Stopping work or revoking a permit: the 10% bond and what to allege

It is the remedy Act 161-2009 placed in the hands of anyone affected by a work or a permit: a statutory injunctive mechanism to ask the Court of First Instance to revoke a permit, stop a work or a use, or order demolition. Act 82-2026 did not eliminate it, but placed two new conditions on a private person using it: specifically alleging imminent harm, and posting a bond.

Any private person, natural or juridical, able to specifically allege a proprietary or personal interest subject to imminent harm linked to the work or the permit. The Planning Board, an Autonomous Municipality with Hierarchy I to III and the Concerned Governmental Entities have their own route and those pleading requirements do not apply to them.

• Specifically alleging that you hold a proprietary or personal interest subject to imminent harm. The law uses the word “imminent” and requires the allegation to be specific, not generic.Verified against the official source
• Alleging that the harm can be reasonably linked to the conduct of the party against whom relief is sought.Verified against the official source
• Alleging that the harm to the proprietary or personal interest is susceptible of repair through the remedy sought.Verified against the official source
• Posting a bond if what you seek is a paralization: never less than ten (10) per cent of the proposed project’s value, as it appears from any development authorization issued by the competent agency.Verified against the official source
• Bringing the indispensable parties into the suit when you seek revocation of a final determination: the entity or authorized professional that issued it and the project owner. And where revocation is sought for incorrect or false information on a permit issued under Act No. 135 of 15 June 1967, the engineer or architect too.Verified against the official source

• The law publishes no document list or form: it is a court remedy, not a counter procedure. What it does name is the source of the project’s value for calculating the bond — any development authorization issued by the competent agency — and the parties who must be included.

1. 1

   Step 1: First check whether yours is on the list of four

   Article 14.1 is not for any complaint about a work. The remedies are four and the list is closed: (1) revocation of a final determination granted where the application used incorrect or false information with intent to mislead the permitting body, and where, had all real factors been considered, it would not have been approved; (2) paralization of work begun without the corresponding authorizations and permits, or in breach of the granted permit’s provisions and conditions; (3) paralization of an unauthorized use or of a permitted construction for which the corresponding payments of fees, policies, excise taxes and stamps were not made; and (4) demolition of works built which, at the time of filing and at the time of adjudication, lack a construction permit, whether never obtained or revoked.

2. 2

   Step 2: What you now have to allege, and in what words

   This is the change. Any private person, natural or juridical, may file the remedy “provided they specifically allege that they hold a proprietary or personal interest subject to imminent harm, that the harm can be reasonably linked to the conduct of the party against whom relief is sought, and that the harm to the proprietary or personal interest is susceptible of repair through the remedy sought”. The Statement of Motives puts it without ornament: “This extraordinary remedy cannot be sought by making speculative and hypothetical allegations.”

3. 3

   Step 3: The bond: ten per cent of the project’s value, minimum

   It is the biggest practical barrier, and worth calculating before deciding anything. The new Article 6.007(e) of the Municipal Code provides that every paralization request shall always require the posting of a bond, whose amount shall never be less than ten (10) per cent of the proposed project’s value, as it appears from any development authorization issued by the competent agency. The law stresses that this mandatory requirement and its minimum amount apply to every judicial or administrative proceeding, and that they govern with specialty over any other provision on provisional remedies or extraordinary writs — provisional restraining orders, preliminary and/or permanent injunctions, cease-and-desist orders, or any others — aimed at stopping a construction or project authorized by the competent agency.

4. 4

   Step 4: If the problem is a procedural error, this is not the route

   The article excludes it expressly: it shall not apply where the case concerns curable procedural errors or omissions that do not represent imminent harm linked to the movant’s proprietary or personal interest. In those cases, the law says, the permit oversight processes established by Act 161-2009 itself and by other applicable laws and regulations shall be followed. We did not read those processes, so we do not describe them here.

5. 5

   Step 5: Whom you must sue

   If you seek revocation of a final determination, the entity or authorized professional that issued it and the project owner shall be indispensable parties to the suit. And if revocation is sought because incorrect or false information was used and the permit was issued under Act No. 135 of 15 June 1967, the engineer or architect shall also be an indispensable party. Leaving out an indispensable party is a procedural problem that can sink the whole case.

6. 6

   Step 6: Agencies keep their route without those requirements

   The law expressly preserves the capacity of the Planning Board, of an Autonomous Municipality with Hierarchy I to III and of a Concerned Governmental Entity to file the remedy when they have determined their laws and regulations were violated, and the Statement of Motives clarifies that the new pleading requirements apply only when the movant is a natural or private person. If your situation falls within what one of those entities oversees, reporting it to them is a different route and carries no bond.

7. 7

   Step 7: A separate piece worth knowing: rustic land and compensation

   The same Act touched Article 6.007 of the Municipal Code at two other points. It set criteria for the Planning Board to allow urban use on specially protected rustic land — among them that the project be designated strategic, priority or critical infrastructure, or that technical and environmental studies show compatibility with conserving the surroundings. And it added that the Territorial Plan shall not establish any land use classification preventing all use of the property without prior notice and compensation to its owner or owners.

The remedy is filed before the Court of First Instance. The Permit Management Office (OGPe), an Auxiliary Secretariat of the Department of Economic Development and Commerce, evaluates, grants and denies construction and land use permits, and certain Autonomous Municipalities hold that competence by delegation agreement from the Planning Board. The law publishes no address, phone or portal.

• Filing with general allegations that the work “affects the neighbourhood”: the law requires specifically alleging a proprietary or personal interest subject to imminent harm.
• Not budgeting for the bond: every paralization request shall always require a bond, never less than 10% of the proposed project’s value.
• Believing the bond applies only in court: the law expressly says it applies to every judicial or administrative proceeding.
• Using Article 14.1 for a curable procedural error: the law excludes it and sends those cases to the permit oversight processes.
• Suing only the project owner: in revoking a final determination, the entity or authorized professional that issued it is also an indispensable party.
• Thinking the law shut the door on private persons: it did not; it added specific pleading requirements and a bond.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Oficina de Gerencia de Permisos (OGPe)

  OGPe

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov