the lack of requirement of essential requirements that allow the risk of agrochemicals to be evaluated. They maintain that despite these warnings, the Legislative Branch decided to approve the questioned articles, to the detriment of health and the environment. They argue that the law will only apply to new registration applications and modifications of pesticides that were submitted prior to the publication of Decreto Número 33495-MAG-S-MINAE-MEIC of October 31, 2006, thereby creating a double registration standard for products that can temporarily enter the market. They state that the law does not conform to science and technique, regarding environmental and health protection, given that it provides for a reduction of requirements. They indicate that certainly, a law and a regulation are not on the same hierarchical scale, as established in article number 7 of the Constitución Política; however, it must be clear that the cited Decreto Ejecutivo was drafted by technicians based on requirements established by international organizations such as FAO, IMS, and OECD and, on the other hand, the law was drafted by politicians with the sole purpose of benefiting a specific business sector. They assert that the procedure to grant the registration of a pesticide is not an act of mere accumulation of documents. The requirements asked of anyone seeking to register a pesticide are necessary elements so that the registration authority, based on technical and scientific information corresponding to the requested product, evaluates it and can guarantee all Costa Ricans that its commercialization and use does not represent an unacceptable risk to health and the environment. They mention that as consumers of agricultural products, they do not have the capacity to choose which chemical or biological products were used to treat the crop from which the food or product being bought to feed the family comes. This social function has been delegated to the Servicio Fitosanitario del Estado of the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, which in turn is obliged to rely on the Ministries of Health and Environment. Therefore, the requirements demanded to grant a registration or sales permit for an agricultural-use product must allow the aforementioned government agencies to guarantee that Costa Rican consumers or those in export agricultural product markets do not face any risk derived from residues of the agrochemicals with which the crops have been treated, or residues of contaminants that these may have and that must be reported in their entirety and their risk analyzed, according to international guidelines generated by organizations such as FAO and WHO. Based on the foregoing, they affirm that pesticides cannot be registered without having all the information necessary to safeguard the fundamental rights to health and a healthy environment, in accordance with technique and science. They add that article 1 of Ley 8702 is unconstitutional, since it establishes a limitation on the rights to health and the environment established in article 50 of the Constitución Política, outside the parameters of reasonableness and proportionality. They affirm that the article establishes, by legal means, registration requirements under a “numerus clausus” scheme, limiting the registration authorities’ power to request the information necessary to guarantee all Costa Ricans that the registered products do not represent an unacceptable risk. They maintain that the law leaves aside important requirements that are necessary to carry out a correct risk assessment and fulfill the purposes of registration. Regarding the challenged article 7, they explain that it omits relevant requirements, since according to it, it is not necessary for the applicant to submit the three samples of the active ingredient, but this element is important so that the official laboratory can verify the physicochemical properties of the product. They complain that the registrant is not asked to provide basic product information, such as the label, the pamphlet, and the safety data sheet, which allows for identification of the product and the danger of the material; the presentation of the certificate of origin of the product is not requested, which is fundamental for traceability purposes of the same and the identification of the producing company. Nor is the presentation required regarding the qualitative-quantitative composition of the formulated product, coming from the analysis of at least five typical batches. In this way, the authority does not have information on the content of the active ingredient of the components. Furthermore, the cited law exempts from the presentation of the product formulation route, to determine its chemical composition and if there is another component that could be of toxicological relevance. Likewise, they insist that the norm does not request the presentation of analysis methods for determining the active ingredient content in the formulated product, it does not detail the minimum physical and chemical properties that must be provided so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the formulated product, which serves not only to characterize the material, but also for the interpretation and risk assessment associated with the substance. They affirm that it also does not request information on aspects related to the use of the active ingredient, to determine adequate performance in the field when mixtures or application broths are prepared and to guarantee farmers that the product acts for the purposes that the applicant would be