FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY

Butuan City
Graduates Studies Program

Kyle B. Golindang
MAN 507A

Critique Paper

The Webinar Themed:

Peacebuilding and the Anti-
terrorism Bill Law: Contribution and
Continuing Challenges sponsored
by Mindanao Peace Studies
Conference 6. Stretches the in-
depth discussion of the current
governmental Peace Campaign
program related to this
controversial anti-terrorism bill
comes into law last July 2020.

Early on, the bill generated wide-ranging backlash and critique from different sectors across youth groups,
academia, church, business, and civil society. Critics had a number of objections: ill timing; credibility
issues among the implementing agencies; the risk of abuse; and potentially unconstitutional provisions. The
law created division when it should have unified the country against the rising threat of terrorism or it will
bounce numerous human rights violations. The webinar provides a sober education of the bill as discussed
by the hired speakers to promote a better understanding of the bill.

As to speakers, 1st speaker Hon. Lawrence H. Fortun discusses the loopholes of the law and discusses it
as broad in its application and may subject for human rights violation as what reflected on the constitution
and the international humanitarian law which will threatened freedom of expressions, freedom of
association and freedom of assembly. Statute that sweeps unnecessarily broadly both and protected
conduct is overbroad and likewise offends due process.” He also tackles the definition of terrorism that has
been seemingly expanded, providing for an ambiguous and overbroad definition of what qualifies as
terrorism, making it susceptible to various interpretations, and to government’s abuse of authority. And
 FATHER SATURNINO URIOS UNIVERSITY
Butuan City
Graduates Studies Program

so ,he also discusses that in behalf of the congress majority votes not to submit the bill into law, still the
terrorism bill comes into law. His discussion gives wider understanding and consequences of the bill.
Audiences may think critically why did the bill rushed in its implementation amidst pandemic crisis without
public hearing.

As to 2nd speaker, PMGERAL CEDRICK G. TRAIN (RET.) He discusses the peacebuilding, Peace keeping
campaign of the government. He discussed that while implementing anti terror bill , they used holistic
approach by engaging to the basic grassroots through giving social interventions like giving awareness
,support systems, networking and continues dialogues. He also discusses that their programs goals is to
address the root causes of terrorism/ war. He presented their program and projects stunningly as well as
recognizing radicalism and militancy as act of democratization. He also discusses red tagging but never
discussed what will happen to victim of the red tagging .The speaker recognizing democratization but
associating it as terrorism act. The speakers also failure to discuss the if the abused of authority came
arise, Will it be used with a high degree of discipline and accountability? The country’s national security
agencies still face lingering credibility and trust issues. The proponents of the anti-terrorism act are working
on the assumption that the current institutions – the whole range of the security, executive, and judicial
institutions – should give high respect to human rights and should exercise a robust degree of
accountability.

The third speaker, ATTY. JOSEFE SORRERA – TY, discusses the bill according to her own opinion and
specified that there nothing wrong the bill, only us stretches fear to the bill though she respect the belief of
Hon. Lawrence H. Fortun and agreed with PMGERAL CEDRICK G. TRAIN (RET.

Each one of us is entitled to our own opinion and may evaluate the bill according to our own experience but
much better if this webinar would present testimonies from the grassroots in all levels for the audience to
have broader picture to create higher level of analysis either this bill is pro people or not.

However, the public reaction against the law could be inferred as a manifestation of diminished trust in key
government institutions tasked with anti-terrorism efforts.