Anti-‘epal’ crackdown

A newly released government memo has become the worst nightmare for clout-chasing, credit-grabbing public officials and politicians. Last month, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued Memorandum Circular No. 2026-006, prohibiting the display and/or affixture of the name, image, or likeness of public officials on government-funded projects, programs, activities, and properties.

The memo covers elected and appointed officials in provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels, as well as officials and employees of DILG-attached agencies, including the Philippine National Police, National Youth Commission, Philippine Commission on Women, and the National Police Commission.

This is not exactly a new policy because there are existing laws discouraging such self-serving actions. But the widespread practice of putting the faces and names of public officials on billboards, tarpaulins, flyers, publications, etc., has made it necessary to remind them that public office is a public trust and not a platform for self-promotion.

Tourism Secretary Christina Frasco, who has long faced criticisms over the excessive use of her image in government tourism publications and display materials, comes to mind. Many public structures, including schools, roads, or bridges bear the names of politicians, perpetuating the culture of political patronage they use to remain in office.

In poor taste

To be sure, the Philippines is not the only country that has this political culture. It is common in the United States during campaigns and in South Asian countries for development project signs. But it is considered inappropriate—even in poor taste—in countries like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan, where institutions are strong and public accountability is taken seriously.

The DILG memo specifically cited the following existing regulations:

Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states that “Public Office is a public trust.” Among others, it encourages officials and employees to serve the public with integrity and “lead modest lives.”

Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which reiterates the above constitutional provision and prescribes a “high standard of ethics in public service.”

Section 2.2.6 of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 2013-004 dated Jan. 30, 2013, which considers the “display and/or affixture of the picture, image, motto, logo, color motif, initials or other symbol or graphic representation associated with the top leadership of the project proponent or implementing agency/unit/office, on Signboards […] unnecessary.”

Self-promotion

Section 20 of RA 12314, or the 2026 General Appropriations Act, known as the “anti-epal” provision, which prohibits the display and/or affixture of the name, image, and likeness of public officials, whether elected or appointed, on signboards for all programs, activities, and projects funded under said Act. Congress has introduced this provision following allegations of misuse in infrastructure projects, and it should be institutionalized in every budget law.

See Also

Learning, interrupted

“Government projects, programs, activities, and properties are funded through public funds and are implemented in the interest of the general welfare. As such, these undertakings must remain politically neutral and free from any form of self-promotion by public officials,” the DILG stated.

It pointed out that this self-serving practice has “create[d] the perception that public projects are personal initiatives of individual officials rather than institutional efforts of the government, and may undermine public trust in the impartiality and professionalism of the civil service.” Those found violating the policy will face administrative and/or criminal charges in accordance with pertinent laws, rules, and regulations.

High standards

At least two local governments have been ahead of their peers in the anti-”epal” campaign: Naga City under former vice president and now Mayor Leni Robredo, who signed an ordinance in November 2025, and Pasig City under Mayor Vico Sotto, who has implemented the policy since August 2022. Both of their orders impose a P5,000 fine and imprisonment ranging from 30 days to six months.

These are the kind of public officials the Philippines needs, not those who lack delicadeza and treat their positions as extensions of their egos.

The recent backlash against officials like Frasco signals that Filipinos are becoming less tolerant of self-serving actions, most likely driven by the flood control scandal that has exposed massive corruption in government. It is only right that officials who use taxpayer money to promote themselves be publicly shamed. It is also high time that the Filipino public rejects personality-driven politics by demanding high standards from public officials and holding them accountable to prevent those with “epal” tendencies from getting appointed or elected. Filipinos deserve better.