2024 RLLR 7
Citation: 2024 RLLR 7
Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division
Date of Decision: February 22, 2024
Panel: Logan Sherwood
Counsel for the Claimant(s): Louay R. Alghoul
Country: Philippines
RPD Number: VC3-07210
Associated RPD Number(s): VC3-07211, VC3-07212, VC3-07215
ATIP Number: A-2024-01886
ATIP Pages: N/A
DECISION
[1] MEMBER: This is the decision of the Refugee Protection Division in the claims of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is a principal claimant, his file number is VC3-07210. The associate claimant is his wife XXXX XXXX XXXX, her file number is VC3-07215. The first minor claimant is their daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, her file number is VC3-07211. And the second minor claimant is their daughter, XXXX XXXX XXXX, and her file number is VC3-07212. All the claimants are citizens of the Philippines and the date today of the decision is February 22nd, 2024.
[2] The claimants claim refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In coming to my decision today, I have considered the testimony of the principal claimant and the associate claimant, as well as the documentary evidence filed by the claimants and the country conditions, which can be found in the most recent version of the National Documentation Package for the Philippines, which is found on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s website.
[3] So, I find that the principal claimant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97(1b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, as I find that he has established on a balance of probabilities that he would face a risk to his life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment in the Philippines.
[4] I find that the associate claimant, XXXX XXXX, and the minor claimants, their daughters XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as I find that they have established they face a serious possibility of persecution on account of their membership in a particular social group as family members of the principal claimant.
[5] The claimant’s allegations are set out to their answers to question two (2) in their Basis of Claim forms, as well as in their testimony today. The claimants fear that if they return to the Philippines, they will be harmed or killed by the group of people who are responsible for the killing of the principal claimant’s father.
[6] The principal claimant’s father was a XXXX and longtime XXXX of XXXX XXXX for approximately 11 years before he was killed on XXXX XXXX of 2021. Nine (9) police officers have been charged in his murder. The claimants believe that this murder was carried out by these police officers at the direction of the principal claimant’s political rivals, who are the XXXX (ph) family, who are a powerful political family in the Samar province.
[7] The principal claimant is one (1) of the complainants in the case against the nine (9) accused police officers. After his father was killed, the principal claimant has been very vocal and public in seeking justice for his father’s death. The principal claimant spoke with the media around the time of his father’s death, and he publicly named those who he believed were responsible for his father’s killing which not only included the nine (9) police officers that were eventually charged in the killing, but also included two (2) politicians who the principal claimant believed the police officers were taking direction from or acting on orders from.
[8] The principal claimant learned about the involvement of these two (2) politicians after he attended a Senate hearing into his father’s death and heard testimony from a police officer who told the Senate inquiry that that the XXXX family was behind the assassination of the principal claimant’s father. This police officer who testified specifically named these two (2) politicians in particular, and in turn, the principal claimant named these two (2) politicians publicly in interviews he conducted with the media.
[9] The principal claimant also campaigned in the state elections in some Sumar State in 2022 against the XXXX family and those who he believes were responsible for ordering the killing of his father.
[10] The associate claimant, Ms. XXXX, who is, of course, the principal claimant’s wife, testified that she was present during many of these campaign events and that during the campaign events, the principal claimant named the individuals who he believed were responsible for his father’s killing.
[11] Shortly after the principal claimant’s father was killed, the principal claimant and his family were provided a security detail of nine (9) soldiers by the Philippine Army in order to try and ensure their safety. But despite the security detail, there were threats and surveillance carried out against the claimants.
[12] For example, on March 15th of 2021, prior to the arrest of the nine (9) accused police officers, the principal claimant received a message from a friend of who is — who is an XXXX XXXX in the police force. And this friend told the principal claimant that the friend had learned that the leader of the police officers responsible for killing his father was also planning to kill the principal claimant, because the principal claimant had mentioned their names on the news and these officers were aware that the principal claimant intended to file a criminal case against them. The principal claimant’s friend advised him to tighten his security and to take precautions.
