ZALAMEDA, J.:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated 31 January 2019 and Resolution dated 10 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 153799 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is remanded to the Department of Justice – Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit for further proceedings in accordance with the guidelines stated in this Decision.[2]Petitioner ultimately claims that he should be declared a bona fide refugee.[3] Petitioner avers that his fear of religious persecution is well-founded since he has proved his claim of religious persecution through forced conversion to Islam and threat to his life which is validated by the country of origin information (COI) on the Christian persecution in Pakistan.[4] In support thereof, petitioner argues that: (1) the protection officer of the Department of Justice (DOJ) – Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (RSPPU) did not act in accordance with the shared duty to ascertain and evaluate relevant facts, and instead, focused on a tangential issue: the non-prosecution of petitioner for blasphemy;[5] and (2) the protection officer had forsaken his duty to collect COI regarding Christian persecution in Pakistan to the prejudice of petitioner.[6]
SECTION 4. Rights of an Applicant. - From the time of the filing of the Application, until the finality of the decision on the Application, the Applicant shall have the following rights:Notably, the 2022 Circular streamlines the application procedure. It provides for two (2) kinds of status determination processes – regular[19] and accelerated.[20] Even the regular procedure is faster and more accessible than that provided in the 2012 Circular. The interview may also be conducted remotely through videoconference.[21] Significantly, the RSPPU must now render its decision on the Application within ninety (90) days from the date of the last interview by the protection officer.[22] No such period was stated in the 2012 Circular.[23] If a request for reconsideration is filed, the decision or resolution on the reconsideration shall be issued by the RSPPU within sixty (60) days from the receipt of the letter or motion or from the date of last reinterview, if conducted.[24] The 2012 Circular did not provide for a similar period.
- To legal counsel;
- To be informed and have access to the procedure;
- To the extent possible, to have his or her interview conducted in a private, secure, and appropriate location, and in a confidential manner;
- To participate in the procedure in a language and manner they understand and to have access to the services of an interpreter, if necessary;
- To have access to the UNHCR; and
- To have protection from any forcible return in any manner whatsoever, to a country where he or she may face persecution on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.[18]
SECTION 3. Burden of Proof. - The burden of proof in a claim to refugee or stateless status, in principle, rests on the Applicant. However, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is a shared and collaborative burden between the Applicant and the Protection Officer.Notably, the provision closely follows the principles and language used in the UNHCR's Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection (UNHCR Handbook), which We also relied upon in the assailed Decision, thus:
The Applicant has an obligation to provide, as accurate and full, an account of his or her claim as is reasonably possible and provide any relevant evidence in support of his or her claim, as may be reasonably available and possible to provide.
The Protection Officer shares the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts of the case.
The finding that the Applicant is a refugee is warranted where he or she has met the definition of the refugee under this Circular.
The finding that the Applicant is stateless is warranted where it is established to a reasonable degree that he or she is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its laws. This involves the examination of the nationality laws of the country with which the Applicant has a relevant link (by birth, descent, marriage, adoption or habitual residence).
195. The relevant facts of the individual case will have to be furnished in the first place by the applicant himself. It will then be up to the person charged with determining his status (the examiner) to assess the validity of any evidence and the credibility of the applicant's statements.Thus, the 2022 Circular did not modify the substance of the counterpart provision in the 2012 Circular. It only threshed out the concept of shared burden of proof. As such, the guidelines in the assailed Decision remain relevant and applicable even with the issuance of the 2022 Circular.[29]
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. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at his disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application. Even such independent research may not, however, always be successful and there may also be statements that are not susceptible of proof. In such cases, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt.[28] (Emphasis supplied.)
