Santo Domingo.- The Constitutional Court on Thursday ruled for the National Combat Climate Change Committee (CNLCC) by overturning the Superior Administrative Court's (TSA) decision against the group's demand to release the documents of the lands where the Punta Catalina coal-fired power plant is being built.
The Constitutional Court revokes the Superior Administrative Court ruling handed down February 3, 2015, which the Committee "welcomes as a victory the decision of the Constitutional Court that strengthens the constitutional right to free access to public information."
"The view of the CNLCC contained in the request to verify the TSA ruling's constitutionality which rejected our request for an injunction is that the court should reject this challenge because it was impossible for the CDEEE (State-owned Electric Utility) to release documents that didn't exist, and not because our appeal is inadmissible for lacking legality.
It said the injunction challenge was legally appropriate "and therefore admissible, and we, like all citizens, had and continue to have the right to be informed about the ownership of the lands where the Punta Catalina coal plant is being built."
In fact, the Constitutional Court upheld our request for constitutional review of this TSA ruling, revoked it; And rejected our action for an injunction, not because it was inadmissible, but because the CDEEE did not have the documents requested and therefore, had no material possibility of delivering them, which is why that high court declared the action unfounded, not because of lack of legality on our part or because of harassment, but simply because the CDEEE had declared that it had no documentation to justify the construction of the plants on private lands."
"Obviously, this declaration of absence of documents justifying the CDEEE's right to use land on which work had been executed for more than 500 million dollars to that date constitutes in itself the confession of an inexcusable failure thereof, and an inadmissible cavalier and irresponsible attitude in managing public funds on the part of that state institution," the CNLCC said in an emailed statement.
"The Constitutional Court states verbatim in its ruling that the Superior Administrative Court 'incurred a procedural error' in enforcing the provisions of Article 70 numeral 3 and declare the action inadmissible because of the cause of the notorious inadmissibility, as if it were an ordinary injunction, so it is appropriate to revoke the contested ruling by means of the present constitutional review."