Bicam Bandits: Co, Escudero, and the Budget Betrayal Thriller

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — September 20, 2025

AS typhoons turn Philippine streets into rivers of despair, our “honorable” leaders orchestrate a P13.8 billion heist, siphoning flood control funds into ghost projects and contractor cronies’ pockets, per a bombshell ABS-CBN report. House Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno points fingers at Zaldy Co and ousted Senate President Chiz Escudero for sneaking these insertions through a secretive bicameral committee, while Speaker Martin Romualdez plays absentee landlord. Did they think we’d miss this swindle while wading through flooded slums? This isn’t governance—it’s a corruption blockbuster, starring the bicam committee as a cartel in barong tagalog. Buckle up for a scathing exposé, dripping with sarcasm, grounded in law, and armed with tools to make these thieves pay. Let’s unmask the culprits, shred their alibis, and ignite a citizen revolt.

Scene I: Zaldy Co, the Budget Bandit and Sunwest’s Puppet Master

Zaldy Co, former House Appropriations Chair, fled to the US like a fugitive from a bad crime flick, leaving behind a trail of P13.8 billion in “flood control” insertions that vanish faster than dry land in a storm. His masterpiece? Alleged ties to Sunwest Inc., pocketing P100 billion in contracts from 2022–2025, with family members—siblings, kids—embedded in flood firms like ticks on a carabao [RA 3019, Sec. 3(h)]. Baguio Mayor Magalong didn’t mince words: this is a syndicate, a reboot of the pork barrel scam. Co’s not just dipping toes in corruption; he’s diving headfirst into a cesspool of graft.

Legal Takedown

This screams violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [[RA 3019, Sec. 3(e)]], causing undue injury by funneling public funds to cronies, and Sec. 3(g) for grossly disadvantageous contracts. If kickbacks exceed P50 million—and with P100 billion in play, they likely do—Plunder Law [RA 7080, Sec. 2] looms, promising reclusion perpetua. The Supreme Court’s Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) obliterated PDAF for unconstitutional lump-sum insertions, a precedent that brands Co’s “riders” as violations of Art. VI, Sec. 25(2), smuggling pork into the budget. 208566 roared: “Congress cannot delegate appropriation powers.” Co’s defense—bicam insertions are “standard”?—is as sturdy as Sunwest’s shoddy culverts.

Political Roast

Co’s pattern mirrors the pork barrel’s golden age—budget as ATM, public trust be damned [Art. XI, Sec. 1]. Sarcasm alert: Nothing screams “public servant” like jetting abroad while your district drowns, leaving ghost projects as your legacy. Did Co think we’d applaud his disappearing act? His silence is louder than the typhoons he failed to tame.

Scene II: Chiz Escudero, the Senate Sellout Who Signed the Swindle

Francis “Chiz” Escudero, the dethroned Senate President, plays the innocent bystander while co-chairing the bicam committee that greenlit Co’s P13.8 billion scam. Ousted for this mess—enter Tito Sotto, stage right—Chiz deflects like a pro, pointing to “ghost projects” from 2022-2024 to dodge his 2025 sins. Newsflash: Signing the bicam report isn’t a cameo; it’s starring in the heist. With P545 billion in flood funds riddled with anomalies—66 unlocatable Quezon City projects, per COA—Escudero’s “I just facilitated” excuse is as credible as a teleserye plot twist [RA 6713, Sec. 4].

Legal Takedown

Escudero’s rubber stamp implicates him in RA 3019, Sec. 3(e) for manifest partiality, causing undue injury by approving padded budgets. Ties to a Sorsogon contractor’s P30 million donation in 2022? That’s a conflict of interest under RA 6713, Sec. 7, barring financial stakes in approved transactions. Budget doc manipulation? Revised Penal Code, Art. 171-172. Fund diversion? Art. 220, technical malversation. Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, 2014) nuked DAP for unauthorized transfers, warning: “Executive-legislative collusion in appropriations is void.” Chiz’s P355 million Bulacan insertions? Same unconstitutional stench. Purisima v. Lazatin (G.R. No. 210588, 1999) reminds us: Public office is a trust, not a blank check.

Political Roast

Chiz’s “diversion” narrative—blaming past budgets while ignoring his own—is political sleight-of-hand. Was he too busy eyeing reelection to notice P13.8 billion slip through? His ouster isn’t just Senate drama; it’s the people’s middle finger to a facilitator who forgot Art. XI, Sec. 1. Ironic, right? The anti-corruption poster boy, now poster child for enabling the flood fund fiasco.

