1 Introduction**
This article summarizes the Philippine state practice on refugee protection and border control. Section 2 briefly narrates the Philippines’ long history of aiding refugees. Furthermore, as a responsible member of the international community, the Philippines is a State Party to countless international conventions, including treaties, executive agreements,1 and soft law instruments relevant to refugee protection and border control. These instruments are listed and briefly described in Section 3. The Philippines has also issued local legislation in the form of statutes and administrative issuances that support the State’s policy on refugee protection and border control. Section 4 enumerates these local laws. On the other hand, Section 5 discusses executive orders and administrative issuances on refugee protection. Section 6 and 7 discuss relevant Philippine Supreme Court issuances and jurisprudence, respectively. Section 8 discusses the United Nations Human Rights Council – Universal Periodic Review Reports.
2 Brief Background of the Philippines’ Humanitarian Tradition
Philippine Supreme Court Justice Zalameda best summarizes the country’s active role in refugee protection and border control in his ponencia in Rehman Sabir v. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit, where he cited and summarized a report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on the Philippines’ strong humanitarian tradition.2 According to the report, this tradition consists of nine waves of refugees based on nationality and is shaped by the political climate of the times.3
According to Justice Zalameda, the first wave resulted from the 1917 Socialist Revolution in Russia. Just after World War I, in October 1922, 800 “White Russians” sought refuge in Manila and eventually stayed in the country for good, while others relocated to the United States and Australia.
The second wave took place in 1934 when President Manuel L. Quezon welcomed 1,200 European Jewish refugees who escaped Nazi persecution. Three years later, in 1937, the refugees totaled 30,000. This paved the way for the enactment of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. During this time, President Quezon issued Proclamation No. 173 in response to the growing population of refugees in Manila, Baguio, Rizal, and the Mountain Province. The proclamation sought the cooperation of “every inhabitant of the Philippines ‘in extending whatever aid may be necessary for the safety and care of these refugees.’”4
In 1939, the Philippines ushered in the third wave when it granted visas to Spanish republican refugees who escaped the new nationalist government after the Spanish Civil War. Around the same time, the fourth wave came with around 30,000 Chinese Kuomintang refugees seeking asylum in the country away from the communist People’s Republic of China.
The fifth wave occurred from 1949 to 1953 under President Elpidio Quirino’s administration, when the state received 6,000 White Russians from Shanghai, China, in a camp on Tubabao Island, Guiuan, Eastern Samar. The sixth wave later occurred from 1975 to 1992 when Vietnamese refugees sought refuge in the processing center in Palawan.
Following the Iranian revolution in the late 1970s, Iranian students sought to relocate to the Philippines and integrate with the local Muslim community through marriage or naturalization. This comprised the seventh wave of refugees.
On November 12, 1979, the Philippines agreed with the UNHCR to establish refugee processing centers. About a year later, in 1980, the eighth wave of refugees arrived. This lasted until 1994, when around 400,000 refugees were received and processed for relocation in countries like France, Australia, and the United States.
Finally, the ninth wave comprised 600 East Timorese refugees “who fled their country during its struggle for independence from Indonesia.”
3 Treaties and International Instruments
Consistent with its humanitarian tradition of welcoming refugees, the Philippines is a party to many treaties and international instruments that support refugee protection and border control. These include the following:
3.1 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
This Convention outlines the legal protection, rights, and assistance which refugees are entitled to receive.5 It was ratified on June 26, 1981, and entered into force on April 22, 1954.
3.2 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
Similar to the above Convention, this Protocol complements the provisions of the 1951 Convention, expanding the definition of a refugee to include individuals fleeing from events occurring before January 1, 1951.6
3.3 The ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Cross-Border Transport of Passengers by Road Vehicles
This agreement sought “to facilitate cross-border transport of passengers between and among the Contracting Parties by road vehicles.”7 This agreement was signed in Singapore on October 13, 2017, and ratified on November 15, 2019.
3.4 The ASEAN Agreement on the Movement of Natural Persons
This agreement facilitated the transfer of natural persons involved in the trade of goods, services, and investments between the ASEAN member states by establishing transparent immigration procedures and guidelines for the temporary entry and stay of natural persons within the borders of Member States, while at the same time protecting such boarders and the domestic labor force and permanent employment of the Member States.8 This agreement was signed at Phnom Penh on November 19, 2012, and ratified on May 13, 2016.