[13] At some point in the XXXX of 2021, charges were laid against the nine (9) police officers, and they were arrested and taken into custody. In April of 2022, the claimants noticed suspicious vehicles outside of their residence on a couple occasions. The claimants were fearful for their lives, but they decided to remain in the Philippines at this time hoping that their political allies would win the majority of the provincial seats in the 2022 Samar provincial elections. The principal claimant was also very determined and motivated to remain in the Philippines in order to try to spearhead the efforts to get justice for his father, so that was an additional reason that they had stayed.
[14] I note that the principal claimant was personally very intricately involved in the prosecution efforts against the accused. Following the death of his father, the principal claimant testified that he personally canvassed people living in the area where his father’s shooting had occurred, in order to try to gather information from some of these people, as he knew some of the people, and he also believed that they would be scared to speak with the police or cooperate with the police. Some of these individuals actually ended up handing over cellphones and weapons that they had found that had been discarded in the area of the shooting. And the principal claimant testified that he personally turned over these items to the National Investigation Bureau.
[15] The principal claimant himself is one (1) of the complainants in the criminal case against the nine (9) accused police officers and he testified that he is central to the efforts to prosecute his father’s killers. The principal claimant testified that he hired a private prosecutor to prosecute the case against the accused police officers because he does not have faith in the public prosecution system in the Philippines due to the judicial corruption in that country.
[16] The principal claimant has personally remained in contact with some of the witnesses who are to testify in the case against the police officers, and he has been involved in encouraging them to stay strong and to go forward with their testimony, as he is aware of the fears of these witnesses who believe that they may face harm or retribution or retaliation for their involvement in testifying.
[17] Unfortunately for the claimants, the political rivals of the of the principal claimant’s father dominated the 2022 Samar state elections. They ended up winning all the most influential positions in the province, including the XXXX XXXX mayor seat, the governor’s office and congressional offices, as well as most of the other political offices. After that, the claimants decided to leave the Philippines and they left on XXXX XXXX, 2022, a few days before their political rivals could assume their positions as newly elected officials. The claimants feared that once their political rivals assumed office, the claimants would have no protection as their rivals would effectively have control over the local police and army.
[18] Since coming to Canada, the claimants have learned that the nine (9) accused police officers have been granted bail and that some of these officers have been involved in witness intimidation and witness tampering.
[19] After coming to Canada, the principal claimant’s mother has been visited by an unknown man who is suspected to be a policeman and this person asked the principal claimant’s mother about the principal claimant’s whereabouts. His mother was threatened that she needs to tell them or inform them where the principal claimant is.
[20] The claimants also have reported that the foreman of the result — that resort that their family owns reported to them that an unknown individual who the foreman thought was a police officer came to the family resort looking for the principal claimant. These events occurred quite recently in 2023.
[21] So, the claimants fear that if they return to the Philippines, they will be killed or harmed by the same group of people behind the killing of the principal claimant’s father.
[22] In terms of the identity of the claimants, I find that their personal identities as nationals of the Philippines are established based on copies of their passports that they have provided, which are found in Exhibit 1, as well as their oral testimony today.
[23] Regarding a nexus to the Convention ground under section 96. In order to satisfy the definition of Convention refugee under section 96, a claimant must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution for either reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
[24] I find that the risk alleged by the principal claimant does not really have a connection or nexus to any of the Convention grounds. The principal claimant fears that he will be at risk from rogue police officers who are acting or being directed by his late father’s political opponents. Under Canadian refugee law, victims of crime cannot generally establish a link between their fear of persecution in one (1) of the Convention refugee reasons.
[25] I did consider whether the claimant’s political opinion might bring him under section 96, and it is possible that it could, but I find that the claimant’s case — principal claimant’s case is best assessed under section 97 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act because he primarily fears that he will be killed by his father’s political opponents.
