Senator Chiz Escudero’s meltdown in a privilege speech last Monday had him hurling accusations at former House speaker Martin Romualdez, which boomeranged as the former Senate chief faced criticism for overreaching beyond his backyard.

In his embattled position among members of the Senate who face investigation, Escudero turned to the House of Representatives, accusing its members of being the most guilty in the flood control scandal.

Both legislative chambers, nonetheless, have their own ethics committees to look into the propriety of their members.

It is incumbent upon the senators to look in the mirror before looking at others; as it is for the House to investigate its own members.

The Senate can investigate House members, but the senators should first concentrate on what is rotten in their own chamber.

Escudero attempted to portray an elaborate scheme to ensnare senators in the multibillion-peso Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) racket.  

He didn’t talk about his guilt or innocence. But he did say that someone was more guilty, according to a former Cabinet official who is now at the UP School of Economics.

The implication is that Escudero may have some guilt, but it’s clear from the investigations so far that the ones who bear the most burden are the senators and congressmen who inserted their pet projects into the budget.

It would not be difficult to determine which anomalous projects were inserted and identify their proponents.

The former official said the information can be obtained from either the House of Representatives or the Senate. At the moment, neither the Senate nor the House is very enthusiastic about providing the information.

“That is what the investigators should do, which is to build the database. You want to find out who the proponents were, where the projects were etc., that can easily be gotten from the records of the House of Representatives and from the records of the Senate, or from the bicameral conference committee or the small committee,” the former official said.

“Obviously, if the project is in a particular place and you know who the congressman is, you can get the proponent.”

Then, ask the questions: “Were these projects properly processed? Did the local development committees amend them? So, you want to find out whether the infrastructure program of the local development committee had the legislator’s pet project.”

“If it was not part of the program, then that’s a warning flag. The legislator of the district cannot deny his involvement in a project in his turf.”

“If he had no idea, what does that say of him as the congressman or senator? A project that is being built in his jurisdiction, and he has no idea who proposed it? That means he is either incompetent or something else,” the ex-official said.

Everyone expected better from Chiz, instead of flailing wildly against his own ghosts, which are the apparitions from the huge P142.7-billion insertions in the bicam report and his being mixed up with contractors who cornered the DPWH flood control budget the past three years.