3.5 The Memorandum of Understanding on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration Concerning the Emergency Transit of Refugees
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) facilitates systematic, predictable, cooperative action between the UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). It establishes the organizational mandates and responsibilities concerning refugees, migrants, asylum-seekers, rejected asylum-seekers, and returnees.9
What is notable from the MOU is paragraph 44, which states that the “MOU will enter into force upon its signature by both parties and shall be of indefinite duration,” and paragraph 45, which provides that the “MOU may be terminated by either party upon 90 days’ written notice.” Thus, while an agreement labeled as a “Memorandum of Understanding” is usually non-binding, this MOU is arguably binding as a treaty because of the entry into force provision.
At present, there remains no indication that this MOU has been terminated. As late as 2021, Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, while discussing the Philippines’ open-arms policy towards Afghan refugees, mentioned the applicability of the MOU, stating that “[i]f their status as refugees is recognized by the office of the UNHCR, and they need temporary shelter in the Philippines, we have an emergency transit mechanism in place according to a memorandum of agreement with the UNHCR.”10
3.6 The 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons
This Convention established the legal definition for the stateless person as one “who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law.”11 The same Convention provided for the right to identity, travel documents, administrative assistance of these persons, and a minimum standard for their treatment. This Convention was ratified on May 30, 2011, and signed by the Philippines on June 22, 1955.
The Philippines, however, signed the convention with reservations, stating in its declaration that:
(a) As regards Article 17, paragraph 1, granting stateless persons the right to engage in wage-earning employment, [the Government of the Philippines] finds that this provision conflicts with the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, which classifies as excludable aliens under Section 29 those coming to the Philippines to perform unskilled labour, and permits the admission of pre-arranged employees under Section 9 (g) only when there are no persons in the Philippines willing and competent to perform the labour or service for which the admission of aliens is desired.
(b) As regards Article 31, paragraph 1, to the effect that ‘the Contracting States shall not expel a stateless person lawfully in their territory, save on grounds of national security or public order,’ this provision would unduly restrict the power of the Philippine Government to deport undesirable aliens under Section 37 of the same Immigration Act which states the various grounds upon which aliens may be deported.
Upon signing the Convention [the Philippine Government], therefore hereby [registers] its non-conformity to the provisions of Article 17, paragraph 1, and Article 31, paragraph 1, thereof, for the reasons stated in (a) and (b) above (emphasis added).
Comparison of the conflicting provisions of the Convention and the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940
3.7 The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
The 1961 Convention creates an international framework for preventing and reducing statelessness and safeguarding every person’s right to nationality. Among its notable provisions is the establishment of children’s right to acquire the nationality of the country they are born in, absent the acquisition of a different nationality.12 It also limits the instances in which states can deprive persons of their nationality and further prevents statelessness by establishing safeguards against loss or renunciation of nationality and state succession.13
4 Statute
Local legislation is also replete with statutory provisions supporting the State’s refugee protection and border control policy.
4.1 Strengthening the Policies on Anti-Trafficking in Persons, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 9208, as Amended
Republic Act No. 11862, also known as the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022,” amends the 2003 Anti-Trafficking Persons Act or Republic Act No. 9208. Among others, it mandates the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), in coordination with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), to “develop mechanisms to ensure the timely, coordinated, and effective response to cross-border cases of trafficking”14 and to “adopt measures and policies protecting the rights and needs of victims who are foreign nationals or asylum seekers, refugees, stateless applicants and stateless persons in the Philippines and foreign NGO s caring for and protecting victims.”15
Consequently, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the law provide for the establishment of a monitoring and coordinating body called the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT), composed of council member agencies like the DOJ and DFA, which are tasked to coordinate with local and international authorities in response to cross-border human trafficking cases.16 The IACAT planned to release the Revised Guidelines on Departure Formalities for International-Bound Filipino Passengers, but the official version is pending due to concerns voiced by the public.17
4.2 Philippine Act on Crimes against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes against Humanity
Republic Act No. 9851, or the “Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity,” despite its title, is relevant to refugee protection. Notably, it defines in Section 3(q)(4) that a “protected person in an armed conflict” includes “a person who, before the beginning of hostilities, was considered a stateless person or refugee under the relevant international instruments accepted by the parties to the conflict concerned or under the national legislation of the state of refuge or state of residence.”18
4.3 Proclamation No. 984
In March 1997, then President Fidel V. Ramos promulgated Proclamation No. 984, creating a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Morong, Bataan, which included the Philippine Refugee Processing Center Complex (PRPCC) based therein.19 The Philippine Refugee Processing Center Complex functioned as a transit and holding center for a majority of Southeast Asian refugees who planned to resettle in the US, Canada, France, and Australia.20 Funded by the UNHCR and established on January 21, 1980, the center provided shelter, food, and education to around 400,000 refugees until President Fidel Ramos eventually ordered its closure on March 7, 1995, through Memorandum Order No. 267 due to a significant decrease in the number of refugees.21
4.4 Philippine Passport Act of 1996
The Philippine Passport Act of 1996 also accounts for stateless persons. Section 13 of this Act states that, instead of a passport, a travel document may be issued to “a stateless person who is likewise a permanent resident, or a refugee granted such status or asylum in the Philippines.”22 Concerning this, the implementing rules and regulations for the Act define a travel document as a “means of a certification or identifying document containing the description and other personal circumstances of its bearer, issued for direct travel to and from the Philippines, valid for short periods or a particular trip.”23 Moreover, it states that the document is “issued only to persons, whose claim to Philippine citizenship is doubtful or who fall under any of the categories,” among which include “[a] stateless person who is likewise a permanent resident, or a refugee granted such status or asylum in the Philippines.”
