So To Speak: The DILG’s Anti-Epal Memo is a start—not the solution
By Sonia P. Soto
The recent Anti-Epal Memorandum from the Department of the Interior and Local Government is welcome.
It tells local governments to stop plastering officials’ names and faces on publicly funded projects. No giant tarpaulins. No campaign-style slogans. No pretending that roads, classrooms, drainage systems, or waiting sheds are personal gifts.
That matters.
It restates a basic rule: public money should not be used for personal promotion.
But let us be honest.
This memo alone will not fix the system.
Because “epal” politics did not start with tarpaulins.
It started with what our politics rewards.
When Presence Turns Into Credit-Grabbing
Local leaders are supposed to be visible. They inspect sites. They answer complaints. They take responsibility when something goes wrong.
That is governance.
The problem begins when being present turns into claiming credit—when the official’s name is bigger than the project title, when slogans drown out funding sources, when citizens are nudged to say, “Buti pa si Mayor,” instead of “Buti pa ang gobyerno.”
That is exactly what the memo is trying to stop.
And it should.
But removing names from walls does not remove the mindset behind them.
The Tarp Comes Down. The Post Goes Up.
We also have to face reality.
Politics today does not live only on concrete walls.
It lives on social media.
If faces disappear from waiting sheds, they can easily multiply online—Facebook posts, TikTok videos, livestreamed inspections, glossy reels of ribbon-cuttings with captions that quietly claim ownership.
The tarp comes down.
The post goes up.
Same instinct. New platform.
Unless the same discipline applies online, epal politics will simply change shape.
Visibility Is Not the Enemy
A fair question keeps coming up:
If officials stop branding projects, how will voters know who is actually working?
Simple.
Officials do not need billboards to be accountable.
They can be visible through town halls, inspection reports, budget disclosures, project timelines, audit findings, and official LGU pages that show real progress—not just photo-ops.
Accountability is about information.
Epal politics is about impressions.
One helps citizens judge performance.
The other tries to pre-package praise.
And Yes—That Applies Online Too
Social media should not be a vanity stage.
If officials want to post about projects, let the content be:
– what stage construction is in
– how much it costs
– why it is delayed, if it is delayed
– when it will be finished
– how residents can complain or report defects
– what agency is responsible
Less posing.
More proof.
A smiling selfie fades.
A bridge that still stands five years later does not.
Voters Are Part of the Equation
There is another truth we cannot avoid.
This system survives because voters help sustain it.
When we reward visibility more than performance, politicians adjust.
When we clap for ribbon-cuttings but forget to check whether projects last, incentives remain.
When we vote based on who is seen most instead of who delivers best, the culture stays intact—memo or no memo.
So the anti-epal directive is not only for officials.
It is also for citizens.
What Real Reform Looks Like
If we truly want to move beyond epal politics, we need more than cleaner signboards.
We need project markers that show agencies, budgets, and timelines—not portraits.
We need leaders who stop saying “my project” and start saying “public result.”
We need voters who ask blunt questions:
Was it finished?
Was it done right?
Is it still working?
The DILG’s memo is a good beginning.
But unless we uproot the deeper causes—how campaigns are funded, how credit is claimed, and how voters judge leaders—we will keep fixing the surface while the structure underneath stays the same.
When rain pours and commuters crowd under a waiting shed, no one is protected by a slogan.
They are protected by concrete.
And the strongest signature on any public project is not printed on a tarp.
It is written in accountability—
and on the ballot.
###
