DILG vs. The Tarpaulin Gods – When Politicians Finally Get Told Their Faces Aren’t Infrastructure

Epal Season Officially Canceled – Mayors Now Required to Smile in Private

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 4, 2026

MGA ka-kweba, for far too long we have endured the blinding smiles of politicians plastered on every waiting shed, drainage canal, and scholarship tarpaulin paid for with our taxes. It has become a national pastime: slap a face on a public project, pose like a messiah, then campaign without spending a cent on airtime.

But suddenly, a miracle. One Memorandum Circular, and the entire country has been ordered: remove the faces, names, initials, color motifs, slogans, and every identifying vanity of public officials from government-funded projects. DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2026-006, dated January 29, 2026, and released on January 30—a small piece of paper that has triggered massive wailing from city halls and barangay outposts nationwide.

The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) declares: “Government programs are not personal billboards.” Thank you, Captain Obvious, but why only now?

Allow me to perform a forensic autopsy—without anesthesia.

***“Epal-erium Withdrawal Syndrome Hits Nation: Mayors Rush to ER After Sudden Loss of Exposure.”0***

The Epal Ecosystem Exposed: A Deeply Addictive Political Disease

“Epal” is not merely bad taste—it is systemic corruption wrapped in a plastic smile. Incumbent politicians use public projects as free campaign billboards, funded by the very taxpayers they then pretend to bless. A drainage canal? A giant mayor’s face smiling as if personally unclogging the sewer. A waiting shed? An altar to a living saint already plotting his reelection.

How does this pervert public service? Simple: it transforms a government obligation into a personal favor. Accountability vanishes—the project is no longer “what government must do” but “my gift to you.” Worst of all: it is soft, taxpayer-funded premature campaigning. No violation of election spending caps, yet the face is everywhere. Incumbency advantage on steroids—and we pay for it.

This is the culture we allowed to flourish because “that’s just how it is in the Philippines.” But it is not cultural inevitability—it is entrenched abuse that must end.

Constitutional and Legal Vivisection: The Order Stands on Granite, Defenses on Quicksand

Let us build the case brick by constitutional brick.

The Ironclad Foundation:

Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution: “Public office is a public trust.” This is self-executing, my friends. Not a mere slogan—a normative standard the Supreme Court has repeatedly used to strike down abusive official conduct. Using public funds for personal glorification? A direct breach.
Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees): Sections 4(a) commitment to public interest, 4(c) political neutrality, 4(h) modest living. Plastering one’s face on a tarpaulin is not modest—it is narcissistic. It violates neutrality when used for political branding.
COA Circular No. 2013-004 (dated January 30, 2013): clearly prohibits personalized signages except in limited cases. Classified as unnecessary expenditure, subject to disallowance.
Section 20 of Republic Act No. 12314 (the General Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2026): standard prohibition against personalizing publicly funded projects.

This is not revolutionary—it is faithful execution of laws long on the books.

The Pathetic Defenses (And Their Swift Execution):

I can already hear the whining:

“It’s my project! I funded it!” — No. Taxpayers funded it. You just cut the ribbon and posed for photos.
“This is my legacy!” — Your legacy? A proper drainage system that doesn’t flood—not plywood with your face peeling off in the rain.
“Free speech!” — Adorable. But when public officials speak in their official capacity using public resources, it is subject to reasonable regulation (Garcia v. Executive Secretary). No absolute free speech when you’re spending other people’s money to boast.
“Local autonomy!” — Darling, local autonomy is not absolute. It is subject to national supervision to ensure faithful execution of laws (Pimentel v. Aguirre). You cannot use autonomy to turn an LGU into a personal fiefdom.

All these defenses? Legal cul-de-sacs. Good luck in the Supreme Court.

Prosecution Pathways: The Sword of Damocles, Sharpened

Rest assured—this is not toothless.

Administrative: Violations of RA 6713 → Civil Service Commission or Ombudsman. Penalties: suspension up to dismissal. Heads of offices are personally accountable for compliance. The Ombudsman can investigate motu proprio and impose preventive suspension.
COA Route: Notice of Disallowance. Approving officers, certifying officers, and benefiting officials become personally liable to refund the amount. Good faith does not automatically absolve (De Jesus v. COA). Imagine: the mayor personally repaying the cost of his six-foot HD tarpaulin. Delicious.
Criminal: Where bad faith and unwarranted benefit exist (political capital counts), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) Section 3(e): imprisonment of six years and one day to fifteen years, perpetual disqualification. Malversation under Revised Penal Code Articles 217–220. Near elections? COMELEC offenses for premature campaigning using public resources.

The arsenal is loaded. The only question: will they pull the trigger?

Actor Motive-Mongering: Who Is Really Cleaning House?

DILG (Remulla): Genuine reform, political signaling ahead of election season, or pre-emptive narrative control? Alignment with the administration’s anti-corruption optics? Enforcement will reveal the truth.
The Politician: From crude epal to sophisticated branding—all driven by name recall. In a personality-driven polity, your face is your biggest asset. Ubiquity = votes.
The Bureaucrat/LGU Head: Caught in the middle—follow DILG or obey the mayor with the giant face? Most comply outwardly, resist quietly.
The Public: We are complicit spectators—secretly pleased when there’s a “gift” with a name attached. Yet we are also the principals who must demand accountability.

Strategic Options & Endgames: The Chessboard

Defiant Mayor: File for a TRO? Insist on “informational” signage? Spoiler: you lose—and expensively—in litigation and potential disallowances.
DILG: Strict enforcement (ideal), selective (politically toxic), or symbolic (business as usual). The choice will expose true intent.
COA: The deadliest player. Random or targeted audits in election hotspots—that is the real terror.

Endgame: serious enforcement slowly starves subsidized ego.

Impacts & Consequences: The Ripple Effect

Short-term: Mass tarpaulin purge. Contractors complain (no more printing side income). Politicians hunt for beige alternatives.
Medium-term: Slight leveling of the electoral playing field. Shift to subtler epal—Facebook ads, “private” sponsorships, verbal credit-grabbing.
Long-term & Ideal: Cultural shift. Public projects finally recognized as public property, not personal monuments. Starve the beast of personality politics. Possible permanent legislation.

The Call to Action & Recommendations: Beyond Critique

Smirking at the absurdity is not enough—we need action.

We must demand:

Genuine Public Service: Stripped of self-promotion. Projects that inform (cost, timeline, funding source), not deify.
Pro-People Governance: Transparency that empowers citizens, not placards that manipulate voters.
Specific Reforms:
- Enact this permanently—not just a memorandum that the next administration can ignore.
- Robust citizen monitoring: official reporting channels that are actually acted upon.
- Relentless COA follow-through: automatic audits of non-compliant LGUs.
- COMELEC coordination to link violations to election offenses.

To officials: earn your credit the hard way—through performance, not plywood.

Friends, public office is a public trust. Not a tarpaulin. Not a vanity project. Not a personal branding exercise.

If MC 2026-006 is seriously enforced, it can ignite a quiet revolution: return public service to the people—not to the face of one politician.

That—not the smile on a waiting shed—is the only legacy worth having.

– Barok