4.5 The Alien Social Integration Act of 1995
The Alien Social Integration Act of 1995 provides for the integration of aliens into the state’s territory and body politic through regulated admissions that account for the national security interests of the Philippines “in deference to internationally recognized human rights.”24 However, Section 3 of the Act excludes alien refugees from applying for legal residence.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Act also provide that an alien who is a refugee for religious, political, or racial reasons in the Philippines, in such cases as may be prescribed by higher authorities, is ineligible for a grant of permanent citizenship status.25
4.6 Family Code of the Philippines
The Family Code provides rules on various aspects of family law, including marriage, its requisites for validity, the law on marital property relations, rules on establishing filiation, provisions on support, parental authority, and adoption. Additionally, the Family Code includes a provision applicable to refugees. Specifically, Article 21 of the Family Code recognizes refugees and stateless persons, requiring them to submit documentation to contract marriage in the Philippines. Instead of the certificate of legal capacity necessary for marriage between Filipino citizens, they must submit an affidavit “stating the circumstances showing such capacity to contract marriage.”26
4.7 The Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as Amended
Following multiple amendments since its first release in 1940, the Philippine Immigration Act in Section 47 authorizes the President to admit aliens who are refugees for religious, political, or racial reasons.27
5 Executive Orders and Administrative Issuances
Refugee protection and border control are also readily apparent in numerous executive orders and administrative issuances released by the State.
5.1 Executive Orders and Proclamations
5.1.1 Declaration of National Refugee Day
Proclamation No. 265 series of 2023 declared June 20 as the National Refugee Day in recognition of the United Nations’ celebration of World Refugee Day every June 20.28 The declaration seeks to give homage to the strength and courage of persons who fled war, violence, and persecution to find safety in another country.29
5.1.2 Strengthening Border Control through the Adoption and Implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System
The policy essentially enhanced Philippine border control to ensure public safety and security by intensifying the implementation of local immigration laws and improving screening capacity, aiming at increased border integrity and a more efficient international traffic flow amidst increased passenger count.30 For example, Section 2 of the Executive Order requires commercial carriers arriving in or departing from any port within the Philippine territory to provide the Bureau of Immigration with advanced passenger information (electronic communication containing passenger- or crew- or non-crew-related information) of its passengers and those of the crew and non-crew members.31
5.1.3 Institutionalizing Access to Protection Services for Refugees, Stateless Persons and Asylum Seekers
The Office of the President also released Executive Order No. 163, formalizing the Inter-Agency Committee on the Protection of Refugees, Stateless Persons, and Asylum Seekers through an Inter-Agency Agreement involving 20 government agencies led by the Department of Justice through its Refugee and Stateless Persons Protective Unit.32 Among its most critical functions is to improve refugees’ and other persons of concern’s (POC) access to courts, documentation, health and welfare assistance, education and skills training, and livelihood programs.33
The committee is also tasked with issuing guidelines on data sharing and confidentiality to establish an integrated coordination and referral system, allowing POC easy access to government services and assistance.34
5.1.4 Grant of Permanent Resident Status to Certain Vietnamese Citizens
In May 1995, Executive Order No. 249 granted permanent status to Vietnamese citizens and Filipino-Vietnamese children. It acknowledges the evacuation of “Filipino workers and their wives, children, and relatives by the Philippine Navy from Vietnam in several missions in 1975 and 1978 during the Vietnam War.”35
However, Aguiling-Pangalangan noted that Executive Order No. 249 “is merely a grant of permanent residence status and, without a bill or legislative enactment providing social, educational, and economic programs by which these children may develop their skills to become productive individuals, this may well become ineffective.”36
5.1.5 Creation of Task Force on International Refugee Assistance and Administration
In 1979, the Philippines created a Task Force on International Refugee Assistance and Administration (TFIRAA) through Executive Order No. 554,37 and in 1988, the body was later reconstituted through Executive Order No. 332.
