Sabir vs. DOJ-RSPPU

The protection officer's failure to discharge its shared duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts in refugee status determination proceedings does not automatically warrant the grant of refugee status; the application must be evaluated on its merits upon remand, with the newly issued DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, controlling subsequent proceedings as a retroactively applicable procedural rule.

Petitioner Rehman Sabir is a Pakistani national who applied for refugee status before the Department of Justice — Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU), claiming religious persecution in Pakistan through forced conversion to Islam and threats to his life. Refugee status determination in the Philippines is governed by DOJ Circular No. 058, series of 2012, which implements the framework established under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, as guided by the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status. During the pendency of the motion for partial reconsideration, the DOJ issued DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, which expressly repealed the 2012 Circular and introduced significant changes to the status determination procedure, including the express acknowledgment of the principle of non-refoulement, an expanded enumeration of applicant rights, streamlined regular and accelerated procedures, and a delineated shared burden of proof provision.

Petitioner Rehman Sabir, a Pakistani national, applied for refugee status before the DOJ-RSPPU, claiming well-founded fear of religious persecution in Pakistan arising from forced conversion to Islam and threats to his life. His written application forms reflected a claim of being forced to change religion. The protection officer, however, focused on a tangential issue — the non-prosecution of petitioner for blasphemy — rather than on the core claim of religious persecution. The protection officer also failed to collect country of origin information (COI) regarding Christian persecution in Pakistan, which petitioner argued was essential to validating his claim.

During the proceedings, there appeared to be a language difficulty, and the records contained no indication that an interpreter was provided to petitioner. This language barrier complicated the accuracy of petitioner's statements. Notably, the DOJ-RSPPU claimed that when petitioner was asked whether he was forced or compelled to convert to his religion, he replied in the negative and stated that he was being "persuaded." This supposed response was apparently inconsistent with his written application forms, which claimed he was forced to change religion. This inconsistency was never clarified by the protection officer.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's application. On petition to the Supreme Court, the August 2, 2022 Decision partly granted the petition, reversed and set aside the CA rulings, and remanded the case to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings, having recognized that the protection officer fell short of its duty to have a shared and collaborative burden with petitioner. The Court, however, consciously did not make a factual determination on whether petitioner met the definition of a refugee, finding that the relevant facts had not been properly threshed out. Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated December 27, 2022, praying that he be directly declared a bona fide refugee rather than having the case remanded.

• Well-Founded Fear of Religious Persecution: Petitioner argued that his fear of religious persecution is well-founded, having proved his claim through forced conversion to Islam and threats to his life, which is validated by COI on Christian persecution in Pakistan.
• Protection Officer's Failure to Discharge Shared Duty: Petitioner maintained that the protection officer 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.
• Failure to Collect Country of Origin Information: Petitioner argued that the protection officer had forsaken his duty to collect COI regarding Christian persecution in Pakistan, to the prejudice of petitioner's application.
• Automatic Grant of Refugee Status: Petitioner ultimately claimed that, given the protection officer's failures, he should be declared a bona fide refugee without need of remand.

• Automatic Grant of Refugee Status: Whether the protection officer's failure to discharge its shared duty to ascertain and evaluate relevant facts warrants the automatic grant of petitioner's application for refugee status.
• Retroactive Application of the 2022 Circular: Whether DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, which took effect shortly after the promulgation of the assailed Decision, should control subsequent proceedings in the case.

• Automatic Grant of Refugee Status: No. The protection officer's failure to discharge its shared duty does not automatically warrant the grant of refugee status; the application must be evaluated on its merits upon remand, as the factual basis necessary for a definitive ruling was never properly threshed out.
• Retroactive Application of the 2022 Circular: Yes. The 2022 Circular applies to all cases pending with the RSPPU, procedural laws being given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure.

• Automatic Grant of Refugee Status: The shared and collaborative burden of proof in refugee determination proceedings means that the protection officer must actively assist the applicant in clarifying and elucidating claims — through means such as contacting foreign States via the DFA, providing translation services, and helping gather evidence — while the applicant retains the primary burden to provide an accurate, full, and credible account with relevant evidence reasonably available. The 2022 Circular maintained this framework and, for clarity, delineated the respective duties of the applicant and the protection officer, applying the basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies with the claimant while giving due regard to the circumstances under which refugee applications are typically made. The Court consciously did not make a factual determination on whether petitioner met the definition of a refugee in its August 2, 2022 Decision, but merely recognized that the DOJ-RSPPU fell short of its shared duty. The UNHCR Handbook prescribes a two-stage process: first, the determination of relevant facts, and second, the application of those facts to the definition of refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. The phrase "well-founded fear of being persecuted" contains both a subjective element — the applicant's state of mind, assessed through credibility evaluation considering personal and family background, membership in particular groups, and personal experiences — and an objective element, requiring that the frame of mind be supported by an objective situation, assessed in part through knowledge of conditions in the country of origin. In this case, the relevant facts were not properly threshed out: there were unanswered questions, apparent language difficulties with no interpreter provided, and an unresolved inconsistency regarding whether petitioner was "forced" or "persuaded" to convert. The failure of the protection officer to discharge its duty left the Court bereft of factual basis to give a definitive ruling. Accordingly, the balance between the State's duty to protect refugees and its task to limit the grant thereof only to those who satisfy the requirements is best preserved through remand.

