On one hand, there is the national leadership who long since has been proudly and loudly pronouncing its resolve to clean the government it leads from the infamous graft and corruption that have become its expertise. Sometime last year or so, the same holder of the national executive office committed no less than 2 billion pesos precisely to fund its avowed crusade against graft and corruption in government. And there is even the public entity specifically identified as the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) and categorically established to uproot grafters from the present administration.
On the other hand, PAGC said the following rather revealing facts: First, it has in fact submitted no less than some 90 graft cases to the Office of the President for pursuant action. Second, it said the same highest office in the land had done nothing on the said cases except in conjunction with 2 or 3 of them. Third, it pointed out that some PAGC lawyers are in fact contemplating of leaving the Commission precisely on account of their perceived waste of time and effort in working on the cases which after all are but nonchalantly treated by the Presidential Office. One thing is certain: Even but a single graft case in government is already one too many, one could just wonder what some 90 graft cases really mean and actually imply.
It is not hard to think and forward the following fundamental reason to explain in general the above predicament or impasse existing between the office of the President and nothing less than a Presidential Commission: The present administration has long since engaged in the devious and odious practice of “Transactional Politics” whereby it appoints it as political beneficiaries as high ranking officials in bureaucracy as their ample rewards. Those beneficiaries successfully worked (honestly, justly—or otherwise) to promote its interests (honorable, noble—or otherwise.)
If rewards for appointment in the Bureaucracy is on account of “otherwise” causes, then PAGC should understand that the personalities concerned in the said cases are practically untouchable. PAGC could just imagine if after dismissal of the appointees thus concerned, what if out of respite, they “spill the beans”! PAGC has now a good lesson on what is “Transactional Politics”, and how it works.
28 August 2007