Although the TFIRAA was constituted to respond to all forms of refugee problems, Candelaria notes that “in practice it is clear that the TFIRAA was created to address only the plight of the Vietnamese refugees.”38
5.1.6 Issuance of Identity Papers and Travel Documents to Refugees Staying in the Philippines
In 1987, former President Corazon Aquino also promulgated Executive Order No. 304, which authorized the TFIRAA to issue identity papers to any refugee residing in the Philippines without a valid travel document.39 Consequently, Executive Order No. 304 authorized the TFIRAA to conduct the necessary investigations to determine the authenticity of travel documents possessed by refugees.40
5.2 Department Orders and Circulars
5.2.1 DOJ Orders and Circulars Repealed by DOJ Department Circular No. 24
Similarly, the DOJ released Circular No. 058-12 in 2000, which established non-adversarial procedures for determining the status of refugees and stateless persons.41
It also released Department Order No. 94, s. 1994, which established a procedure for processing applications to grant refugee status to aliens according to the relevant provisions of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended, and in accordance with the 1951 United Nations Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Both of these, however, were later repealed by DOJ Circular No. 024, which strengthened the DOJ’s Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit and helped with identification, registration, issuance of documentation, and other related tasks of the unit.42 It also provides that the unit shall be led by the Chief of State Counsel and “shall be assisted by such number of Protection Officers, and other personnel of the DOJ and the Bureau, as may be necessary, to enable it to effectively and efficiently execute its mandate.”43
The circular also aimed to create a non-adversarial procedure for institutionalizing mechanisms that aid refugees and stateless persons, such as registration services, documentation issuance, and status determination. Section 1 of the circular provides for the definition of “refugee,” specifically that it is:
a person who owing to 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 or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
It also defines a “stateless person” as “a person who is not considered a national by any State under the operation of its law.”
5.2.2 DOJ Department Circular No. 011-20
The State’s policy on refugee protection has also been affected by the changing circumstances of the legal and economic landscape. For instance, with the onset of the pandemic, the DOJ released DOJ Department Circular No. 11, which suspended the acceptance of applications for recognition of refugee and statelessness status under the Office of the Chief State Counsel’s Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (RSPPU).44
5.2.3 Bureau of Corrections Operating Manual
The Bureau of Corrections released its Operating Manual, which provides for rules on handling “stateless inmates,” allowing them “to communicate with the diplomatic authorities of the state taking charge of his or her interests, or any national or international tasked to protect [them].”45
5.2.4 DOLE Omnibus Guidelines for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals and Subsequent Amendments
On the other hand, the DOLE released an Omnibus Guidelines for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals and has since issued various memoranda amending specific provisions in the rules.46
6 Supreme Court Issuances
In February 2022, the Supreme Court released an issuance reflecting the State’s policy on refugees and asylum seekers. A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC or its Rule on Facilitated Naturalization of Refugees and Stateless Persons created mechanisms for streamlining the assimilation and naturalization process of stateless persons and refugees, providing for simplified procedures on matters like filing for a petition for naturalization and other legal hurdles in securing Philippine citizenship.47
7 Jurisprudence
Philippine jurisprudence also provides a better and more contextualized understanding of the State’s policy on refugees and asylum seekers and their application to specific legal issues. In particular, the Court has had the opportunity to rule on the following key issues relating to refugee protection and border control: (a) determination of Refugee Status, (b) naturalization of a Convention Refugee, and (c) naturalization of Stateless Refugees.
7.1 Determination of Refugee Status
7.1.1 Rehman Sabir v. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit48
In the case of Rehman Sabir v. Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit, petitioner Rehman Sabir, a Pakistani refugee, sought protection under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees from alleged religious persecution upon him.
The Secretary of Justice, through the Department of Justice-Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit (DOJ-RSPPU), denied the petitioner’s application based on the DOJ-RSPPU’s conclusion that Sabir did not fall within the definition of “refugee” in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
It further noted that the religious discrimination faced by Christians does not amount to a risk of persecution, for they are still able to practice their faith, attend church, and have their own schools and hospitals despite being a religious minority. Unless there is evidence that an actual charge was pursued, the risk of blasphemy allegations is not enough to make a claim based on the 1951 Convention Relating to the State of Refugees. Based on the petitioner’s claims, there was no persecution due to his religion.
There being no religious persecution of the petitioner, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the DOJ-RSPPU and held that the subjective and objective elements of Sabir’s claim must be reexamined against the reasonable degree threshold.
