The Supreme Court has affirmed the importance of shared responsibility between refugee applicants and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the refugee status determination process. While applicants must provide accurate accounts and evidence, the DOJ’s Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (RSPPU) has a duty to actively assist and evaluate claims. The Court clarified that even if the DOJ-RSPPU falls short in its duties, this does not automatically guarantee refugee status. Each application must still be evaluated on its individual merits, ensuring a balance between providing protection and carefully assessing each case. The Court’s resolution reinforces the need for a thorough and collaborative approach in refugee status determinations.

Seeking Asylum: How Far Should the DOJ Go to Verify Claims of Persecution?

Rehman Sabir sought refuge in the Philippines, claiming religious persecution in Pakistan due to forced conversion to Islam and threats to his life. He argued that the DOJ-RSPPU failed in its duty to properly investigate his claims and gather relevant country of origin information (COI). The central legal question revolved around the extent of the DOJ-RSPPU’s responsibility in assisting asylum seekers to substantiate their claims, and whether a failure in this duty automatically warrants granting refugee status. This case underscores the complexities of balancing the burden of proof on the applicant with the government’s obligation to ensure a fair and thorough evaluation process.

The Supreme Court’s resolution addresses the motion for partial reconsideration filed by Sabir concerning the Court’s earlier decision. The Court acknowledges the evolving legal landscape with the issuance of DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022 (2022 Circular), which replaced DOJ Circular No. 058, series of 2012 (2012 Circular). The new circular aims to streamline the status determination procedure for refugees and stateless persons, emphasizing a fair, efficient, and non-adversarial process. It explicitly acknowledges the principle of non-refoulement, prohibiting the return of refugees and asylum seekers to countries where their lives or freedoms are threatened. This principle now codified in the 2022 Circular ensures the Philippines’ commitment to international standards of refugee protection.

The 2022 Circular introduces significant changes, including a clearer articulation of the rights of Persons of Concern (POC) and Applicants. Applicants now have explicitly defined rights, such as access to legal counsel, information about the procedure, and protection from forcible return to a country where they may face persecution. These rights are designed to ensure a fairer and more transparent process for those seeking asylum. The circular also streamlines the application procedure, introducing regular and accelerated processes, and sets specific timelines for decision-making. This aims to improve efficiency and reduce delays in the status determination process.

One of the most pertinent aspects of the 2022 Circular is its emphasis on the shared burden of proof in status determination proceedings. Section 3, Rule IV of the Circular states that while the burden of proof rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the Protection Officer. This principle is drawn from the UNHCR’s Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection. The Handbook emphasizes that the examiner must assess the validity of evidence and the credibility of the applicant’s statements, even if the applicant cannot provide documentary proof.

“196. It is a general legal principle that the burden of proof lies on the person submitting a claim. Often, however, an applicant may not be able to support his [or her] statements by documentary or other proof, and cases in which an applicant can provide evidence of all his [or her] statements will be the exception rather than the rule. In most cases a person fleeing from prosecution will have arrived with the barest necessities and very frequently even without personal documents. Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner.”

The Court stresses that the 2022 Circular applies to all pending cases, and procedural laws may be applied retroactively to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. While the Protection Officer in Sabir’s case failed to fully exercise this shared duty, the Court clarifies that this does not automatically lead to the granting of refugee status. Each case must be determined on its merits, considering the unique circumstances and evidence presented. The Court acknowledges the possibility that some applicants may have left their country in haste and may not have evidence to prove their claims. Language barriers and personality differences can also hinder applicants from fully discussing their allegations.

The Court emphasizes that the determination of refugee status involves two stages: the determination of relevant facts and the application of those facts to the definition of a refugee. The definition hinges on whether the applicant has a “well-founded fear of being persecuted.” This fear has both subjective and objective elements. The subjective element requires an evaluation of the applicant’s statements, personal and family background, and experiences. The objective element involves considering the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin to assess the credibility of the applicant. In this case, the Court found that the relevant facts were not properly examined by the Protection Officer, making it difficult to objectively assess the merits of the application. There were unresolved questions, such as the apparent contradiction in Sabir’s statements regarding his conversion to Islam, which needed clarification.

The Supreme Court reiterated that its previous decision laid out clear guidelines for refugee status determination proceedings. These guidelines include the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the Protection Officer, the duty of the Protection Officer to assess the credibility of statements and evidence, and the application of the facts to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This means that the applicant must provide accurate and credible information, while the Protection Officer must assist in explaining and clarifying the claim. Additionally, these guidelines, coupled with the timelines and steps outlined in DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, should guide the DOJ-RSPPU in re-examining Sabir’s application. The court consciously avoided making a factual determination on whether the petitioner met the definition of a refugee due to the DOJ-RSPPU’s shortcomings.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was determining the extent of the DOJ-RSPPU’s responsibility in assisting asylum seekers to substantiate their claims for refugee status, and whether a failure in this duty automatically warrants granting refugee status. The Court ultimately emphasized the importance of a shared responsibility between the applicant and the DOJ-RSPPU.
What is the principle of non-refoulement?	The principle of non-refoulement prohibits States from returning refugees and asylum seekers to countries where their lives or freedoms may be threatened. This principle is now explicitly acknowledged in DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022.
What is the shared burden of proof in refugee status determination?	The shared burden of proof means that while the applicant has the primary responsibility to provide accurate and complete information, the DOJ-RSPPU also has a duty to actively assist and evaluate all relevant facts. This acknowledges that applicants may face challenges in gathering evidence and presenting their claims.
What are the two stages in the refugee status determination process?	The two stages are: (1) the determination of the relevant facts of the case, and (2) the application of those facts to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This process involves assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence.
What is the meaning of “well-founded fear of being persecuted”?	The phrase refers to the applicant’s fear of persecution, which must be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable. The subjective element involves evaluating the applicant’s statements and experiences, while the objective element involves considering the conditions in the applicant’s country of origin.
What is the effect of the new DOJ Circular No. 024 on pending cases?	The 2022 Circular applies to all pending cases, and its procedural guidelines may be applied retroactively. This ensures that all cases are processed under the updated and streamlined procedures outlined in the new circular.
Can an applicant appeal a decision denying refugee status?	Yes, under the 2022 Circular, a decision or resolution of the RSPPU denying an application or a request for reconsideration is now appealable to the Office of the President. Previously, applicants could only seek judicial review.
What happens if the Protection Officer fails to fulfill their shared duty?	The failure of the Protection Officer to fulfill their shared duty does not automatically mean that the application for refugee status will be approved. The case will be remanded for re-evaluation, with the Protection Officer being directed to properly assist and evaluate the applicant’s claims.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s resolution in the Rehman Sabir case emphasizes the importance of a balanced and thorough approach to refugee status determination. By reiterating the principle of shared responsibility and providing clear guidelines, the Court aims to ensure that deserving individuals receive protection while safeguarding the integrity of the asylum process. The decision ensures the protection of those who genuinely meet the criteria for refugee status.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REHMAN SABIR, G.R. No. 249387, March 08, 2023