• Retroactive Application of the 2022 Circular: DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, expressly repealed the 2012 Circular and was deposited with the ONAR on July 1, 2022, published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 4, 2022, and took effect on August 19, 2022 — shortly after the promulgation of the assailed Decision on August 2, 2022. The 2022 Circular applies to all cases pending with the RSPPU. Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure; amendments to procedural rules do not create new or remove vested rights but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, pursuant to Sumiran vs. Spouses Damaso. The 2022 Circular did not modify the substance of the shared burden of proof provision from the 2012 Circular but only threshed out the concept more clearly, closely following the principles and language of the UNHCR Handbook. The guidelines laid out in the assailed Decision therefore remain relevant and applicable, and the 2022 Circular should control subsequent proceedings in this case, together with its specific timeline and procedural steps.

• Shared and Collaborative Burden of Proof in Refugee Status Determination — In refugee status determination proceedings, the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, but the duty to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts is shared and collaborative between the applicant and the protection officer. The applicant must provide an accurate, full, and credible account of his or her claim and submit all relevant evidence reasonably available. The protection officer must assist and aid the applicant in explaining, clarifying, and elucidating his or her claim — through means such as contacting foreign States, providing translation services, and helping gather evidence — and must assess the credibility of the applicant's statements and the evidence on record. The facts as ascertained should then be applied to the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, considering the subjective and objective elements of "well-founded fear." The protection officer's failure to discharge its shared duty does not automatically warrant the grant of refugee status; the application must be evaluated on its merits.

• Two-Stage Process in Refugee Status Determination — Pursuant to the UNHCR Handbook, refugee status determination involves two stages: (1) the determination of the relevant facts of the case, including assessment of the credibility of the applicant's claims, allegations, and evidence; and (2) the application of the facts ascertained to the definition of refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. The "well-founded fear of being persecuted" contains a subjective element (the applicant's state of mind, assessed through credibility evaluation) and an objective element (the frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation, assessed in part through knowledge of conditions in the country of origin). Both elements must be taken into consideration.

• Retroactive Application of Procedural Laws — Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure. Amendments to procedural rules are procedural or remedial in character, as they do not create new or remove vested rights but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing. Applied in this case to hold that DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, should control subsequent proceedings in the pending case.

• Principle of Non-Refoulement — Prohibits States from returning refugees and asylum seekers in any manner whatsoever to countries or territories where their lives or freedom may be threatened. The 2022 Circular expressly acknowledges this principle in the determination procedure and recognizes that, pursuant to customary international law, it may apply to other individuals whose lives or freedoms may be threatened.

• "Verily, this shared and collaborative burden as provided in the rules and interpreted in the Decision cannot be taken to mean that the Court should automatically grant an application for refugee status in cases where the protection officer fails its duty under the rules, as petitioner would have Us do." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi: the protection officer's dereliction of its shared duty does not entitle the applicant to automatic approval, as the application must still be evaluated on its merits.

• "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." — Quoted from the UNHCR Handbook, this passage defines the canonical formulation of the dual-element test for "well-founded fear" in refugee status determination, a test frequently relied upon in refugee jurisprudence.

• "Thus, the 2022 Circular should control subsequent proceedings in this case." — This statement establishes the retroactive application of the newly issued DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, to cases pending before the RSPPU, grounded on the principle that procedural laws may operate retroactively without impairing vested rights.

• "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." — This passage captures the Court's rationale for remand rather than outright grant, balancing the State's protective obligation against the need for proper factual determination.

• Sumiran vs. Spouses Damaso, 613 Phil. 72 (2009) — Followed for the principle that procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, there being no vested rights in rules of procedure. Applied to hold that DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, should control subsequent proceedings in the pending case.

• Sabir vs. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit, G.R. No. 249387, 02 August 2022 — The assailed Decision in the same case, cited for the guidelines laid out for refugee status determination proceedings, which the Court held remain relevant and applicable notwithstanding the issuance of the 2022 Circular.

• DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022 — The governing administrative issuance for refugee and stateless status determination, which repealed DOJ Circular No. 058, series of 2012. Section 3, Rule IV (Burden of Proof) delineates the shared and collaborative burden between the applicant and the protection officer. Section 4, Rule IV enumerates the rights of an applicant, including the right to legal counsel, to be informed and have access to the procedure, to a private and confidential interview, to interpreter services, to access to the UNHCR, and to protection from forcible return. The Circular also provides for regular and accelerated procedures, a 90-day period for RSPPU decisions, a 60-day period for resolutions on reconsideration, and appeal to the Office of the President. Applied as the controlling procedural framework for the remanded proceedings.

• DOJ Circular No. 058, series of 2012 — The prior governing issuance on refugee and stateless status determination, expressly repealed by the 2022 Circular. Its counterpart burden of proof provision was not substantively modified by the 2022 Circular, which only threshed out the concept of shared burden more clearly.

• 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees — International instruments defining the term "refugee" and the standard of "well-founded fear of being persecuted." Applied as the substantive standard against which ascertained facts must be measured in the second stage of refugee status determination.

• UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection — Authoritative interpretive guide relied upon by the Court for the two-stage determination process, the shared burden of proof concept (paragraphs 195–196), and the subjective and objective elements of "well-founded fear" (paragraphs 37–38, 41–42). The 2022 Circular's burden of proof provision closely follows the Handbook's principles and language.

• 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence, Rule 131, Section 1 — The basic rule that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, applied by the Court as the underlying evidentiary principle adapted in the context of refugee determination cases through the shared and collaborative burden framework.

Gesmondo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Inting, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, and Marquez, JJ., concur.