黑料社

MANILA, Philippines 鈥� Former presidential spokesperson Harry Roque has recently applied for asylum in the Netherlands, citing political persecution in the Philippines. This

has sparked debates about the legitimacy of his claim, considering his previous role in the Duterte administration and the legal challenges he currently faces.

Once the booming voice of Malaca帽ang under President Rodrigo Duterte, Roque now claims he is a victim of political persecution. 鈥淲ala nang tago nang tago,鈥� he told Filipino media, following his initial asylum interview in late March 2025.

READ:

His announcement surprised many, infuriated some, and raised important legal and moral questions: Can a former government official, once aligned with power, credibly claim to be persecuted? Or is this an attempt to escape looming charges back home?

Legal challenges in PH

Roque, a lawyer and former human rights advocate, is confronting legal issues in the Philippines. In August 2024, he was cited for contempt by the House of Representatives for allegedly refusing to provide documents related to a significant increase in his assets鈥攄ocuments he had previously committed to submitting.

READ: Harry Roque cited for contempt after lying about absence in House probe

This investigation was linked to his reported involvement with Lucky South 99, a Pampanga-based Philippine Offshore Gaming Operator (POGO) hub accused of serving as a front for international crime syndicates engaged in trafficking, torture, and fraud.

READ: House panel orders Roque聽detained for second time

In October 2024, Roque was named in a qualified human trafficking complaint under preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

READ:

He departed the Philippines shortly thereafter. By December, he was reportedly in Abu Dhabi. He resurfaced publicly in March 2025 in the Netherlands.

Roque鈥檚 Position

Roque has not extensively discussed his asylum case but confirmed in a March 28, 2025 interview that he had completed the initial stage of his asylum interview with Dutch immigration authorities.

After attending a gathering in The Hague to celebrate former President Rodrigo Duterte鈥檚 birthday, Roque declared, 鈥淚 [am] now a bona fide asylum seeker.鈥�

He also revealed that he had spent more than six months in hiding prior to filing his application. 鈥淲ala nang tago nang tago kaya nga pumirma ako ng aking application. Sabi ko nga, first time in 6 and a half months, hindi na ako nagtatago,鈥� he said.

(No more hiding, that鈥檚 why I signed my application. As I said, this is the first time in six and a half months that I鈥檓 no longer in hiding.)

READ:

Roque explained that because his application is now being processed, 鈥淒i na ako mapapadeport pabalik ng Pilipinas hanggang hindi matapos ang aking application. The process of application is about one and a half years.鈥�

(I can no longer be deported back to the Philippines until my application is resolved.)

His primary argument is that the charges he faces in the Philippines are politically motivated and that he is being targeted for his past role in government.

International law on asylum

The right to seek asylum is recognized under international law. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, to which both the Philippines and the Netherlands are parties, defines a refugee as someone with a 鈥渨ell-founded fear of being persecuted鈥� due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular group.

However, Article 1F of the Refugee Convention excludes individuals from refugee status if there are serious reasons to consider that they have committed serious non-political crimes or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Legal analysis: Does Roque qualify?

黑料社 consulted Atty. Darwin Angeles, a dispute resolution specialist and human rights law expert. While he did not directly assess Roque鈥檚 motives, he outlined the legal challenges the former spokesperson must address.

鈥淭he burden of proving a well-founded fear of persecution or a likelihood of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment rests on the asylum seeker,鈥� Angeles explained.

However, he emphasized that the current charges might not suffice.

Angeles noted that the contempt order from Congress was not indefinite鈥攕et to lapse with the end of the 19th Congress in June 2025鈥攁nd stemmed from Roque鈥檚 failure to deliver documents he had volunteered to submit. The investigation was not purely political; it was tied to illegal POGO operations linked to organized crime.

According to Angeles, the trafficking complaint arose from Roque鈥檚 link to a POGO operation tied to organized crime鈥攏ot from his political beliefs, ideology, or party membership.

Angeles also emphasized that the pending human trafficking investigation, while serious, does not amount to political persecution.

鈥淎 pending preliminary investigation is not a direct threat against his liberty,鈥� he said.

鈥淲hile such proceedings may progress into a criminal charge in court, Atty. Roque has an effective remedy to preserve his provisional liberty even if charges are filed against him by invoking Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution which allows him to secure bail even for non-bailable charges provided he can show that the evidence of guilt is not strong,鈥� he added.

鈥淭hat there is a working judiciary in the Philippines and that he has an effective remedy under said judicial system diminishes the merits of Atty. Roque鈥檚 claim of asylum,鈥� Angeles continued.

Can criminal charges block asylum?

Under international law, an asylum seeker must not only claim fear of persecution but also demonstrate they are not evading prosecution for ordinary crimes. Host countries assess whether the charges are legitimate or if they are being used to harass or silence political dissenters.

Roque鈥檚 challenge lies in proving that the legal actions against him are not merely about criminal behavior but are politically motivated.

鈥淭he asylum country can look into the animus, motives, or spirit behind these pending legal cases,鈥� Angeles stated.

