Although the answer to the question posed in the title may seem obvious, the reality of the service provided by the municipalities may be surprising, as can be seen, for example, in two obvious situations:
-
Municipality of San Isidro
Within the framework of the regulation of social interest housing (VIS), the Municipality of San Isidro (MSI) issued Ordinance No. 585-MSI in which subsection d) of numeral 3.1 of Article 3 provides that: "(...) The Municipality of San Isidro, through the platforms of attention to the neighbor will not admit or receive the applications for preliminary projects in consultation, building licenses and other administrative procedures regulated in the framework of Law No. 29090 that do not comply with the provisions established in the aforementioned norms". (Underlining and highlighting added)
-
Receipt of the Single Form for the Installation of Telecommunications Infrastructure (FUIIT)
The regulation of Law No. 29022 - Law for Strengthening the Expansion of Telecommunications Infrastructure, approved by Supreme Decree No. 003-2015-MTC, regulates, among other aspects, the presentation of the FUIIT; which contains the request addressed to the Municipalities to obtain the authorization and for the adequacy of the Telecommunications Infrastructure.
Along these lines, paragraph 16.6 of article 16 of the aforementioned regulations establishes that: "... In the event of unjustified refusal to receive the information, the following shall applyIn case of unjustified refusal to receive the FUIIT, or if after the documentation has been of the FUIIT, or if after the documentation has been corrected, the Entity's staff refuses to include a receipt stamp, the Applicant is entitled to deliver the FUIIT via notarized letter, such delivery having the same effect as the omitted receipt stamp, resulting in the automatic approval of the Authorization, without prejudice to the responsibility assumed by the staff that unjustifiably refused to receive it". (Underlining and highlighting added)
The normative quotations made allow to notice that in the "day to day" the Municipalities prevent the entry of documents to the administrated through their Documentary Processing Units (UTDs) and that this action -given its normalization in practice- even seems to have legal coverage.
However, it is necessary to consider the fact that the UTDs of the Municipalities (who are in charge of the so-called "Mesas de Partes") constitute the first contact for any administrative management or administrative procedure initiated by citizens; who act supported by their right to petition established in paragraph 20 of Article 2 of the Constitution which provides that everyone has the right: " To formulate petitions, individually or collectively, in writing before the competent authority, which is obliged to give the interested party an answer also in writing within the legal term, under responsibility."
In this regard, paragraph 135.1 of Article 135 of the Sole Ordered Text of Law No. 27444 - General Administrative Procedure Law, approved by Supreme Decree 004-2019-JUS (TUO LPAG), establishes that the UTDs: "(...) guide the administered in the presentation of their applications and forms, being obliged to receive them and give them entry to initiate or promote the procedures, without in any case being able to qualify, deny or defer their admission". (Underlining and highlighting added)
Therefore, strictly speaking, the UTDs of the Municipalities cannot previously qualify the substance of the content of the requests or forms presented by the administrated parties, since the decision on what is requested corresponds to the authorities to which the request is addressed after an administrative procedure has been carried out.
It is for this reason that the first paragraph of section 261.1 of Article 261 of the TUO LPAG must also be taken into consideration, which provides: "The authorities and personnel in the service of the entities, regardless of their labor or contractual regime, incur in administrative misconduct in the processing of the administrative procedures in their charge and, therefore, are liable to be administratively sanctioned with suspension, dismissal or removal depending on the seriousness of the offense, the recidivism, the damage caused and the intentionality with which they have acted, in case of: 1. Unjustifiably refusing to receive requests, appeals, declarations, information or to issue a record of them (...)".
In view of the foregoing, it should be clear that every citizen has the right to submit applications and/or forms to the Municipalities, so that they may be submitted for evaluation and be the object of a duly reasoned pronouncement within the time limit established by law.
Under this logic, although the Municipalities may deny a citizen's request, this must be the result of the corresponding evaluation within the framework of the administrative procedure and not as a result of the evaluation prior to the initiation of the same.
If this is the case: How can the actions of the Municipality of San Isidro in relation to the receipt of documents related to the VIS be classified? What is the situation of the employees of the Municipalities who refuse to receive the FUIIT? Can the Municipalities, through ordinances, break the "rules of the game" established in the TUO LPAG for the initiation of an administrative proceeding? Are we only facing possible administrative disciplinary misconduct? Could situations such as these warrant any action by the Comptroller General of the Republic? Can there be any criminal offenses? Can there be a bureaucratic barrier?
Although the answer to each one of the questions involves a case-by-case evaluation, the casuistry definitely evidences the violation of the citizens' constitutional right to petition and shows that in practice the Municipalities "seem to forget" that, according to Article II of the Preliminary Title of Law No. 27972 - Organic Law of Municipalities; the autonomy that the Constitution grants them lies in the power to exercise acts of government, administration and administration, but always subject to the legal system.
