GOVERNMENT projects are built with public money. They exist to serve public need. They are not, and should never be, platforms for personal promotion.
The Department of Interior and Local Government’s (DILG) renewed warning against “epal” practices — credit-grabbing through names, faces, slogans, and political color schemes splashed on publicly funded projects — is therefore necessary. When officials plaster their identities on roads, buildings, vehicles, or programs paid for by taxpayers, they cross a clear ethical line: they convert public service into private advertising.
The Anti-Epal Policy is not new. It has long been anchored on the simple but powerful principle enshrined in the Constitution — that public office is a public trust. This standard, championed years ago by the late Local Government secretary Jesse Robredo, was meant to remind officials that visibility is not the same as service, and that humility, not self-promotion, is the hallmark of good governance.
Yet the persistence of “epal” culture suggests a disconcerting mindset: that projects must be branded to be politically useful, and that public funds can be quietly repurposed for name recall. This practice does more than offend good taste. It distorts democratic ethics. It gives incumbents an unfair advantage, blurs the line between governance and campaigning, and subtly conditions voters to associate public services with individual politicians rather than institutions.
This is why enforcement matters. The directive from the DILG — with clear warnings of administrative and criminal liability — must not remain a paper threat. Rules that are repeatedly violated without consequence cease to be rules at all. They become suggestions, easily ignored by those who believe they are untouchable.
Equally important is the reminder that compliance does not depend on the arrival of a memo. The law, the Commission on Audit rules, and ethical standards have long been clear. Officials who wait to be reminded before doing the right thing betray either ignorance or convenience — neither of which is acceptable in public office.
Citizens, too, have a role to play. By documenting violations and reporting them, the public helps reclaim ownership of projects that belong to everyone. This is not political harassment; it is civic responsibility.
Government programs are not personal billboards. The challenge now is to make that principle felt on the ground, in every barangay hall, fire truck, police station, health center, and infrastructure project.
At its core, the Anti-Epal Policy is about respect — respect for taxpayers, for institutions, and for democratic fairness. Officials who truly serve should have no need to sign their names on concrete. Their work, if done well, will speak loudly enough.