recommending. Moreover, it exempts from the presentation of information regarding the proposed containers and packaging, as well as the presentation of data on product handling, information that allows knowing the characteristics of the packaging materials, guaranteeing that the product does not affect said materials, and ensuring the adequate end destination for the packaging to avoid environmental impact. They also state that the norm completely exempts the presentation of information regarding acute toxicity for mammals showing the risk to human life, as well as that related to medical information such as diagnosis and symptoms of poisoning, proposed treatments, and first aid, among others. Regarding article 8, they argue that said numeral lacks the following requirements: demand for an analytical certificate of chemical composition issued by the manufacturer, in order to guarantee the concentration of the active ingredient, which is basic for quality control and post-registration inspection that the authority must carry out. According to said article, it is not necessary for the applicant to present an analytical standard, nor the three samples of the active ingredient they intend to register, but these elements are important so that the official laboratory can validate the analysis methods, which will serve for quality control. It also does not request that the registrant provide information on the product they intend to register, such as the label and safety data sheet, nor does it require the presentation regarding the concentration of impurities from the analysis of at least five typical batches, nor does it request the identity analyses or chromatograms, nor the justification for the presence of impurities or analytical methods for their determination, as well as information on who the manufacturer is. It does not require the presentation of basic chemical information for the identity of the active ingredient, such as the manufacturer, common name, CAS number or CIPAC, formula and molecular mass, structural formula, and chemical group, in order to have a substance identity profile. They claim that the article does not detail the minimum physical and chemical properties that must be provided, so that the national authority can have a complete characterization of the substance. It does not request information on the use of the active ingredient, to have an initial reference on the applicant’s intended uses. It completely exempts the presentation of studies on metabolism and kinetics, to know the behavior of the substance in animals, information that serves as a basis for establishing possible patient management procedures in the event of potential poisoning. In addition to this, it does not request subchronic and chronic toxicological studies, as well as ecotoxicological studies specific to the active ingredient intended to be registered, to know the danger and effects on humans and animals. It does not require studies on the environmental fate of the active ingredient, relevant to determine the behavior and effects of the substance in soil, water, and air, as well as analytical methods for determining residues in plants, soil, water, and air. It exempts the presentation of methods for water purification and storage methods. Based on the foregoing, the petitioners maintain that exempting from the requirements without technical and scientific support, as has been explained, for the chemical products for agricultural use established by Ley 8702, violates the principle of reasonableness as a parameter of constitutionality. They state that the wording of articles 1, 7, and 8 of Ley número 8702 presupposes or can produce an unacceptable risk to health and the environment, as there exists flagrant scientific uncertainty about their potential effects, making it clear that articles 21, 46, 50, and 69 of the Constitución Política, article 15 of the Río Declaration, and numeral 11 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights are violated. They request that the unconstitutionality of the challenged articles be declared.\n\n**2.-** Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Court to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even upon its presentation, any petition brought before it that proves to be manifestly inadmissible, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a matter of simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous equal or similar petition that was rejected.\n\n**3.-** The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.\n\nDrafted by Judge **Calzada Miranda**; and,\n\n**Considering:**\n\n**I.- ON THE FORMAL PREREQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION.** The unconstitutionality action is a process with certain formalities, which must be satisfied so that the Court can validly hear the merits of the challenge. In that sense, article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the prerequisites for admissibility of the unconstitutionality action. In the first place, the existence of a prior matter pending resolution is required, either in court, or in the procedure to exhaust the administrative route, in which unconstitutionality has been invoked as a reasonable means to protect the right or interest considered to be harmed. However, in the second and third paragraphs, the law exceptionally establishes prerequisites in which the prior matter is not required, when due to the nature of the matter there is no individual and direct harm, or it concerns the defense of diffuse or collective interests, or when it is formulated directly