This article explains how proposed budget conditions could alter who controls Costa Rica’s judicial resources and why the institution says that matters for independence.
A dispute over control of judicial resources
Orlando Aguirre, president of Costa Rica’s Judicial Power, asked the Legislative Assembly’s Finance Affairs Commission to remove four provisions from the proposed 2027 National Budget. He said the rules would condition the release of ¢29.843 billion and the use of 2,463 vacant posts. Aguirre described the provisions as political in nature and argued that they could allow the legislature to co-administer resources that are currently managed by the judiciary. He said the consequences would ultimately be felt by the public, through fewer hearings and possible closures of courts or offices if rent could not be paid. These are claims made by the judicial authorities; the alleged effects have not been established.
What the four provisions would do
The proposed rules would add decisions by the Comptroller General and the Legislative Assembly to processes that currently belong to the Judicial Power’s administration. Rule 9 would block almost ¢29.844 billion across 313 budget sub-items in several programmes, an amount equivalent to approximately 5.62% of the judiciary’s 2027 allocation. Rule 10 would prevent transfers between specified budget categories unless they were handled through an extraordinary budget. That route would require the Executive to prepare the change and the Legislative Assembly to approve it. In practical terms, the provisions would make internal reallocations slower and subject to external decisions.
Vacancies and administrative pay would face new tests
Rule 11 would suspend administrative compensation in the Judicial Power’s central administration until a cost-benefit study compared administrative and judicial work. The study would then need ratification by the Comptroller, consideration by the relevant legislative committee and approval by the plenary. Rule 12 would restrict the occupation of vacant posts. A technical cost-benefit study by the Comptroller would be required, followed by consideration by the full court and final approval from the Permanent Special Commission for Oversight of Public Income and Expenditure. The mechanism is therefore not simply a spending ceiling: it links staffing and pay decisions to approvals outside the institution.
The constitutional question remains open
Aguirre and executive director Ana Romero called for the provisions to be removed through motions. Legislator Ángela Aguilar said she had already presented four motions for that purpose and announced that her party would promote an optional consultation with the Constitutional Chamber if the proposals advanced. The consultation would ask whether the budget rules comply with the constitutional framework. Aguirre also referred to the provisions as atypical and said the Constitutional Chamber had held that such measures should not be used to introduce regulations that belong in specific bills considered through the ordinary legislative route. No court has ruled on these provisions in the account supplied.
IN NUMBERS
The case illustrates a wider procurement and public-finance principle: a budget can allocate money, but detailed conditions on transfers, posts and institutional operations can also determine who controls delivery. Costa Rica’s legislature must now decide whether to retain the proposed rules, while any constitutional review could clarify the limits of attaching such conditions to an annual budget.
Reported from nacion.com, 2026-09-17. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