Additionally, Justice Caguioa, in his concurring opinion, discussed the principle of non-refoulement as the “cornerstone of international refugee protection.” citing Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention and its binding effect upon State parties to the 1967 Protocol. Clarifying that the said principle applies to both recognized refugees and those whose status has not yet been formally declared, Justice Caguioa characterized the principle to mean that:
where States are not prepared to grant asylum to persons who are seeking international protection on their territory, they must adopt a course that does not result in their removal, directly or indirectly, to a place where their lives or freedom would be in danger on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
7.1.2 Development Bank of the Philippines, National Development Company and National Steel Corporation v. Judge Amir Pundogar49
In this case, the Court held that it could not take judicial notice of the allegations on the refugee status of the Jacintos, e.g., that the passports of the Jacintos were canceled and that the Government took their resources. Respondents presented no documentary evidence to “prove their possession of such status, let alone explain its legal implications.”50 Contrary to the respondents’ claim, the Court thus held that the prescriptive period was not interrupted by Martial Law since there is no convincing evidence that it should be considered a “special circumstance” in this case based on the alleged facts.51
A claim of possession of refugee status thus requires the presentation of supporting evidence which will convince the Court to take judicial notice of the facts relating to such claim.
7.2 Naturalization of a Convention Refugee
7.2.1 Republic of Philippines v. Kamran F. Karbasi52
Petitioner Kamran F. Karbasi (Karbasi) filed a petition for naturalization with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging, among others, that he is recognized as a Person of Concern by the UNHCR, as shown in a certification duly issued by the UNHCR.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals based on the ground that the Regional Trial Court erred in granting Karbasi’s petition as he failed to comply with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Naturalization Law) on character, income, and reciprocity. The OSG alleged that Karbasi did not show that:
(1) Iran grants reciprocal rights of naturalization to Filipino citizens; (2) he has a lucrative income as required under the law; and (3) he is of good moral character as shown by his disregard of Philippine tax laws when he had understated his income in his income tax returns (ITR s) and overstated the same in his petition for naturalization.53
Regarding the income requirement, the Supreme Court observed that it did not seem likely that Karbasi would ever become a public charge because of his current situation. Notably, Karbasi refused to be the object of charity, a refugee who started with nothing when he came to the Philippines. Instead, he worked diligently to graduate from college, eventually being able to support his own family.
On the issue of good moral character, the Court did not equate Karbasi’s lapse with a moral depravity that was fatal to his application for Filipino citizenship, noting that “the mistaken understanding of the proper way to declare income is so common to individual taxpayers, including lawyers and other professionals.”
On reciprocity, the Court affirmed the applicability of the country’s various international commitments and obligations under international law. It held that “[w]hile the Naturalization Law disqualifies citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects, Karbasi successfully established his refugee status upon arrival in the Philippines.”
7.2.2 Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed v. Republic of Philippines54
In 1991, Petitioner Mohamed arrived in Manila. In 2005, Mohamed was recognized as a convention refugee. On June 2, 2006, Mohamed applied for Philippine citizenship and filed a Declaration of Intention with the OSG. On July 20, 2007, Mohamed submitted a Supplemental Declaration of Intention stating that he is not only known as “Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed” but also as “Sefyan Abdelhakim Mohamed Hussin.”
On August 21, 2007, Mohamed filed a Petition for Naturalization before the RTC. The OSG elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Declaration of Intention must be submitted one year before filing a petition for admission to Philippine citizenship. Here, Mohamed filed his petition for naturalization on August 21, 2007, or less than one year after he submitted his Supplemental Declaration of Intention on July 20, 2007. Moreover, Mohamed failed to substantiate his qualifications with competent evidence.
Mohamed invoked the provisions of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Court’s ruling in Republic v. Karbasi, which affirmed the naturalization of a convention refugee.
The Supreme Court held that the 1951 Refugee Convention relating to the Status of Refugees does not amount to a blanket waiver of all the legal requirements for naturalization.55 Finding that Mohamed failed to prove complete compliance with the provisions of naturalization laws, the Court then remanded the case to the RTC for the reception of evidence and further proceedings.56
7.3 Naturalization of Stateless Refugees
7.3.1 Eremes Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General57
Petitioner Eremes Kookooritchkin applied for Philippine citizenship by naturalization under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473. Upon grant of the petition by the lower court, the OSG appealed, arguing that the petitioner did not show that he had lost his Russian citizenship under the laws of Russia. They also alleged that the petitioner failed to establish that Filipinos may be naturalized citizens under Russian law.
The Court held that it was proper for the lower court to pronounce him as a stateless refugee based on his uncontradicted testimony and the well-known fact of the ruthless modern dictatorship in Russia.58
7.3.2 Jack J. Bermont v. Republic of Philippines59
In this case, the Solicitor General questioned the grant of citizenship to petitioner Jack J. Bermont by the Court of First Instance of Manila, who contended that the petitioner was not a stateless person but a Russian citizen. They also alleged that the petitioner failed to establish that Filipinos were allowed to acquire Russian citizenship in his country. In deciding the case, the Court clarified that Bermont, being a person who permanently abandoned his land of birth and adopted the Philippines as his home while also identifying with its people, is considered a White Russian refugee as also established by his alien certificate of registration. The Court held that:
If Kookooritchkin was held entitled to Philippine citizenship, it does not seem fair that the same consideration should not be extended to the present petitioner, who has presented an even stronger case because he has by deeds shown his loyalty to this country and its ideals and his fitness to become one of its citizens.60
Thus, following Eremes Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, the petitioner was granted citizenship.
