The prosecution of any legal case, at the end of the day, is similar to an episode of the TV show ?Deal Or No Deal.? A prosecutor like the Ombudsman will have to decide whether or not it has a case within a reasonable amount of time and then act accordingly.

Not deciding either way is unfortunately not a decision itself, especially after enough time has passed, as any game show contestant knows. And if any other government agency was involved, one could actually say that this looks like something the Ombudsman would be interested in.

So here?s a suggestion for Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, who insists that her office is not sitting on any cases against erring government officials that have been filed before it: Conduct an audit of all the complaints now being investigated by the Ombudsman and sort them by age.

Without identifying the cases themselves (to protect those in government who may have been merely victims of harassment suits), the Ombudsman will then be able to show graphical, time-based progress reports of each complaint and defend its action on every one. In cases where the lack of action is obvious, well, the Ombudsman will have to explain that, as well.

But first, here?s a story straight from the Ombudsman?s own files: Several years ago, the anti-graft prosecution office received a complaint against a government official. But later on, the complainant asked to withdraw the complaint, and filed an affidavit of desistance before the Ombudsman to that effect.

The government official, informed about the intention of the complainant to withdraw the case, asked the Ombudsman for a formal ruling?whether it wanted to proceed with the prosecution or to dismiss the case, given the motion of the complainant to quit. But the subordinates of Gutierrez would not act either way, for reasons they would not even explain either to the complainant or to the official who sought the anti-graft body?s action.

Years have now passed, but the Ombudsman still would not act. Why? Well, perhaps Gutierrez can explain that, also?but only if she is really updated on the many cases filed before her office.

Understand, this is just one case of tens of thousands now sitting (for lack of a better word) before the government?s anti-graft watchdog. How many other cases?and not just big ones like the so-called fertilizer scam?are still awaiting attention like patients dying in a government hospital?

For years, there have been reports of the Ombudsman?s investigators, case officers and prosecutors deliberately refusing to act on cases filed (or those they initiated motu propio, without any complainant) against everyone from the lowliest government employee to the highest officials of the land in consideration for sums of money. If true, these cases represent the height of irony?that the government office created to stamp out graft throughout officialdom is now itself a lucrative source of corruption, perpetrated by those appointed specifically to stamp out the menace that they now foment and encourage.

But Gutierrez will only be able to state with authority that her office is not sitting on complaints filed before it?again, not just the high-profile ones?if it can present results of an audit of individual cases. Otherwise, all the blather about sitting or not sitting won?t amount to a hill of beans.

Or, to use terminology that the Ombudsman is more familiar with, Gutierrez needs to prove that it has promptly decided that some cases that will stand up in court and the others that don?t are just as promptly dismissed. If you?re the Ombudsman, sitting down (without deciding either way) is not an option.

* * *

Billy Joel once sang about ?John at the bar... a friend of mine.? Well, John?s gone and Joel, who often rides a Harley, would understand how it happened.

Few people outside his small circle of friends and relatives had heard about a young man named Johnnyvic Guzman before his death last weekend. And now that he has become a mere statistic, just another death on the road in an incident involving a motorcycle, few ever will.

Johnny worked as a bartender at a joint near Timog Avenue in Quezon City called My Bro?s Mustache. He died before dawn last Friday as he was on his way home on his motorcycle, after ramming into a bicycle rider who was crossing the street that Johnny had been cruising on.

Johnny died before reaching the hospital of severe head injuries. He was all of 27, previously full of life and laughter, like all good bartenders should be.

It?s true that Johnny, who really should have known better, had had a few drinks himself after work before deciding to head on home on his bike. If he hadn?t been riding a motorbike, the drinking would probably have caused nothing worse than some embarrassment and ended up as part of Johnny?s repertoire of stories from behind the bar.

But drinking and driving never mixed well, especially if the vehicle in question is a two-wheeled machine that even the most sober would not venture to mount. And now Johnny is dead?just like many others who defy the odds with their motorcycles on our city streets every blessed minute of every hour of every day will be.

For many who cannot afford cars or taxis but who crave the mobility and freedom of individual transportation, buying a motorcycle is an attractive option. But even the safest bike riders know how dangerous their choice of conveyance is, and those who don?t end up dead like Johnny bear the scars that prove this to be true.

And now Johnny Guzman, who liked to play the guitar and games on his PSP, who always had a ready smile for everyone, is gone. If he hadn?t made that fatal choice, there?s a very good chance he?d still be with us today.