Public opposition and political reactions

Roque鈥檚 asylum bid has encountered significant resistance online and in Congress. An online petition opposing his request has garnered聽over 21,000 signatures, with signatories criticizing his past support of the Duterte administration and alleged involvement in rights violations.

READ:

House Assistant Minority Leader Zia Alonto Adiong has also commented, urging Roque to return to the Philippines and face the legal consequences of his actions.

鈥淗e has to come home and鈥� face the charges [against] him. That鈥檚 his opportunity to clear his name,鈥� Adiong said in a media interview.

Members of the Makabayan bloc鈥擜CT Teachers Rep. France Castro, Gabriela Rep. Arlene Brosas, and Kabataan Rep. Raoul Manuel鈥攃alled Roque鈥檚 asylum attempt a 鈥渟hameless鈥� move to escape accountability.

鈥淚t鈥檚 infuriating that a former human rights lawyer would exploit legal technicalities to escape his responsibility to the country,鈥� Castro said. 鈥淩oque鈥檚 hiding out in the Netherlands, without an official role in the ICC proceedings, is outright avoidance of accountability.鈥�

Brosas added: 鈥淢r. Roque鈥� you don鈥檛 need asylum. What you need is courage to face the truth.鈥�

Manuel, for his part, said: 鈥淭he former lawyer of victims of human rights violations is now hiding overseas to avoid his own sins.鈥�

READ:

Malaca帽ang has also pushed back against Roque鈥檚 narrative. Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro said the asylum request has 鈥渘o bearing鈥� on Roque鈥檚 legal troubles in the Philippines.

READ: Harry Roque鈥檚 request for asylum won鈥檛 affect his cases in PH 鈥� Palace

鈥淗indi naman ito makakaapekto. Unang-una po, magpa-file pa lang po yata siya ng petition at hindi pa po ito naga-grant,鈥� Castro said. (It won鈥檛 affect anything. First of all, he鈥檚 just about to file a petition, and it hasn鈥檛 even been granted yet.)

She added: 鈥淭andaan po natin, bago po ito mag-grant dapat mapalabas niya po na may well-founded fear of political persecution.鈥� (Let鈥檚 remember, before it can be granted, he must be able to show that he has a well-founded fear of political persecution.)

Castro also questioned Roque鈥檚 timing and motives. 鈥淪o, what does this mean? Is this a tactic to avoid being questioned again about his revelations in the Quad Comm hearing regarding his transactions?鈥�

READ:

Despite the backlash, Angeles pointed out that opposition from the public or politicians is not a formal factor in asylum decisions鈥攖hough it may still have an informal influence.

鈥淭he human factor may take such oppositions into consideration in determining whether Atty. Roque鈥檚 claim of political persecution鈥� was made in good faith,鈥� he said.

Precedents: Is Roque the first?

While Harry Roque鈥檚 case is one of the most high-profile asylum bids by a former Philippine official, it鈥檚 not without precedent.

Angeles pointed to the case of Negros Oriental Representative Arnolfo Teves Jr., who fled the country in 2023 after being tagged as the alleged mastermind in the killing of Governor Roel Degamo. Teves applied for asylum in Timor-Leste but was denied. However, in early 2025, the Timor-Leste Court of Appeals rejected the Philippine government鈥檚 extradition request.

READ:

鈥淚 understand from publicly available information that the extradition request was denied as Mr. Teves Jr. was able to establish to the Timor-Leste Court of Appeals that he faced a 鈥榳ell-founded risk of being subjected to torture, inhuman, degrading or cruel treatment,鈥欌�� Angeles noted.

He also mentioned the case of Filipino playwright Rogelio Braga, who was granted asylum by the United Kingdom in 2022.

READ:

鈥淎nother example I am aware of but does not involve a Philippine official is the asylum grant to Filipino playwright Rogelio Braga, who was granted asylum by the United Kingdom 鈥榙ue to threats of extra-judicial killing in the Philippines under the Duterte Administration,鈥� Angeles said.

What happens next?

Roque鈥檚 asylum application is now in the hands of the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), which handles refugee and protection cases. According to Dutch procedures, the process can take several months to over a year, depending on the complexity of the case and the documentation submitted.

If Roque鈥檚 application is approved, it may set a limited precedent for other high-profile Filipinos who claim political persecution or fear of retaliation. However, Atty. Angeles was quick to clarify that such precedents do not guarantee outcomes.

鈥淭his is speculative but it may serve as a limited precedent which can be invoked in favor of persons who are similarly situated to Atty. Roque,鈥� Angeles said. 鈥淏ut I hasten to add that asylum applications are highly discretionary in nature and therefore, each asylum application is decided on a case-to-case basis.鈥�

If denied, Roque may face renewed efforts by Philippine authorities to bring him home and face the charges against him.

Ultimately, each case is judged on its own merits, and asylum remains a discretionary, case-by-case process grounded in the applicant鈥檚 ability to demonstrate a genuine risk of persecution鈥攏ot simply an effort to avoid legal consequences at home.

Graphics by聽Ed Lustan/Inquirer.net. Sources: 黑料社聽news archive, Government of Netherlands, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, The 1951 Refugee Convention