Asylum gambit
By simply filing the application, Co buys himself months, if not years, of legal residency while his case is reviewed and appealed.
Text size
Share
Daily TribuneBy simply filing the application, Co buys himself months, if not years, of legal residency while his case is reviewed and appealed.
Share
Dennis Coronacion
As Malacañang hides behind semantics to mask its Czech Republic debacle, fugitive Zaldy Co has reportedly surfaced on French soil. By crying political persecution at the hands of the Marcos administration, Co is attempting to spin a domestic plunder scandal into a grand narrative of human rights abuse.
But as the Philippine government scrambles to block this maneuver, a critical question looms: Does France, a nation that prides itself on being the “cradle of human rights,” actually have a track record that favors fugitives like Co?
France is historically one of the top destinations for asylum seekers in Europe, governed by the principle of non-refoulement — the rule that a person cannot be sent back to a country where they face a genuine threat of persecution. In 2023, France’s Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons received over 142,000 applications.
However, the “approval rate” is a nuanced metric. While France has an overall protection rate (granting either refugee status or subsidiary protection) of approximately 33 percent to 40 percent, these figures are heavily skewed toward individuals from war-torn regions and repressive regimes like Afghanistan, Syria and Guinea.
For a claimant from the Philippines — a sovereign democracy with a functioning judicial system — the bar is exponentially higher. To win asylum, Co must prove that the charges regarding the multibillion-peso flood control kickbacks are not criminal, but a “sham” orchestrated to silence him.
Looking at the broader European landscape, the success rate for high-profile “political” asylum seekers from democratic nations is historically low. While Europe often criticizes the Philippines’ human rights record — most notably during the “drug war” era — EU courts are generally wary of interfering in legitimate graft and corruption cases.
The European Court of Human Rights and individual state courts have grown increasingly skeptical of the “political persecution” card used by wealthy individuals. Countries like Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, maintain high standards for asylum, but they also prioritize international cooperation in criminal matters.
If the Philippine Department of Justice can present a robust, evidence-based case of plunder that transcends political lines, French authorities will find it difficult to justify granting him a “Golden Ticket” to stay.
The danger for the Philippines lies in the processing time. The French asylum system is notoriously bureaucratic and slow. Data and reports from organizations like the European Council on Refugees and Exiles indicate that the French asylum system is indeed characterized by significant bureaucratic hurdles and long processing times.
As of 2025, the system faced immense pressure with over 150,000 applications annually, causing bottlenecks at multiple stages. By simply filing the application, Co buys himself months, if not years, of legal residency while his case is reviewed and appealed.
Furthermore, France has been known to deny extradition if there is a perceived risk that the accused will face the death penalty (which is currently suspended in the Philippines) or “inhumane” prison conditions. This is where Co’s lawyers will likely strike — arguing not just about the why of his arrest, but the where he would be held.
If France grants Zaldy Co asylum, it would be a devastating blow to the Marcos administration’s international credibility. It would signal that the European Union views the Philippine justice system as a tool for political vendetta rather than a mechanism for accountability.
Conversely, if France rejects the bid, it closes the door on the “European escape route” for other fugitives. For now, Zaldy Co is betting on the complexity of French law to keep him out of a Philippine courtroom.
The government must ensure that its evidence is louder than his claims of victimhood, or risk watching the biggest corruption case of the decade dissolve into a permanent Parisian vacation.
