All because of the 2010 elections

Everything that legislators do now has something to do with the 2010 elections. There are two disparate events that seemed to prove this point. First, the consigment of the controversial Right of Reply Bill (Rorb) into the freezer. Second, the planned restoration of the compulsory acquisition of land--the "heart and soul" of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

As I said in the previous post, the reason why legislators were hesitant to act on the Rorb the way the Senate did (the Senate unanimously passed the Bill in its third reading) is that "the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection."

With regard to the restoration of the "heart and soul" of CARP, which was removed last year through Joint Resolution No.19, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who vigorously opposed the removal of the compulsory acquisition of land, said there is a "clear and firm" consensus among legislators that they want to bring back  CARP's "heart and soul."

This isn't so much a change of heart as it is a move to send a message to the people--the voters--that they are willing to take up a populist cause. “Time is of the essence," Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was quoted as saying. "We can’t dribble this because it’s the country and the welfare of the people which is at stake here.”

Nothing is farther from truth. The truth is, the welfare of the country and of the people is only a pretext here. This is all because of the 2010 elections.

Not in the mood

The House of Representatives is not in the mood of passing the Right of Reply Bill. One headline goes: Right of Reply bill goes to freezer.

Leaders of the House of Representatives have thrown the Right of Reply bill (RORB) into the freezer to allow lawmakers to deliberate on more urgent bills.

Speaking to reporters during the weekly Balitaan sa Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City yesterday, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia said he doubted that the bill, which media members believe aims to stifle press freedom, would be calendared for plenary debates again.

What seems to be holding them back? Why are they hesitant to act on it the way the Senate did? I'll hazard one answer: Congressmen are hesitant to pass it because the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection.