Supreme Court boosts Pakistani Christian’s case seeking refugee status

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has partially reversed a decision that denied a Pakistani Christian, who faces criminal charges of blasphemy, recognition as a refugee in the Philippines, in a decision that set guidelines for all refugee status determination proceedings.

In a 30-page decision penned by SC Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, Rehman Sabir’s petition for review on his refugee application denial was partially granted, as he stressed that determining refugee status is a responsibility that not only falls on the applicant, but also the officer or agency tasked to evaluate applications.

Based on court records, Sabir, a Christian who was prompted to flee to the Philippines, sought a reversal before the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2019 after the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit denied his application to be a refugee.

He had fled his home country of Pakistan, where he accidentally dropped a copy of the Quran, the central religious text of Islam, while he was being coaxed to convert.

Dropping the Quran is considered an insult to Islam and could be “a basis for criminal charges under Pakistan’s Blasphemy Law,” according to Sabir.

He also claimed that as a result, he was in danger of being killed by the local Muslim community.

In 2017, the DOJ-RSPPU denied Sabir’s request due to his supposed inability to establish that he was indeed at risk of persecution in Pakistan.

“The justice secretary also held that the risk of blasphemy allegations is generally not enough to make out a claim under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention) unless there is evidence that the blasphemy charge is actually pursued. The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of the DOJ-RSPPU, forcing Sabir to raise the matter to the Supreme Court,” court records read.

In partially granting Sabir’s petition, the SC said it found that the DOJ-RSPPU had failed to observe its own procedure for refugee processing, particularly in the responsibility of proving that a refugee status claim is a shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the protection officer as provided in DOJ Circular 058-12.

The SC held that the rationale for 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 that 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,” it added.

The SC said it found that it was not shown whether Sabir, who does not easily understand English, was provided with an interpreter, despite his right to have one, and that a further interview should have been conducted to clarify and resolve any contradictions in his statements.

The court thus ordered the case to be remanded to the DOJ-RSPPU to consider the factual issues that still need to be threshed out in light of the clarifications on the refugee status determination process.

“The DOJ-RSPPU is urged to actively discharge its burden in assisting petitioner to elucidate his claim. Reception of further evidence, the conduct of additional interviews, in-depth study of country-of-origin information, and assessment of petitioner’s averments to a greater extent are thus encouraged,” the court said.

Guidelines for refugee status

In its ruling, the SC also ordered the DOJ-RSPPU to assess all evidence presented by applicants based on three points, which would then serve as guidelines for refugee status determination proceedings.

The first point in the guidelines for applicants is to provide accurate, full and credible accounts or proof in support of their application while the protection officer must assist the applicant in explaining, clarifying and elucidating their claims.

The court also directed protection officers to assess the credibility of the statements of the applicant and the evidence on record.

Finally, the court also wants ascertained facts to be applied to the definition of a refugee under international refugee frameworks such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol.

“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,” the SC guidelines added.

Under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, to which the Philippines acceded on July 22, 1981, a refugee is a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,  religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.