Department of Education

MIMAROPA Region
Palawan Division
PULOT NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Sofronio Española

WORKSHEET IN ENGLISH 10
Week 7

Preparatory Activity

Directions: Study the text below its content, introduction, body and conclusion. What
does it talk about and what has been included in the body?

The Philippines’ anti-terror bill is poised to cause more terror

The government needs to accept that there are no shortcuts to peace and retract the
bill.

As the world is plagued by COVID-19, an impending anti-terrorism bill is creating more

fear in the Philippines.

Recently passed by Congress, the bill is set to be signed into law by President Rodrigo
Duterte. If this happens, the bill will not only suppress the fundamental rights and
freedoms of Filipinos, it will also terrorise the same conflict-affected communities it
seeks to protect, as it undoes decades of peacebuilding work.

Despite protests against the bill and mounting calls to provide more time for
deliberations, Congress has quietly fast-tracked its passage while the rest of the country
braced for the impact of COVID-19. The bill will allow for a lengthened period of
warrantless detention and expanded surveillance of those law enforcement deems
suspicious. It will also remove stiff penalties for wrongful detention. 

Most importantly, the bill carries a vague definition of “terrorism” that offers little
distinction between organisations that commit acts of terror and revolutionary armed
movements, which is important for those doing mediation among warring parties. The
bill will provide law enforcers with broad powers to determine what constitutes a
“terrorist”, shifting the burden of proof to suspected individuals and organisations. This
is not only a threat to dissent and democracy, but also to peace.

Threat to peace in Mindanao

For more than half a century, the Philippine government has been trying to quell
secessionist and communist armed movements in the country.

Bangsamoro, an autonomous region in the south of the Philippines, is currently in

transition after decades of fighting between the government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front. While much remains to be done, significant strides have been taken,
with a transitional regional government installed last year and the decommissioning of
combatants and arms under way. These gains have been made possible primarily by
the peace talks and reconciliation processes.

The ill-advised and shortsighted fear of the ISIL (ISIS) armed group taking root in
Mindanao, and the increased framing of the communist armed movements as “terrorist”,
distract the government from seeing the gains of dialogue and peacebuilding.
The threat of terrorism is real, but it is not the main threat to peace.

In fact, militaristic approaches to counterterrorism have caused the most suffering and
displacements, prompted breakdowns in ongoing peace processes, and given birth to
more aggressive splinter groups like the Abu Sayyaf, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom
Fighters, and Maute Group.

Insensitivity to the local context and the peace process in prioritising fighting terrorists
in Mamasapano in 2015 and Marawi in 2017 delayed the passage of the Bangsamoro
Basic Law and undermined reconciliation across communities in the country. These
should not be forgotten, and should not be repeated.

Opening old wounds

Due to a long history of discrimination, the Moro and Muslim minorities in the Philippines
are often most affected not only by terrorist attacks but by harassment and warrantless
arrests packaged as “counterterrorism”.

This profiling of Muslims as violent “terrorists” continues to this day. In January, it was
discovered that the Manila Police District was collating information about Muslim youth
and students in the National Capital Region for its “preventing violent extremism”
initiatives.

Two months before, in November 2019, the police barged into the office of a long-
established Mindanao-based peacebuilding organisation, without a warrant, checked
the living quarters, and inspected the bags of young Moros from Marawi who were
attending a psychosocial support training.

Being a woman while being both Moro and Muslim adds another layer of vulnerability,
especially with the heightened visibility that comes with wearing a headscarf. Women
widowed by war and children orphaned by conflict are also disproportionately affected
by counterterrorism that narrowly sees them as vulnerable to being recruited into
terrorism, instead of partners who can inform policies for change.

This bill will undermine efforts at reconciliation, as it will make it easier to target Muslims
and open old wounds anew.

Ending or escalating the communist insurgency?

The military generals clearly see the impending anti-terrorism bill as a way to “end” the
world’s oldest existing communist insurgency. But the bill is more likely to reignite war
and bring further insecurity.

Following the termination of the peace negotiations between the government, the

Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), the New People’s Army (NPA) and the
National Democratic Front of the Philippines in 2017, the government has since
branded the CPP-NPA as “terrorist” and filed a petition seeking to declare them terrorist
organisations under the Human Security Act, the current counterterrorism law.
Following delayed progress through the courts, the government has taken a new tack:
change the law directly. Thus, the Anti Terror Bill.

The argument about whether the CPP-NPA is a terrorist organisation or a revolutionary

movement is fraught with a lot of biases, and a long, violent history between the
communist armed movement and the military. What is clear is that the impending
declaration of the CPP-NPA as terrorist organisations will impede any future peace
talks, and escalate violence and displacement in communities.