[26] So therefore, I have decided to assess this claim under section 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[27] Regarding the associate claimant and the minor claimants, I find that there is a nexus to the Convention under section 96. In particular, the ground of membership in a particular social group, specifically as family members of a person who is being targeted by criminals. Therefore, I have assessed the associate claimant and the minor claimants’ claims under section 96.
[28] Regarding the claimants’ credibility, I find that the claimants are credible witnesses and I believe what you have alleged and testified to in support of your claim. I find that both the principal claimant and the associate claimant testified in a straightforward manner, and I did not find any material inconsistencies in your testimony or contradictions between your testimony and the other evidence before me.
[29] I found that you did not fabricate or exaggerate your testimony and that you responded appropriately to the questions I asked you today with a significant amount of detail.
[30] You have testified regarding the events that occurred after the principal claimant’s father was killed by the police officers who were — who you believe were acting at the direction of your father’s political opponents and that they were motivated to kill the principal claimant’s father because they wanted the XXXX XXXX for themselves. You were able to elaborate on your claims, and you provided a lot of detail in your answer to my questions.
[31] I could tell at times that it was very difficult to testify today and to recall these very tragic and horrible events that have happened to the principal claimant’s father and subsequently to your family. And you also talked a lot about the political landscape in your province where you are from in the Philippines, and you provided me with a lot of information and details about how politics work in your province and about how — about the XXXX family, your father’s political rivals, and their influence and some of the tie-ins they have with rogue elements of the police and military.
[32] You have provided significant in detail documentation to corroborate your claim and I am going to review a little bit of that documentary evidence now. You have actually provided so much documentary evidence that I will not be able to name every single piece of evidence that you have provided, but I want to go through the main or most important pieces of evidence.
[33] You have provided a copy of the principal claimant’s autopsy report which states that he was shot numerous times. You have provided a copy of photos of your father — of the principal claimant’s father at the scene where he died, and also with the principal claimant himself when the principal claimant arrived at the scene.
[34] You have provided a copy of the National Bureau of Investigation report into the killing of the principal claimant’s father and the other staff members who died alongside him.
[35] You have provided a printout with the mug shots of the nine (9) police officers who were accused in the killing of your father.
[36] You have provided a copy of a letter from the prosecutor which states that the prosecutor is a private prosecutor, and the prosecutor is requesting additional security from the military because the prosecutor has received threats.
[37] You have provided a copy of a text message from a police officer in XXXX who is a friend of the principal claimants, who states that the officer has received information from an informant that there is an operation to quote, “Pin down political opponents.” The principal claimant’s name and his brother’s name appears on that list of political opponents that was provided in this text message from your friend.
[38] You have provided a printout of the election results from Samar Province which is where XXXX XXXX is located. Which shows that the XXXX family, who, of course, are the political rivals of your father’s, dominated the 2022 Samar provincial elections.
[39] You have provided a CCTV photo of the vehicle that was driven to the resort where your mom was staying when the unknown man asked your mom about your whereabouts and made threats against her.
[40] You have provided a motion made by the private prosecutor for the decision to grant bail to the nine (9) accused police officers to be reviewed and reversed.
[41] You have provided a copy of the Department of Justice Order, which lists the principal claimant as one (1) of the complainants in the murder case against the nine (9) police officers.
[42] You have provided a photo of the principal claimant and his mother and brother at his father’s funeral. You have provided copies of several newspaper articles which describe not only the murder of the principal claimant’s father, but some of the subsequent events that followed, including the arrest and later the release of the nine (9) suspected police officers on bail.
[43] You have provided an article in which you spoke with the media talking about how you had become aware of threats against you.
[44] You have provided photos of the principal claimant campaigning during the 2022 Samar provincial elections.
[45] And you provided other documents related to the ongoing court case. Some of those documents at least on the surface, seem to indicate that the private prosecutor who you have retained to lead the prosecution against the nine (9) accused police officers is experiencing what I would describe as what appears to be harassment from the judicial system. The private prosecutor was asked to show cause why they should not be reprimanded for speaking out to the media about your case.
