One such person is Rep. Rodolfo Valencia, better known as "RGV" and who is some sort of a complaint magnet. Valencia must be eating graft complaints for breakfast. According to the Office of the Ombudsman, Valencia is a respondent in no less than 17 complaints, three of which have already been filed with the Sandiganbayan. And, that was way back in October 2005, which seems like an eternity ago.

If it were up to me, I would definitely not vote for Valencia because anyone can make an advocacy career of monitoring and fighting the controversies Valencia has a habit of getting involved in. With that kind of a track record, it is not surprising that Valencia will be supporting candidates of the same mold. And I do not mean that as a compliment.

Take the case of Calapan City mayoralty aspirant Paulino Salvador Leachon, a known "RGV" boy. Leachon used to be the city administrator before deciding to try and upgrade his political career. It seems Leachon, a lawyer, is facing a disbarment case for an offense bordering on outright stupidity if not sheer recklessness if proven to be true.

Leachon at one time lawyered for a certain Antonio Perez Jr., who has the nasty habit of misrepresenting himself as a lawyer. Since Leachon has served as the legal counsel of Perez, he obviously knows that his client is not a lawyer. Worse, Leachon even abetted this deceitful act since he was transmitting official documents and even caused newspaper publications misrepresenting Perez as a lawyer. If Leachon is capable of engaging in this kind of deceit, the people of Calapan City better watch out what happens to their P900 million annual budget should this guy ever win. I mean, what can you expect from somebody who will not even dignify his own profession?

Leachon has another case but this time he shares second billing to former Calapan City Vice-Mayor Roberto Paras, another known Valencia ally who is likewise seeking the mayoralty seat. Of all the hard luck reasons to get sued for graft, this case takes the cake since it involves, of all things, failing to stop cockfighting on a day expressly prohibited by law. The day in contention was December 30, 2005, which according to Presidential Decree No. 449 or the Cockfighting Law is one of the days this gambling sport is supposed to be foregone. On one hand, it can be argued that cockfighting is a victimless crime. But, on the other hand, there is no reason why it should not be stopped on the days the law says so. It is not as if the cockpit arena will run out of days. If Paras actually did refuse to stop the gambling festival, it might be that any other criminal act in the law books is something of a mere technicality.

Cheating in the elections is something we now take for granted. But if these are the kind of officials that are administration stalwarts, guess what the results of the May 14 will be.