LOCAL Government Secretary Jonvic Remulla issued on Jan. 29 Memorandum Circular (MC) 2026-006, enforcing a strict nationwide “anti-epal” policy. The circular prohibits all public officials — from the barangay (village) to provincial level — from displaying their names, photographs, logos, initials, slogans or any identifying symbols on government-funded projects, signages and materials.
Anchored on the 1987 Constitution’s principle that public office is a public trust, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, and the 2026 General Appropriations Act (GAA), the circular mandates the immediate removal of noncompliant materials and holds heads of offices accountable for enforcement.
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) MC 2026-006 promotes good governance by reinforcing the constitutional principle of public office as a public trust, eliminating wasteful spending on personalized political signages and leveling the electoral playing field by preventing incumbents from using government resources for self-promotion. It enhances transparency by clarifying that government projects are publicly funded — not political favors — and holds officials accountable.
Memorandum circular's limitations
While DILG MC 2026-006 addresses the long-standing “epal” culture across all levels of local government by redirecting focus from personal credit-grabbing to genuine public service, its scope remains limited.
The memorandum faces significant jurisdictional and enforcement constraints that may affect its comprehensive implementation. It applies only to government-funded projects within the DILG’s administrative authority over local government units (LGUs), potentially leaving gaps in coverage involving national government agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs). As an administrative directive rather than a statute, it lacks the force of law and does not prescribe specific penalties or sanctions for violations. Enforcement relies heavily on voluntary compliance by office heads, which may prove inadequate without clear consequences for noncompliance.
Implementation challenges further complicate the circular’s effectiveness. Key terms such as “similar materials,” ”identifying symbols” and “color motifs” are not clearly defined, creating ambiguity between legitimate agency branding and prohibited personal promotion. The absence of specific timelines beyond the requirement of “immediate removal,” as well as the lack of standardized enforcement procedures, may result in inconsistent interpretation and application across LGUs. Ultimately, the success of the circular depends largely on local political will; areas with resistant officials or weak accountability mechanisms may see limited compliance, undermining the policy’s objective of uniformly eliminating the “epal” culture.
Although Section 8 establishes a feedback mechanism, it limits public engagement to queries and fails to provide a channel for citizen reporting, weakening enforcement at a time when public vigilance is most needed.
Are national officials exempted?
DILG MC 2026-006 expressly covers local government officials — provincial, city, municipal and barangay — as well as DILG offices and attached agencies, consistent with the DILG’s administrative authority. It does not directly apply to national government agencies, Cabinet secretaries or other national officials who fall outside DILG jurisdiction.
Are national officials, who are not included under Section 4 (coverage) of the memorandum, effectively exempt from the “anti-epal” policy?
The answer lies in Section 20 of the 2026 GAA, which applies broadly to all government-funded programs and projects, including those implemented by national agencies. Under the GAA, national officials are likewise prohibited from displaying their names, images, logos or identifying symbols on publicly funded projects. However, enforcement against national agencies requires implementing guidelines or directives from their respective departments, rather than reliance on the DILG memorandum.
Notably, only officials with direct administrative and executive authority over the implementing agency may be identified, and only for legitimate administrative purposes — not for promotional or political use.
Ironically, some of the most visible violators of the “anti-epal” policy are sitting senators and former legislators seeking reelection. Many have gone as far as immortalizing their names in government infrastructure. For instance, numerous public school buildings in Batangas prominently bear the label “Sen. Ralph G. Recto Type School Building.” What then should be done about these existing edifices?
Need for whole-of-govt approach
A whole-of-government approach is essential to meaningfully address the “epal” culture beyond the confines of LGUs under DILG supervision. For example, the Department of Education should issue parallel directives requiring all public schools nationwide to remove political signages, tarpaulins and materials bearing officials’ names and images from school buildings, classrooms, feeding programs and educational facilities.
Education Secretary Juan Edgardo Angara should be aware that some public school basketball courts are painted in orange, a distinct political color motif of the Villars, and were originally emblazoned with markings such as “Project of Sen. Cynthia Villar and Secretary Mark Villar,” later replaced with “Project of Sen. Mark Villar and Sen. Camille Villar.”
Similarly, other national agencies — including the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and all GOCCs — must adopt and enforce their own anti-epal policies consistent with Section 20 of the 2026 GAA.
Without coordinated enforcement across all branches and levels of government, the prohibition remains incomplete. National officials and agency heads may continue to exploit taxpayer-funded projects for personal promotion, while only local officials face restrictions. A unified, government-wide policy with clear enforcement mechanisms and penalties is necessary to ensure that all public officials — regardless of rank or agency — uphold the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, not a platform for political advertising.
allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.Times
Viber: (0915)4201085