Scene III: Ronaldo Puno, the Half-Truth Hero with a Hidden Agenda

Ronaldo Puno, House Deputy Speaker, storms in as the whistleblower, demanding Co’s extradition and calling insertions a “criminal thing.” Bold, until you notice he’s dodging Speaker Romualdez like a landmine. Selective outrage much? As a House leader, Puno was in the budget’s birthplace, yet claims ignorance of insertions [RA 6713, Sec. 4]. Why scapegoat Co and Chiz while giving Romualdez a free pass? X posts smell a rat: Puno’s protecting House allies in the P545 billion flood fund scandal [X post analysis].

Legal Takedown

Puno’s half-truths flirt with RA 3019, Sec. 3(e), causing injury via partiality, and RA 6713, Sec. 5 for misleading the public. Abakada Guro v. Purisima (G.R. No. 168056, 2008) limits bicam powers: They can’t balloon budgets beyond House-Senate versions. Puno’s silence enabled the excess, a dereliction of duty under Art. XI, Sec. 1. If he knew and didn’t act, that’s complicity; if he didn’t know, that’s incompetence. Pick your poison.

Political Roast

Puno’s “transparency” act is a masterclass in deflection, shielding Romualdez while the House’s role in the P545 billion mess festers. Motives? Climbing the House ladder or dodging his own ethical probe. Hero? More like a villain auditioning for a halo while the floods rage on.

The Supporting Cast: Romualdez’s Leadership Shipwreck and Institutional Decay

Speaker Martin Romualdez, the absentee landlord who “skipped” bicam meetings, still presided over a House that birthed this budget beast. His neglect is institutional malpractice, potentially inducing violations [RA 3019, Sec. 3(a)]. Belgica warned: Lump sums are corruption’s playground—Romualdez let the game go on. Grace Poe, sidelined in the bicam, escapes major blame, but her silence doesn’t scream innocence. The House Infrastructure Committee’s probe, now punted to an “Independent Commission,” feels like a dodge while Filipinos wade through the wreckage. This isn’t new—it’s the pork barrel’s zombie twin, violating Art. VI, Sec. 25(2) with riders that mock public trust.

The Final Act: Citizens, Seize the Gavel!

Furious? You should be. Empowered? Here’s your battle plan, inspired by Transparency International’s citizen-led triumphs, like India’s RTI-driven exposés that toppled corrupt regimes.

Action Items

FOI Requests (EO 2, s. 2016): Demand bicam minutes, project lists, Sunwest contracts via the FOI portal. Agencies must reply in 15 days. Chain requests to map the money trail, as seen in pork scam busts.
Ombudsman Complaints (RA 6770, Sec. 12-13): File verified affidavits against Co, Escudero, et al. for graft/plunder. No standing needed; RA 6981 protects whistleblowers. Pork scam convictions started here.
COA Audits (Art. IX-D, Sec. 2): Petition special audits on flood projects; COA can halt irregular spending. South Korea’s citizen audits, per TI, recovered billions—replicate it.
Taxpayer Lawsuits (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, 2006): File certiorari/mandamus under Rule 65 to void insertions. David empowers taxpayers: “The right to information ensures accountability.”

Mobilize

Amplify #SummonZaldyCo on X, join NGOs like Citizens Against Corruption, petition House/Senate ethics committees, launch recall drives. The pork scam fell to public rage; this budget’s next. Share this, but don’t stop there—file that FOI, lodge that complaint. The corruption tsunami stops when we flood the system with accountability. Kweba ni Barok, signing off.

Key Citations

Constitutional Provisions

Art. VI, Sec. 25(2) – Congressional appropriations power
Art. VI, Sec. 29 – Budget preparation and approval
Art. XI, Sec. 1 – Public office as public trust
Art. IX-D, Sec. 2 – COA powers and functions

Statutory Laws

RA 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
RA 7080 – Plunder Law
RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
RA 6770 – Ombudsman Act
RA 6981 – Witness Protection Program Act
Revised Penal Code, Art. 171-172, 220 – Falsification and malversation

Landmark Cases

Belgica v. Ochoa (G.R. No. 208566, 2013) – PDAF unconstitutionality
Araullo v. Aquino (G.R. No. 209287, 2014) – DAP nullification
Purisima v. Lazatin (G.R. No. 210588, 1999) – Public trust doctrine
Abakada Guro v. Purisima (G.R. No. 168056, 2008) – Bicameral committee limitations
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo (G.R. No. 171396, 2006) – Taxpayer standing