As lessons have not been learned, the military should be reminded that the CPP-NPA
was at its strongest under the martial law regime of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. It is
not activism that pushes communities towards violence. Rather, it is crackdowns on
nonviolent civic action that will push communities to lose trust in government and take
alternative routes for affecting change.
‘Activism is not terrorism’

The government assures the public that crackdowns on activists will not happen under
the guise of counterterrorism, but in the same breath the Speaker of the House tells
activists to “not allow terrorists to hide within [their] ranks.” This statement itself is telling
of the government’s narrow and misinformed mindset about activism and terror – that
those who are radicalised through activism will participate in armed rebellions and,
therefore, to prevent “violent extremism” the state should stop “radicalisation” made
possible through activism. 

Given this bias, and the weak intelligence capacity of law enforcers, the bill will crush
progressive organisations and student activists who the state perceives are communist
fronts; mediators who are perceived as communist sympathisers; and Indigenous
people who are perceived as the main targets of recruitment by the NPA. 

These groups are already being “red-tagged” or wrongly targeted for alleged links with
the CPP-NPA. Even without the new law and under the martial law in place until last
year, young Indigenous people who work on peacebuilding in Western Mindanao were
reportedly wrongly included in the military’s “terrorist lists,” and asked to show
themselves to law enforcers and prove they are not linked with the NPA. As the Senate
president admitted, there is no need for martial law once this bill becomes law.

The looming anti-terror law will assume rather than fairly test the guilt of civilians, as law
enforcers will have free reign to arrest and detain individuals based on mere suspicion.
This is both unconstitutional and dangerous.

No shortcuts to peace

If implemented, the new anti-terrorism bill will not only impede our ability as
peacebuilders and human rights defenders to bridge divides or raise the alarm when
atrocities occur. It will also put our lives and limbs at risk. It will undo years of
peacebuilding and further devastate the communities worst affected by terror. 

If it is sincere in its “whole-of-nation approach” to peacebuilding, the government must

retract the bill, re-open deliberations and listen to a wide range of voices across society,
especially the voices of those who have borne the brunt of both terrorist violence and
abusive counterterror laws. It must heed the lessons from community leaders and
peacebuilders. We need a policy that addresses the underlying roots of terrorism, and
that prevents further distrust, injustice and escalations in violence. 

Yet as I write this, trust in the government is also under threat. What is left of our
democracy is under threat. Peace is under threat.

It is our collective duty to end violence against civilian communities. For this same
reason, we cannot take shortcuts to peace.

This rushed and unrestrained anti-terror bill will cause terror – and it will come from the
state.
Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/6/25/the-philippines-anti-terror-bill-is-poised-
to-cause-more-terror/

Recall

Directions: Read the explanation of argumentative essay found on page 164 of your
Learners’ Material in English 10.
Final Output

Directions: Use the criteria below and evaluate the argumentative article above. Provide
an explanation of your assessment. A paragraph explanation will do.

Points
Rubric for the Assessment of the Argumentative
  Earne
Essay d

  4 3 2 1  
Well developed Introductory Introduction Thesis and/or
introductory paragraph states the thesis problem is vague
paragraph contains some but does not or unclear.
contains background adequately explain Background
detailed information the background of details are a
INTRODUCTION background and states the the problem.  The seemingly  
Background/History information, a problem, but problem is stated, random collection
Define the Problem clear does not but lacks detail. of information,
Thesis Statement explanation or explain using unclear, or not ____
definition of details. States related to the
the problem, the thesis of topic.
and a thesis the paper.
statement.

Three or more Three or more Less than three

Three or more
main points main points, but main points, with
main points
are present but all lack poor
are well
may lack detail development. development of
developed with
and Refutation ideas.  Refutation
supporting
development in paragraph missing missing or vague.
details.
MAIN POINTS Refutation
one or two. and/or vague.
Body Paragraphs paragraph
Refutation ____
Refutation paragraph
acknowledges
acknowledges
the opposing
the opposing
view, and
view, but
summarizes
doesn't
their main
summarize
points.
points.

Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion Conclusion does

summarizes summarizes summarizes main not adequately
the main topics main topics.  topics, but is summarize the
without Some repetitive. No main points. No
repeating suggestions for suggestions for suggestions for
previous change are change and/or change or
CONCLUSION sentences; evident. opinions are opinions are ____
writer's included. included.
opinions and
suggestions for
change are
logical and well
thought out.

Source Source Source material is Lacks sources

material is material is used, but and/or sources
smoothly used. All integration may are not
integrated into sources are be awkward. All accurately
the text. All accurately sources are documented.
sources  are documented, accurately Format is
WORKS CITED accurately but a few are documented, but incorrect for all ____
documented in not in the many are not in sources.
the desired desired format. the desired
format on the format.
Works Cited
page.

Source: http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~ede104d1/rubrics/Rubric%20for%20the%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Argumentative%20Essay.htm

Happy learning!!!