Articles 27 of the Constitution and 32 of the Constitutional Judiciary guarantee the right to petition every citizen. It is individual or collective freedom before any public official or official body, and the right to obtain a quick solution, has limits, as developed by the doctrine and constitutional jurisprudence without leading to arbitrariness in its practice. The administrator has the right to receive a response, but not in favor of what was requested; The time for resolution depends on the complexity of the request and the term can be extended, without this being a violation of the right or an omission for a prompt response by the administration …[1]
Managers of educational institutions and officials of other public entities should be aware of these aspects, because not in few opportunities their work is prey to the questions of users who violate this right, which raises many requests, some of them repetitive and excessive, others meaningless..obvious, The reason for choosing jurisprudence is to protect the regularity of the public service of the administrative authorities, remembering that its primary goal is to achieve public purposes to meet the needs of society. She stressed that she cannot “be captive to the whims of someone who dedicates himself to harassing her with such requests.”[2].
The constitutional jurisdiction reiterated that “the right to petition is to satisfy some personal need of the person who exercises it, without, in principle, needing to refer to it in its administration. However, in certain cases, it is clear that what is deep within us is the intent.” Undercover to exercise an arbitrary right in order to disrupt the normal work of the Department.[3]. Constitutional Resolution 1999-01747 of 10:39 a.m. on March 9, 1999 provides for a judicial protection order without foundation, in the face of the petitioner’s abusive petitions regarding the salary, academic degree and working time of municipal officials, taking into account their”( …) an excessive position (…) formulated by the appellant, because in all the types of temporary protection cited, and in this it is clear that he proposed to request information on any side, in a list that could not even be said is about to be exhausted, because in This position can perfectly continue to file petitions of any kind, relating to municipal tasks, with a clear hostility to concern (…)”. In Judgment No. 2020013471, dated June 17 at 9:15 a.m., the Chamber analyzes the evidence presented and excludes the harm to the fundamental rights of the internee. The same alludes to several other appeals against the Minister of Education in all kinds of petitions. The Chamber considers this behavior of the appellant, as a pattern of behavior blamed in Judgment No. 1999-01747, and has concluded that arbitrary use of the right to petition, which amounts to the right to access information, was also used. It appears to be a constitutional right, but in fact it is a disproportionate and irrational position of the individual. The exercise of a constitutional right cannot be distorted to such an extent that this right is used excessively and the appeal is dismissed on the merits. It should be noted that in Constitutional Resolution No. 1087-2019, the concept of “twisted” was used to refer to the abusive practice of applicants before the public administration.
1 The University of Costa Rica. CIJUL Online. Limitations of the right of reply. Consult in https://cijulenlinea.ucr.ac.cr/portal-investigaciones.php?x=NzAzMg==, Sunday October 30 at 10:09 am
two Decision No. 2021007962. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. San Jose, at nine hours and forty minutes on April 20, 2021.
3 explain it. Resolution No. 2021007962.