[46] You have provided court documents which show that there have been various judges assigned to the criminal trial against the nine (9) accused police officers and that these various judges have only dealt with individual motions but have not seized themselves on the matter and have essentially recused themselves and passed the buck on so that another judge would have to take over the criminal case against your father. The principal claimant actually testified today that he believes that the judges are afraid to take on this case for fear of what might happen to them.
[47] I have reviewed all this documentary evidence, and I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of these documents and I assign them full weight in corroborating the claims and allegations that you have made.
[48] I find you to be credible and accept the allegations that you have made, in your Basis of Claim forms, your narrative, and your testimony. And I accept those allegations in full, and I accept that they are true on a balance of probabilities.
[49] Regarding section 97 risk. In order for the principal claimant to succeed in a claim under section 97(1b), the evidence must establish a specific, individualized risk to the principal claimant, and not merely generalized exposure to crime or human rights violations. Even a direct victim of crime is not automatically a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The assess for — excuse me, the test for assessing risk and whether it meets the definition required under section 97 is whether, on the facts, the decision maker is satisfied that it is more likely than not that a claimant would be personally subjected to a risk to life or risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
[50] In the case of the principal claimant, I find that he faces a personalized risk as contemplated under section 97. It is clear that the rogue police officers who assassinated the principal claimant’s father have specifically targeted the principal claimant and want to kill him specifically. They have plotted to kill him while he was still living in the Philippines, and they have continued to look for the principal claimant after he left the Philippines.
[51] Since he has come to Canada, they have gone to the principal claimant’s mother’s house and asked about him. They have attended his family-owned resort looking for him. And the reason they are specifically interested in the principal claimant is because he is the primary complainant in the murder case against the police officers and he is the one (1) who has really vocally called out those who he believes are responsible for his father’s killing. Therefore, I find that his risk is personal — clearly personalized for the purposes of a section 97 claim.
[52] Regarding the country conditions for the Philippines, I find that the risk to the claimants is corroborated by the objective country evidence in the National Documentation Package.
[53] For example, Item 1.4 is the 2022 BTI Country Report on the Philippines. And that report states that election related violence is a common feature in the Philippines. It says that particularly in rural areas where local clans effectively rule, vote buying, and intimidation occur quite regularly. That Item says that some elements of the Army leadership consider that they have the right to interfere with the elected government, and that if they believe the unity and stability of the nation is threatened, they may take matters into their own hands. This Item says that there are powerful networks in the Philippines between active and retired military officials and politicians.
[54] Item 1.8 is the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Report. And that report says that violence, including shooting attacks and bombings, is common during election periods in the Philippines as rival candidates try to control their districts and eliminate their political opponents.
[55] It says that family members and other bystanders have been injured or killed in this kind of violence as well.
[56] I know today that both the principal claimants and associate claimants were able to testify about particular incidences that they were aware of, in which political opponents were not only killed, but that the family members of these political opponents were also killed, sometimes being very brutally murdered one (1) by one (1), including killings of their spouses, their children, and other family members.
[57] That same Item, Item 1.8, says that extrajudicial killings occur in the Philippines against various groups of people like drug dealers, activists, judicial officials, local government leaders, and even journalists. It says that the killings are often blamed on unidentified individuals or vigilantes, but that the killings may also involve uniform police officers or soldiers. This Item says that it is highly likely that police, including both current police and former police, are involved in extrajudicial killings.
[58] This Item says that the Philippines National Police Force has systemic problems with corruption and impunity, including petty corruption. This Item says that local sources report the extent to which the police are corrupt varies throughout the Philippines National Police Force and depends on the individual officers. It says that senior police may be more likely to be involved in serious corruption, due to the patronage driven nature of politics in the Philippines. This Item also says that public confidence in the judicial system in the Philippines is quite low.
[59] Legal sources informed the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that bribery may be used to speed up trial processes or secure shorter sentences, and that bribes maybe need to be paid to various court officers, including judges, clerks, sheriffs and other staff, in order to get cases to move forward or to get the desired verdict secured.
