G.R. No. 249387 . March 08, 2023
REHMAN SABIR, PETITIONER, VS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS PROTECTION UNIT (DOJ-RSPPU), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Rehman Sabir filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision dated August 02, 2022, which had partly granted his petition, reversed the Court of Appeals’ rulings, and remanded the case to the DOJ-RSPPU for further proceedings. Petitioner ultimately sought to be declared a bona fide refugee, averring that his fear of religious persecution in Pakistan due to his Christian faith was well-founded, supported by country of origin information (COI) on Christian persecution. He argued that the RSPPU protection officer failed in the shared duty to ascertain and evaluate relevant facts by focusing on the non-prosecution of petitioner for blasphemy and by not collecting COI on Christian persecution in Pakistan. During the pendency, the DOJ issued Circular No. 024, series of 2022, which repealed the 2012 Circular and introduced significant changes to the refugee status determination procedure, including explicit recognition of the non-refoulement principle, enumeration of rights for Persons of Concern and Applicants, streamlined application processes with specific timelines, and a detailed provision on the shared burden of proof.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which seeks his outright declaration as a refugee due to the RSPPU protection officer’s failure to fulfill the shared duty of proof, should be granted.

RULING

The Motion for Partial Reconsideration is DENIED WITH FINALITY. The Court found no cogent reason to reconsider its initial ruling. The issuance of DOJ Circular No. 024, series of 2022, which applies retroactively to pending cases, did not modify the substantive concept of the shared burden of proof as elaborated in the Court’s Decision and aligned with the UNHCR Handbook. While the protection officer has a shared and collaborative duty with the applicant to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts, the failure of the officer to properly discharge this duty does not automatically result in the grant of the refugee application. The application must still be evaluated on its merits. The Court held that the balance between the State’s duty to protect refugees and its task to limit the grant to those who satisfy the requirements is best preserved by a remand. The case is to be re-examined by the DOJ-RSPPU following the guidelines in the Court’s August 02, 2022 Decision and the specific procedures and timelines outlined in the 2022 Circular.