legislation on the present participle?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEFxqHghg28Q

First of all, doesn't the Brazil's Federal District Governor have more important issues to deal with than what form of a verb is used in government decrees? I guess I can understand the reason for this new rule, that it gives lawmakers too much power to promise the public that they're going to take action when in fact they are just considering it (whoops, it just slipped out!). However, there must be other ways to change this practice if it actually is a serious problem.

Secondly, limiting language or speech for any purpose seems just wrong to me. Yes, we have time, place, and manner restrictions in the United States to limit the First Amendment. But in most cases, I think language should be free to go wherever the people who are using it care to go. People can change language, adjust it to fit their needs, or use it to their advantage, as lawyers do and our elected officials do when writing bills. That's the great thing about language - there are so many different combinations of words that there is an infinite number of meanings and ways to express one thought. So for the Federal District Governor to limit a form of verb is impractical and simply ridiculous.