[60] Item 2.1 is the US Department of State Report. That report says that significant rights — excuse me, significant human rights abuses in the Philippines include credible reports of unlawful or arbitrary killings including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on — by and on behalf of the government, and other abuses by non-state actors, serious problems with the independence of the judiciary in high level and widespread government corruption.
[61] This Item also notes that there is concerns about police impunity given reports of continued extrajudicial killings by police in the Philippines. Significant concerns persist in relation to other security forces, including the military, civilian national and local government officials, as well as powerful business and commercial officials. This Item says that officials frequently engaged in corrupt practices.
[62] Item 7.14 says that there is a high risk of corruption in the Philippines when dealing with the police. It says that the Philippine National Police Force is widely regarded as one (1) of the most corrupt institutions in the country. This Item says that there is reports of police and military engaging in corruption, extortion, and being involved in local rackets. It says the corruption risks are very high in the judicial system. Bribes and irregular payments in return for favourable decisions are common. It says while the judiciary is formally independent, the rich and powerful have frequently been able to manipulate the judicial system in the Philippines in their favour.
[63] It says that procedural fairness and transparency are undermined by favoritism, nepotism and impunity.
[64] So, I find that all of this evidence in the National Documentation Package demonstrates that it is not uncommon in the Philippines to see extrajudicial killings, such as what happened to your father being carried out by police officers or soldiers who are able to act with impunity. Those who have influence and power are able to influence the police and the judicial system and use those systems to their advantage.
[65] The principal claimant’s father was killed on a balance of probabilities by rogue police officers who were working at the direction of the principal claimant’s political rivals.
[66] Now, these police officers have been released on bail, and it seems that they and their political masters wish to eliminate the principal claimant because he is the primary complainant in the criminal case against them and because he has publicly spoken out against them.
[67] I also find that the principal claimant’s family, that is the associate claimant and the minor claimants, are at risk because those who want to harm the principal claimant may harm his family in order to influence him to stop his activities. The principal claimant is basically the linchpin to the whole criminal case against the nine (9) police officers and if he is eliminated, his opponents likely believe that the criminal case will go away.
[68] Turning to the issue of state protection. In terms of state protection, states are presumed capable of protecting their citizens unless there is clear and convincing evidence otherwise. But I find in your case that the Philippines is unable to provide you with adequate protection.
[69] I do find that the state has tried to provide protection to you. They have provided protection to your family by providing you with armed security. They have tried to keep your — keep you safe in your home. But I find that the problem is that the agent of persecution itself is rogue police officers who are connected to political rivals of the principal claimant’s father. And because of that, I find that the state will be unable to protect you even if they try to do so and even if they have best intentions in trying to do so.
[70] Even with these soldiers protecting you and police officers trying to ensure law and order, if there are rogue police officers or rogue elements of the army, the state will be unable to protect you from these rogue elements.
[71] I note that after the claimants left the Philippines, people have gone to the claimant’s mother’s home and the resort that the claimants own asking about the principal claimant and I note that the claimants believe that these individuals are off duty police officers who are acting on behalf of the political rivals.
[72] So, as we can see from that, even despite efforts to protect, there is elements that are rogue that seem to be hellbent on trying to stop the principal claimant from trying to seek justice for his father’s death.
[73] I referenced information in the National Documentation Package earlier that there are rogue elements of the Philippines National Police Force and that these elements carry out extrajudicial killings and that they are known to be corrupt.
[74] I find that the claimants are even more vulnerable now after the XXXX family essentially swept the 2022 Samar provincial elections. Because the XXXX family now can even more easily influence corrupt elements of the Philippine National Police Force and the military now that they are — have more political power. So, I find that even though the National Police have tried to protect the claimants, because of the rogue elements within the PNP (ph), the protection that the state’s offering would not be adequate. These rogue elements within the PNP are the ones who killed the claimant’s father and have made threats against the claimant. So, I find that state protection would not be adequately forthcoming, and that state protection has been rebutted in the case of the claimants.