by the Contralor General de la República, the Procurador General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, and the Defensor de los Habitantes. Likewise, there are other formalities that must be fulfilled, namely, the explicit determination of the challenged regulations, duly substantiated, with specific citation of the constitutional norms and principles that are considered infringed, the authentication by a lawyer of the filing in which the action is brought, the copies necessary for the judges of the Court, the Procuraduría, and the parties intervening in the main matter, proof of standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), as well as the literal certification of the petition of challenge, which, in case of not being provided by the petitioners, must be requested for compliance by the President of the Court. In the specific case, the petitioners appear in defense of diffuse interests as the matter questioned concerns a public health and environment issue, so that in accordance with article 75, second paragraph of the cited Law, they would have standing to act. On the other hand, it is observed that they omitted to provide and cancel the stamp corresponding to the Colegio de Abogados; however, the request process is omitted, given that the action is inadmissible for the reasons that will be analyzed below.\n\n**II.- SUBJECT OF THE ACTION.** The petitioners request that the unconstitutionality of articles 1, 7, and 8 of Ley número 8702, called Trámite de Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos, be declared, given that the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that in their judgment must be required in order to register an agrochemical. With such omissions they consider the fundamental rights to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment to have been violated.\n\n**III.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE ACTION BY REASON OF THE SUBJECT OF CHALLENGE.** The action is inadmissible by reason of subject, for two reasons. In the first place, the petitioners request that the unconstitutionality of articles 1, 7, and 8 of Ley número 8702, called Trámite de Solicitudes de Registro de Agroquímicos, be declared, arguing that the law does not require a series of essential technical requirements that, in their judgment, must be required in order to register an agrochemical, so that these omissions contravene the fundamental rights to health and to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that although this Constitutional Court is empowered to act as a negative legislator, with the power to annul from the legal system all those norms it considers unconstitutional, the truth is that it is prevented from acting as a positive legislator creator of norms. Moreover, even though this Court is competent to hear legislative omissions as established in article 73 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, it is important to clarify that not every normative omission can be subject to challenge by this means. In that sense, only those omissions that occur as a consequence of an express and direct mandate contained in the right of the Constitution can be subject to constitutional control by means of the action. However, in the specific case, the omissions challenged by the petitioners do not come from an express mandate of the constituent; rather, they are omissions that they claim to find in the text of the law, without the duty to legislate in the sense explained by the actors deriving from the Constitución Política. Likewise, as this Court is a Court that acts as a negative legislator, it is clear that a potential favorable judgment, with the consequent elimination of the norm, would not remedy the omissions indicated by the petitioners, so the action brought in those terms lacks utility and is therefore manifestly inadmissible. On the other hand, it is observed that, at heart, what the petitioners seek is for this Court to determine whether the requirements that the norms demand for the registration of an agrochemical are technically and scientifically appropriate or not, and, if not, to rule on the list of requirements that in their judgment the regulations should contain. However, it is necessary to indicate that this Court is not the competent body to exercise that function, since that is a competence assigned to the legislator, who in use of their discretionary powers is responsible for designing the legal procedures and requirements that must be met for the registration of agrochemicals in the country. Only in those cases in which the legislator exceeds that discretionary power to the direct detriment of the fundamental rights of individuals can this Court validly hear and rule on the matter. Nevertheless, since in this case what is challenged is not the text of the norms themselves or the legislator’s discretion, but rather what in the actors’ opinion the law omits, this Court cannot rule for the purpose of supplanting competences and establishing those requirements. Under such circumstances, the action is inadmissible.\n\n**IV.- CONCLUSION.** By virtue of the foregoing, rejection of the action outright is required.\n\n**Por tanto:**\n\nThe action is rejected outright.\n\nAna Virginia Calzada M.\nActing President\n\nLuis Paulino Mora M. Gilbert Armijo S.\n\nErnesto Jinesta L. Rosa María Abdelnour G.\n\nHoracio González Q. Roxana Salazar C.\n\n**EXPEDIENTE N° 09-001298-0007-CO**\n\nTelephones: 2295-3696/2295-3697/2295-3698/2295-3700. Fax: 2295-3712. Email address: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional" }