Is it 'graft' or the anti-graft crusader who's getting crushed?

There's a rumor going around that Malacañang is planning to junk Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption. Fem Domingo's "crime"? He did his job too zealously and too well.

Excluding what are called the ad hoc investigative bodies created to investigate graft and corruption in the executive branch of the national government, the PCAGC was created under Executive Order No. 151 issued in February 1994 by former President Fidel V. Ramos. This Commission is the 13th anti-graft body organized by eight presidents of this Republic, starting with President Elpidio Quirino, specifically to deal with the age-old malady of corruption in the bureaucracy.

How will Domingo be eased out? In a very interesting way. President Estrada has reportedly been contemplating the creation of a Super-Anti Graft body composed of two Cabinet members and the Philippine National Police chief (in this case, Deputy Director General Panfilo "Ping" Lacson). If this happens, Domingo naturally will disappear from the picture.

True enough, we still have the all-powerful Office of the Ombudsman (Aniano Desierto) which is constitutionally-mandated not just to investigate graft and corruption in the government but even to prevent its incidence. (Among the items to be condemned are inefficiency and misuse of public funds).

The PCAGC, on the other hand, was granted a very limited jurisdiction in comparison with the Ombudsman's. The Commission can cover only administrative complaints involving corruption and graft levelled against presidential appointees equivalent to or higher in rank than assistant regional director. Moreover, the PCAGC does not have the power to dismiss or suspend those it investigates, but merely to recommend their dismissal or suspension by the Office of the President -- since it is an agency directly under Malacañang.

And yet, despite his agency's limited jurisdiction and clout, small contingent of personnel and minuscule budget, PCAGC Chairman Domingo has recommended to the Palace the dismissal of three Cabinet secretaries, three undersecretaries, four asst. secretaries, an Ambassador, a Solicitor General, a Postmaster General, a former Commissioner of Internal Revenue (BIR) and BIR Asst. Commissioner, two Deputy Commissioners, 11 Regional Directors, six executive directors, eight presidents of state universities and colleges, and twelve board members of government boards and state-run firms!

Of the more than eighty cases referred to Malacañang since Domingo's appointment during the Ramos administration, only about one-third have been acted upon or resolved. Of these cases acted upon, less than half of the Commission's decisions have been affirmed, with the rest either reversed or modified.

Worst of all, three years ago, Domingo's agency got the enmity of the House of Representatives. It made the "mistake" of coming out with a report entitled A Study -- The Need of Transparency in Government.

The report dealt with "amounts paid to" and "expenses incurred" by members of the Lower House, and contained an analysis of the expenses of that branch of the legislature from 1993 to 1995, criticizing the absence of transparency and accountability in the way public funds were being spent by congressmen. Perhaps Domingo forgot that Congress holds a power that nobody but the very reckless will defy -- the Power of the Purse.

Do you think Domingo will get a commendation for such daring exposés? On the contrary he'll get it in the neck. His fatal infirmity is that he is a do-gooder and an idealist, dating back to the days when he was a young up-and-coming lawyer. I recall many years ago when he tried to organize a group of reformers named Ang Bagong Katipunan.  This didn't last long. The new Katipuneros decided that they all would lose their jobs and careers if they persisted.

However, Fem Domingo forges on. Even when he was Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA), he was a royal pain in the neck for government ministers and bureaucrats -- a stickler for detail and accountability. Now you can see why his days are numbered. He is an anachronism dating back to the vanished age of chivalry.

Do I hear him being compared to "Don Quixote"? He may soon discover, I fear, that (contrary to Cyrano de Bergerac) tilting with windmills is a risky proposition.

Whatever his fate, I say: Bravo, Fem! Fighting the Good Fight is almost, but only "almost", as good as victory.

This goes under the heading of: "AND THEN THERE WERE TWO."

Two what? Two candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America. These are Al Gore for the Democratic Party (with his chief rival former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley out of the race) and George W. Bush of the Republican Party (with his challenger, Arizona Senator John McCain virtually down and out after his horrible defeat in the 16-state "Super Tuesday" primaries).

It used to be said that even a poor man, like Abe Lincoln, could be President of the USA. No longer. It turns out that the Presidential candidates (according to USA Today, Friday, March 10) have already spent a record-shattering quarter of a billion dollars ($250 million) in the primary elections alone -- and, as the newspaper points out, "it ain't over yet."

The awful truth is that Texas Governor Bush, a son of former President George Bush, Sr., whose brother Jeb Bush is also a State Governor in Florida, was badly bruised by the scrappy McCain who slugged it out so vigorously that Bush lost his cool (and his cash), and started calling him names. Bush emerged as the biggest spender, having raised $73 million and spent most of it fending off McCain. Al Gore and Bradley, the two Democrats, came close to the $40.5 million limit each (having accepted federal matching money).

Sanamagan! Bush and McCain alone spent more than $9 million in television ads during the two weeks leading up to last Tuesday's primaries and caucuses (which included, of course, the major prizes of California, New York, and Ohio).

With such immense sums being expanded in the preliminary campaign alone, with the contenders not even entering the main contest, how can we expect an "honest" President beholden only to the American people? Those who contribute, surely, whatever the euphemisms and high-flown rhetoric, will expect an ROI (return on investment).

If you ask me, at this point Vice President Al Gore holds the high ground. His rival, Bradley, who dreamed up better issues (which were promptly and shamelessly coopted by Gore) lost steam early in the competition -- bothered by a heart murmur, which discouraged some of his supporters, his performance deteriorated into a lackluster final stretch. Al Gore, on the other hand, started out stiff and unexciting (described as being as stolid as a cigar store "wooden Indian"), but reinvented himself. He came out swinging, energized, and -- overcoming the customary rigidity of his rictus muscles -- finally learned how to smile. He was helped, of course, by his charming wife Tipper, whose name delights. (Have you ever heard of a First Lady named "Tipper", as in Tipper Canoe and Tyler, too?)

It's early days yet, and Gore -- whose wife is Hispanic -- may yet pull the Chicano and Texicano vote out of his hat. But Gore has the advantage of being able to point out that, under the Democrats, America has had the longest run of prosperity in its history, balanced the budget, and even its Nasdaq technologies index is booming. If this keeps up, the voters may even forgive Gore his Clinton Connection.

After all, it's a popular proverb in the USA: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Now, a caveat: A week is a long time in politics. Can you imagine a period of more than eight months? And remember the song: "What a Difference a Day Makes"? It's still too early -- and too close to call.