[75] The last issue for me to consider is the issue of internal flight alternative. I find that the claimants do not have a viable internal flight alternative available to them anywhere in the Philippines. Those responsible for killing the principal claimant’s father are highly motivated to kill the principal claimant, as he is the primary complainant in the criminal case against them, and he has publicly spoken out against them which has very likely both angered them and scared them.
[76] I also find that the agents of harm are motivated and may harm the associate claimant or the minor claimants in order to try to get the principal claimant to stop his activities in pursuit of justice against them.
[77] At the hearing today, I proposed Manila and Cebu as potential internal flight alternative locations. But I find that not only do the agents of persecution have the motivation to locate the claimants if they were to move to one (1) of those cities, but they also have the means to locate the claimants if they moved there.
[78] The agents of persecution are bad actors or rogue police officers when the — in the Filipino National Police and also the politicians that are connected with, it would be easy for them to find out the claimants’ whereabouts if the claimants were to move elsewhere within the Philippines, as these police officers would have access to information and databases that would reveal the claimants’ locations to them.
[79] The Philippines uses a national identity card system, which essentially means that the claimants would have to provide their national identity numbers if they were trying to rent or purchase a home to live in, if they were finding a new job, if they were registering their children for school, if they were doing any number of — excuse me, accessing any number of public services. Doing any of these things would likely reveal their location to the agents of harm.
[80] It also would not be very difficult for their agents of harm within the Philippines National Police simply to reach out to contacts in other cities or other provinces or simply to search national databases themselves to locate the new residents of the claimants if they were moved — if they were to move to Manila or Cebu.
[81] Based on this, I find that the principal claimant faces a risk to his life in the potential IFA locations on a balance of probabilities. I also find that the associate claimant and the minor claimants face a serious possibility of persecution in the IFA locations on the basis of being family members of the principal claimant.
[82] The accused police officers and the politicians behind them are motivated to do anything they can to disrupt the criminal case against the nine (9) accused police officers. This might include harming the associate claimant or minor claimants in order to discourage the principal claimant in his pursuit of justice.
[83] The associate claimant testified today that she believed that the claimants would be at even more of a risk outside of Samar Province because she testified that when they were still living in Samar Province, they had nine (9) army security officers assigned to them. But when they traveled to Manila for a couple of days just prior to leaving for Canada, they had asked for security, but they were only given two (2) security officers to accompany them to Manila. She testified today that in order to get the nine (9) armed security officers assigned to them in their home province, they had to make requests to the local army commander, but that she believed they would not be likely to receive the same kind of security if they were to locate to another city or another province.
[84] I agree with the associate claimant. I do not think they will receive nearly as much protection from police or security if they are to move to a different city or a different province as they do not have the same kind of influence or connections in those provinces. In any event, I find that even if they were to receive some form of security in either Manila or Cebu, that security would not be able to protect them because the agents of persecution are police officers themselves who are backed by very powerful politicians, and these police officers would be able to harm the principal claimant and associate claimants.
[85] We have seen what happened with the principal claimant’s father, despite being a powerful politician who had security, he was gunned down in a very public and violent killing in the middle of the daytime by police officers who really did not try to cover up what was happening or make much of an effort to kill him in a private location, or in the kind of setting where they might not have been discovered.
[86] So, in conclusion. I have considered all the evidence before me, which includes the testimony of the claimants, the documentary evidence filed by the claimants and the information in the National Documentation Package, and I determined that the principal claimant, Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, is a person in need of protection under section 97(1b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[87] I find that the associate claimant, Ms. XXXX XXXX (ph) XXXX, is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and I find that the minor claimants, their daughters XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, are Convention refugees pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[88] Therefore, I accept all of the claimants’ claims for protection.
[89] That concludes my decision and the reasons for the decision.
——— REASONS CONCLUDED ———