8 United Nations Human Rights Council – Universal Periodic Review Reports
The State’s policy on refugee protection and border control is also reflected in recent Universal Periodic Review Reports released by the UNHCR.
In its 41st session on August 26, 2022, the Commissioner’s report on the Philippines shows that the UNHCR extended relevant services to migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers through the Inter-Agency Steering Committee on the Protection of Asylum-Seekers, Refugees and Stateless Persons.61 However, these were relayed to them merely on an ad hoc basis, primarily through referral mechanisms employed within the relevant service agencies under the Committee.62 The report also cited difficulties posed by the costly, lengthy, and stringent application process for naturalization of refugees and stateless persons, such as the impact of an age requirement which has primarily caused children unable to be naturalized “despite their right to a nationality.”63 On the contrary, the report also notes that a bill had already been finalized to address these issues on naturalization.64
Similarly, a 2016 Compilation Report on the Philippines submitted by the UNHCR reveals the State’s active involvement in accommodating refugees and stateless persons, as well as implementing on-the-ground policies to address their immediate needs and concerns.65
It reported that the Philippines hosted 343 refugees and 190 asylum-seekers in June 2016, most of which were Iranian, Syrian, and Palestinian refugees and Syrians, Pakistanis, and Somalis for asylum seekers, of which 22.5 percent were female and 10 percent were children under 18 years old.
In 2012, it was also found that more than 6,000 persons of Indonesian descent were of undetermined citizenship in the Southern Philippines, prompting the 6th Joint Commission for Bilateral Cooperation (JCBC) to prioritize the registration of citizenship of these persons in 2014, which resulted to the registration of over 8,745 persons of Indonesian descent, with 664 of these in Gian, Sarangani, Southern Philippines, having their citizenship confirmed in March 2016. During the same year, the Regional Legislative Assembly of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) also enacted the Muslim Mindanao Autonomy Act No. 293, providing “funding for its implementation to ensure late registration free of charge.”66
Under the UNHCR’s Global Action Plan to End Statelessness (GAPES), the Philippines also created a National Action Plan to End Statelessness in 2015, including the action points from GAPES, namely:
(1) Resolve existing situations of statelessness; (2) No child is born stateless; (3) Remove gender discrimination from nationality laws; (4) Grant protection status to stateless migrants and facilitate their naturalization; (5) Ensure birth registration for the prevention of statelessness; (6) Accede to the UN Statelessness Conventions; and (7) Improve quantitative and qualitative data on stateless population.67
Then, the Philippines declared 2015 to 2024 the “Civil Registration and Vital Statistics (CRVS) Decade,” which endorsed the Asia Pacific’s shared vision of universal civil registration by 2024.
The Philippines also provided support for the birth registration of internally displaced children who faced issues like loss of documentation during displacement, such as by partnering with the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) for more efficient processing of birth documents, as well as by issuing a Resolution in 2016 providing exemptions from fees on late birth registration and clerical correction of entries in their birth documents.
Associate Professor, University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law; Director, Institute of International Legal Studies UP Law Center; LL.M Columbia Law School, LL.B and BA Political Science UP Diliman.
This article is based on a report delivered during the 2023 DILA International Conference held in Mongolia on June 26–28, 2023. The report and the current version of this article would not be possible without the research assistance of Trishia Fernandez and Marianne Sasing.
Under Philippine law, treaties and executive agreements are two types of international agreements that correspond to the definition of treaties of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Both types bind the Philippines to comply with the principle of pacta sunt servanda. The main difference is that the former requires Philippine Senate concurrence for validity while the latter does not.
Sabir v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 249387, 7–8 (Aug. 2, 2022) (Phil.), https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/249387.pdf.
Id. at 7.
Id. (citing Office of the President, Enjoining All Branches, Subdivisions, Agencies and Instrumentalities of the Commonwealth Government to Extend Their Cooperation in Rendering the Necessary Aid to the Refugees from China and Prohibiting, as an Emergency Measure, the Raise in House Rentals and Prices of Foodstuffs and Other Prime Necessities of Life, Pres. Proc. No. 173 (Aug. 21, 1937) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1937/08/21/proclamation-no-173-s-1937/).
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.
ASEAN Framework Agreement on the Facilitation of Cross Border Transport of Passengers by Road Vehicles, art. 1(a) (Oct. 13, 2017), https://agreement.asean.org/media/download/20171208153146.pdf.
ASEAN Agreement on the Movement of Natural Persons, art. 1(b)–(d) (Nov. 19, 2012), https://investasean.asean.org/files/upload/ASEAN%20MNP%20Main%20Text.pdf.
U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], Memorandum of Understanding Between the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, ¶ 1 (May 15, 1997), https://emergency.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/IOM-UNHCR%2C%20MoU%2C%201997.pdf.
Christopher Lloyd Caliwan & Benjamin Pulta, Safeguards in Place for Afghan Refugees: DOJ, Philippine News Agency (Aug. 18, 2021), https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1150828.
UNHCR, Introductory Note by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 3 (2014).
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness art. 1, Aug. 30, 1961, 989 U.N.T.S. 175.
Id. arts. 5–10.
Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022, Rep. Act No. 11862, § 11 (June 2, 2022) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2022/06/02/republic-act-no-11862.
Id.
2022 Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9208, as Amended, §§ 124, 140(a), (c) (Mar. 18, 2023) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2023/03/18/2022-implementing-rules-and-regulations-of-republic-act-r-a-no-9208-the-anti-trafficking-in-persons-act-of-2003-as-amended-by-r-a-no-10364-the-expanded-anti-trafficking-in-persons-act-of.
See Kristine Bernadette F. Soriano, Departure Rules for Filipinos Exiting the Philippines, ACCRALAW (Sept. 19, 2023), https://accralaw.com/2023/09/19/departure-rules-for-filipinos-exiting-the-philippines.
Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity, Rep. Act No. 9851, § 3(q)(4) (Dec. 11, 2009), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2009/12/11/republic-act-no-9851.
Office of the President, Creating and Designating the Municipality of Morong, Province of Bataan, Including the Area of the Philippine Refugee Processing Center Complex (PRPCC) as the Morong Special Economic Zone Pursuant to Republic Act No. 7227 and Transferring the Land Comprising the PRPCC to the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA), Pres. Proc. No. 984, § 1 (Mar. 26, 1997), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/03/26/proclamation-no-984-s-1997.
Yến Lê Espiritu & J.A. Ruanto-Ramirez, The Philippine Refugee Processing Center: The Relational Displacements of Vietnamese Refugees and the Indigenous Aetas, Verge: Studies in Global Asias, Spring 2020, at 118, 118.
Zebadiah Cañero, Timeline: Philippine Laws and Policies on Refugees, Rappler (June 20, 2015), https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/96929-timeline-philippine-law-policies-refugees/?fbclid=IwAR3V8Bxru1GNgWp30chmBeJKOcd9aWYF576-WD04GtGUDh7n4 PwWv0gVUFY.
Philippine Passport Act of 1996, Rep. Act No. 8239, § 13(e) (Nov. 22, 1996), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1996/11/22/republic-act-no-8239.
Dep’t of Foreign Affairs [DFA], Rules and Regulations Implementing the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (R.A. 8239), DFA Dep’t Ord. No. 11-97, art. 4(b) (Feb. 25, 1997), https://chanrobles.com/REPUBLIC%20ACT%20No.%208239.%20PHILIPPINE%20PASSPORT%20ACT%20OF%201996.IMPLEMENTING%20RULES%20%26%20REGULATIONS.pdf.
Alien Social Integration Act of 1995, Rep. Act No. 7919, § 2 (Feb. 24, 1995) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1995/02/24/republic-act-no-7919.
Philippines: Rules and Regulations to Implement Republic Act No. 7919 (Alien Social Integration Act of 1995), § 4 (Apr. 17, 1995), https://www.refworld.org/legal/decreees/natlegbod/1995/en/36390.
Family Code, art. 21, Exec. Ord. No. 209, as amended (Phil.).
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, Comm. Act No. 613, § 47(b) (Aug. 26, 1940), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1940/08/26/commonwealth-act-no-613.
Office of the President, Declaring June 20 of Every Year as the National Refugee Day, Pres. Proc. No. 265 (June 20, 2023) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2023/06/20/proclamation-no-265-s-2023.
Id.
Office of the President, Strengthening Border Control Through the Adoption and Implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System, Exec. Ord. No. 122 (Dec. 15, 2020) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2020/12/15/executive-order-no-122-s-2020.
Id. §§ 1–2.
Office of the President, Institutionalizing Access to Protection Services for Refugees, Stateless Persons and Asylum Seekers, Exec. Ord. No. 163, § 3 (Feb. 28, 2022) (Phil.), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2022/02/28/executive-order-no-163-s-2022.
Id. § 4(b).
