Chile
A group of members of the Chilean Congress filed a request for unconstitutionality challenging several provisions of the Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations (a law intended to simplify and modernize administrative permits), arguing that these provisions contravene constitutional rights, including environmental protection and health.
The Constitutional Court did not admit the action for review, deeming it not filed, on procedural grounds; however, a strong dissenting opinion based its reasoning on Advisory Opinion 32/25 on Climate Emergency of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The dissenting justices invoked the pro actione principle, articulated in paragraph 543 of the Administrative Order, emphasizing that procedural rules must be interpreted to broaden—not restrict—access to environmental justice. They argued that the majority's formalism was incompatible with Chile's obligations under the Escazú Agreement and with Chile's position expressed before the Inter-American Court in the proceedings of the Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency. Although the request could not be processed, and there was no ruling on the substance of the discussion, the dissent represents an important step in integrating the Advisory Opinion on Climate Emergency into the Chilean constitutional interpretation and reaffirmed the responsibility of the judiciary to prevent environmental backsliding.
On July 4, 2025, a group of Chilean members of parliament, led by Congressman Daniel Melo Contreras, filed a claim of unconstitutionality with the Constitutional Court, challenging several provisions of the Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations (LMAS), commonly known as the “Sectoral Permits Law.” The claim was filed pursuant to Article 93(1)(3) of the Chilean Constitution and Articles 61 et seq. of Law No. 17,997.
The challenged provisions, Articles 7(a), 9, 10, 76, and 104 of the Bill, seek to simplify more than 380 sectoral permits and expedite administrative processes by establishing minimum standards for their issuance. Although the law claims to maintain environmental safeguards, the claimants argue that it effectively weakens environmental and social protections and that the Indigenous consultation process was omitted, in violation of ILO Convention 169.
Furthermore, they point out that the LMAS constitutes a regression in environmental protections, violates the constitutional guarantees of Article 19(8) (right to live in an environment free from pollution) and undermines Chile's commitments under the Escazú Agreement and other international instruments.
The Constitutional Court, on July 24, 2025, dismissed the claim on formal grounds, by a majority of 5-4, citing the lack of specificity of the claim, in indicating the alleged constitutional violations that the Bill would have incurred.
However, the dissenting minority (4 judges) strongly criticized the decision, emphasizing that:
• The Court had developed previous environmental jurisprudence (STC Roles 13.053 and 14.844) that recognizes the application of international standards.
The dissenting opinions argued that, in this context, it was particularly contradictory for the Chilean Constitutional Court, the institution responsible for safeguarding constitutional supremacy, to refuse to review the merits of a claim alleging a regression in environmental protection standards. The dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitutional Court's decision was based on procedural requirements not expressly established in either the Constitution or its Organic Law, and that such a stance clearly contradicts Chile's active role internationally in promoting access to environmental justice, especially in light of the Escazú Agreement and Advisory Opinion OC-32/25, which reaffirms the pro actione principle. This principle holds that procedural rules should not be interpreted or applied in a way that unjustifiably hinders access to the courts, particularly in environmental matters. Citing paragraph 543 of OC-32/25, the dissent invoked the pro actione principle, which requires courts to adopt the interpretation most favorable to access to justice in environmental matters.
The request for unconstitutionality was not admitted for processing, the Court resolved to declare it as not presented for all legal purposes, on July 22, 2025, issuing the respective resolution on July 24, 2025. Consequently, the project was enacted as Law No. 21,770 on September 17, 2025 and published in the Chilean Official Gazette on September 29 of the same year.
The effects of climate change deepen the fragility of territories, increasing risks such as climate mobility, forced displacement, and severe impacts. Therefore, the claimants argue that the Framework Law on Sectoral Authorizations represents a setback in environmental protections, violates the constitutional guarantees of Article 19(8) (right to live in an environment free from pollution), and undermines Chile's commitments under the Escazú Agreement and other international instruments.
Likewise, one of the dissenting votes invokes Advisory Opinion 32/25 on Climate Emergency and Human Rights, to justify the application of the pro actione principle and to question the procedural requirements that prevented the substantive knowledge of the request.
- Group of members of the Chilean Congress.
- Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism for issuing provisions of the Framework Law Project for Sectoral Authorizations (LMAS), commonly known as the “Permit Law ”.
Chile faces a climate crisis that combines extreme weather events with a highly vulnerable and predominantly reactive land-use planning system. It meets seven of the international criteria for vulnerability to climate change, including low-lying coastal areas, arid and semi-arid regions, territories exposed to natural disasters, mountain ecosystems, and drought-prone areas.
Frontal systems and atmospheric rivers (such as the storm that has affected from Atacama to La Araucanía) have left a critical balance of victims, thousands in shelters and tens of thousands of people isolated by road closures and overflowing riverbeds.
The historical occupation of risk zones—such as riverbeds, ravines exposed to floods, or unstable slopes—demonstrates that local planning instruments (such as regulatory plans) tend to be passive, slow, and limited to basic urban zoning.
Climate shocks affect communities, neighborhoods, and rural areas differently, deepening socioeconomic gaps and hitting communities with less resilience infrastructure the hardest.
International organizations and experts point to the need to move from an emergency-focused response towards Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) and preventive territorial planning.
Instruments such as the Long-Term Climate Strategy (ECLP 2050) seek to chart a 30-year roadmap for carbon neutrality and resilience, although coordination gaps persist between municipalities, regional governments and ministries.
According to studies by Greenpeace Chile, a large majority of the population has perceived changes in their environment (heat waves, more intense storms and forest fires), positioning environmental security as an urgent priority.
The Court links the climate emergency to climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. It recognizes that Latin American and Global South countries suffer disproportionate impacts (on temperatures, oceans, the cryosphere, and water resources) despite having a much smaller historical contribution to global emissions than industrialized powers.
International agreements/treaties
- Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- Escazú Agreement
- ILO Convention 169
National laws
- Constitution of Chile
- Article 93(1)(3) of the Chilean Constitution
- Articles 61 et seq. of Law No. 17,997 (Constitutional Court Body).
- Article 19(8) of the Chilean Constitution
Beginning
- Principle of prevention
- Principle of non-regression in the environment
- Pro actione principle
This record was created using publicly available information. If you have information about this case or would like to suggest updates or corrections, please click here .