Budget bill contains ‘antiepal’ provision | Inquirer News

Budget bill contains ‘antiepal’ provision

By: - Reporter / @deejayapINQ
/ 04:04 AM December 16, 2020

“Epal” politicians will no longer be allowed to display their names, pictures or logos on government projects in 2021, according to the bicameral conference report on the proposed P4.5-trillion national budget law.

The Senate and the House of Representatives inserted an “antiepal” provision in the proposed General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2021 prohibiting the attachment of the name, image and likeness of government officials on publicly funded projects.

“Epal” is a Filipino pejorative word for credit-grabbing or attention-seeking behavior. In recent years, the term has been widely ascribed to politicking by government officials, especially during an election year.

ADVERTISEMENT

The provision was one of the amendments approved by the conference committee last week before the Senate and the House ratified the 2021 GAA, which is only awaiting President Duterte’s signature to become law.

FEATURED STORIES

It reads: “Subject to guidelines to be issued by the DBM (Department of Budget and Management), it shall be prohibited to affix, or cause to be affixed, the name, visage, appearance, logo, signature or other analogous image of any public official, whether elected or appointed, on all programs, activities, projects (PAPs), or corresponding signage, which are funded in this Act.”

Several “antiepal” bills have been filed in Congress, but none have been passed.

Other executive agencies, including the Department of the Interior and Local Government and the Department of Public Works and Highways, as well as a number of local government units, have made issuances discouraging or banning such practices.

The Commission on Audit, in a January 2013 circular, stated that displaying or affixing any picture, image, motto, logo, color motif or other symbol or graphic associated with the top leadership of the project proponent or implementing agency or office, “is considered unnecessary.” INQ

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS:

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.