Id. § 4(c)–(d).
Office of the President, Granting Permanent Resident Status to Certain Vietnamese Citizens and Filipino-Vietnamese Children Pursuant to Section 47 of the Immigration Act of 1940, Exec. Ord. No. 249 (May 29, 1995), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1995/05/29/executive-order-no-249-s-1995.
Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan, Legal Protection for Children in Domestic and Treaty Law, 72 Philippine Law Journal 93, 108 (1997).
Office of the President, Creating a Task Force on International Refugee Assistance and Administration, Providing Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, Exec. Ord. No. 554, § 2 (Aug. 21, 1979), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1979/08/21/executive-order-no-554-s-1979.
Sedfrey M. Candelaria, The Practice of Refugee Law in the Philippines, 70 Philippine Law Journal 187, 191 (1995).
Office of the President, Authorizing the Task Force on Refugee Assistance and Administration and the Department of Foreign Affairs to Respectively Issue Identity Papers and Travel Documents to Refugees Staying in the Philippines and Prescribing Guidelines Therefor, Exec. Ord. No. 304, § 1 (Aug. 31, 1987), https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/1987/08aug/19870831-EO-0304-CCA.pdf.
Id.
Dep’t of Justice [DOJ], Establishing the Refugee and Stateless Status Determination Procedure, DOJ Dep’t Circ. No. 058, § 2 (Oct. 18, 2012), https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/2012/en/89256.
Dep’t of Justice [DOJ], Strengthening the Refugees and Stateless Persons Protection Unit, Enhancing the Rules for Refugee and Stateless Status Determination, and for Other Purposes, DOJ Dep’t Circ. No. 024, Rule I, § 2 (June 28, 2022), https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/2022/DC/DC%20024.pdf.
Id. at Rule I, § 6.
Dep’t of Justice [DOJ], Suspension of Receipt of Applications for Special Non-Immigrant Visas Under Section 47(a)(2) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as Amended, and Applications for Recognition of Refugee Status and Statelessness, DOJ Dep’t Circ. No. 11 (Mar. 13, 2020), https://www.doj.gov.ph/files/2020/DC/DC011-2020MARCH%20Suspension%20of%20receipt%20of%20Application%20for%20Special%20Non-Immigration%20under%20Section%2047(a)(2)%20of%20the%20Philippine%20Immigration%20Act%20of%201940.pdf.
Bureau of Corrections, Bureau of Corrections Operating Manual, Book I, Part III, Chapter 5, § 11 (2000) (Phil.).
Dep’t of Labor and Employment [DOLE], Revised Rules and Regulations for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals, DOLE Dep’t Ord. No. 221 (Jan. 6, 2021), https://ncr.dole.gov.ph/news/department-order-no-221-series-of-2021-revised-rules-and-regulations-for-the-issuance-of-employment-permits-to-foreign-nationals; See also DOLE, Amending Certain Provisions of Department Order No. 12, Series of 2001 Entitled Omnibus Guidelines for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals, DOLE Dep’t Ord. No. 19-02 (Mar. 5, 2002), https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/10/39883; DOLE, Implementation of Rule II, Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of Department Order No. 12, Series of 2001, Entitled “Omnibus Guidelines for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals,” (Jan. 14, 2002), https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ede2da64.html.
Rule on Facilitated Naturalization of Refugees and Stateless Persons, A.M. No. 21-07-22-SC, § 3 (Feb. 15, 2022) (Phil.), https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/21-07-22-SC.pdf.
Sabir v. Department of Justice, supra note 2.
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pundogar, G.R. No. 96921 (Jan. 29, 1993) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jan1993/gr_96921_1993.html.
Id.
Id.
Republic v. Karbasi, 765 Philippine Reports 275, 280 (July 29, 2015) (Phil.), https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/pdf/philrep_ebooks/Volume_765.pdf.
Id. at 287.
Mohamed v. Republic, G.R. No. 220674 (Dec. 2, 2021) (Phil.), https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/68230.
Id.
Id.
Kookooritchkin v. Solicitor General, G.R. No. L-1812 (Aug. 27, 1948) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1948/aug1948/gr_l-1812_1948.html.
Id.
Bermont v. Republic, G.R. No. L-3323 (July 18, 1951) (Phil.), https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1951/jul1951/gr_l-3323_1951.html.
Id.
UNHCR, Philippines: Compilation of Information Prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ¶ 75, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/41/PHL/2 (Aug. 26, 2022).
Id.
Id. ¶79.
Id.
UNHCR, Submission by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Compilation Report Universal Periodic Review: 3rd Cycle, 27th Session: The Philippines, at 3–4 (Sept. 2016), https://www.refworld.org/docid/591984589.html.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 3.