Refugee applications should be determined on the basis of their merits |
The shared and collaborative burden means that the protection officer, who is a DOJ-RSPPU officer, should actively assist and help the applicant clarify his or her claims and allegations in support of the application. This assistance could be in the form of helping elucidate the claims of the applicant, requesting the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to contact foreign States, providing the applicant with translation services, and extending assistance in gathering evidence in support of the application, among others. The shared burden of proof is in recognition of the possibility that some applicants may have left their country in haste, and as such, may not have any evidence to prove their claims. Moreover, there may be other factors which may hinder applicants from fully discussing their allegations, including language barriers and personality differences. In these cases, the protection officer is expected to assist and help the applicant clarify his or her account.The 2022 Circular maintained the shared and collaborative burden and, for clarity, delineated the respective duties of the applicant and the protection officer, i.e., the applicant has, in principle, the burden of proof and the correlative duty to provide accurate and full account of his or her claim, with relevant evidence thereof, as is reasonably available and possible, while the protection officer has the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts of the case. This delineated duties thoughtfully applied the basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies with claimant[34] in the context of a refugee determination case, giving due regard to the circumstances under which a refugee status application is usually made.
Meanwhile, the applicant must provide accurate, full, and credible account or proof in support of his or her claim. The applicant must also submit relevant evidence reasonably available. After all, the substantive basis for the application will come from the applicant.[33]
The determination of the relevant facts cannot be done by the Court without a re-examination by the DOJ-RSPPU following the principles discussed and guidelines laid out in the Court's Decision |
x x x Since fear is subjective, the determination involves a subjective element in the person applying for recognition as a refugee. Determination of refugee status will therefore primarily require an evaluation of the applicant's statements rather than a judgement on the situation prevailing in his country of origin.As to the subjective element, the UNHCR Handbook explains:
38. To the element of fear – a state of mind and a subjective condition – is added the qualification "well-founded". This implies that it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation. The term "well-founded fear" therefore contains a subjective and an objective element, and in determining whether well-founded fear exists, both elements must be taken into consideration.[37] (Emphasis supplied.)
Due to the importance that the definition attaches to the subjective element, an assessment of credibility is indispensable where the case is not sufficiently clear from the facts on record. It will be necessary to take into account the personal and family background of the applicant, his [or her] membership of a particular racial, religious, national, social or political group, his [or her] own interpretation of his [or her] situation, and his [or her] personal experiences – in other words, everything that may serve to indicate that the predominant motive for his [or her] application is fear. x x x[38]As regards the objective element, the UNHCR Handbook clarifies that, while not a primary objective, it is necessary to consider the conditions in the country of origin in order to assess the credibility of the applicant, thus:
[I]t is necessary to evaluate the statements made by the applicant. The competent authorities that are called upon to determine refugee status are not required to pass judgement on conditions in the applicant's country of origin. The applicant's statements cannot, however, be considered in the abstract, and must be viewed in the context of the relevant background situation. A knowledge of conditions in the applicant's country of origin – while not a primary objective – is an important element in assessing the applicant's credibility. In general, the applicant's fear should be considered well-founded if he can establish, to a reasonable degree, that his continued stay in his country of origin has become intolerable to him for the reasons stated in the definition, or would for the same reasons be intolerable if he returned there.[39] (Emphasis supplied.)Thus, the protection officer has to assess and determine the credibility of the applicant by considering his or her statements, the evidence presented, if any, and the applicant's demeanor and responses to questions and clarifications propounded. The protection officer should also consider the objective situation in the country of origin of the applicant.
All told, the balance between the State's duty to provide protection to refugees, and its task to limit the grant thereof only to those who have satisfied the requirements would be better preserved through a remand of the instant case.
- To discharge the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the protection officer: (a) the applicant must provide accurate, full, and credible account or proof in support of his or her claim, and submit all relevant evidence reasonably available; and (b) the protection officer must assist and aid the applicant in explaining, clarifying, and elucidating his or her claim.
- Notwithstanding the protection officer's shared burden, it is also the duty of the protection officer to assess the credibility of the statements of the applicant and the evidence on record.
- The facts, as ascertained, should be applied to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, considering the subjective and objective elements of the phrase "well founded fear." The protection officer should determine if the applicant has established, to a reasonable degree, that he or she would have been persecuted had the applicant not left his or her country of origin or would be persecuted if the applicant returns thereto.[41]