Report ‘epal’ acts

They’ve been a common practice: billboards, tarpaulins, signboards, or posters promoting a government project alongside the name and photo of a politician. Sometimes, the politician’s name and photo take up almost the entire space. But does the public know that this practice has been banned by the Commission on Audit (COA) since 2013? Probably not.

That this practice continues to be abused is an indication that the implementation of COA’s Circular No. 2013-004 issued on Jan. 30, 2013, has been weak, a perennial issue that continues to hound Philippine governance. There is also scant information to make people aware that “epal” acts—or shameless self-promotion at the expense of taxpayers—are against the law, and that they could report these violations. It is even more alarming that this practice of “branding” government projects—funded by taxpayer money and NOT by these politicians who claim “ownership” over them—has been normalized that nothing much has been done beyond the public’s annoyance and disgust. Has any official even been the subject of a formal complaint? What is even worse is when constituents refer to these projects as “pagawa ni mayor” or “kay congressman,” unaware or ignorant of the irony that their taxes paid for them.

Information or publicity for government programs, projects, and activities is not wrong or bad on its own. Per the COA circular, such notifications to the public “shall be made at the least possible cost” and they are a necessary part of ensuring transparency in governance. These signboards inform the public about the project, budget, contractor, and other pertinent details that could be used for accountability purposes. But what they are not for is to serve someone else’s political agenda.

The 10-year-old COA circular is not limited only to infrastructure projects but also covers such activities as medical and dental missions, feeding programs, distribution of relief goods, sports or cultural events including fiestas, workshops, and seminars, etc. The commission stated that “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, is considered unnecessary.” An example that easily comes to mind was the self-promotion of the previous president’s close aide through “giveaways” like shoes and shirts, and the use of a government-funded program in the last mid-term elections. Similar violations are so common but because complaints are seldom raised, these abuses that are subject to administrative disciplinary action under Section 127 of the Presidential Decree No. 1445 or the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, persist.

There should be no reason for these violations to be tolerated especially when it’s taxpayer money that funds these pompous self-promotions. Lente Philippines, a network of lawyers and paralegals, recently launched an “Epal Watch” on its website to provide a platform where the public can report such “epal” acts, and send photos or videos as proof. But institutions like the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government need to do their part through voter education for undertakings like “Epal Watch” to succeed. In 2020, the Comelec and the Department of Social Welfare and Development targeted beneficiaries of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program for voter education but more rigorous and sustained efforts should be made to address, criticize, and dismantle patronage politics because it is what keeps people poor and desperate, and why many of them make poor choices during elections.

It certainly is not a change that can happen overnight or through a single election but the coming barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) polls present a good opportunity. What best way to start but through young voters and SK leaders who will shape the future political milieu? This generation, with its activism and “woke” culture, may just change the way public officials are treated in this country—that they should serve the people instead of being placed on a pedestal—or signboards—beyond reproach and acting like overlords.

Shaming these so-called public servants who piggyback on taxpayer money and exploit weaknesses in the system to promote themselves can be a good exercise in raising awareness about what a progressive citizenry can achieve. It cannot be more ironic that we hold celebrities and beauty pageant contestants to higher standards and make them accountable for public transgressions but fail to call out elected officials when they are the ones paid by our taxes to serve and protect our best interests.