The DILG's Project Branding Directive: A Catalyst for Rethinking Philippine Political Culture
The recent directive issued by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to eliminate faces and names from government projects has generated significant controversy, defense, and partisan debate across the Philippines. However, beyond the immediate headlines and social media discussions, this policy correction touches upon a profound and enduring rigidity within the nation's political landscape: the delicate balance between genuine public service and political self-promotion.
The Historical Context of Political Branding in Local Governance
Historically, political branding has been a persistent and visible feature of local governance throughout the Philippines. Catchy taglines, strategically placed faces on public transportation, prominent signage on infrastructure projects, and the overt "branding" of leadership have long served as quick signals to constituents that someone is actively in charge. This practice has become deeply ingrained in the political culture, creating a system where visibility often equates to perceived effectiveness.
Nevertheless, there is a growing and compelling argument that this branding comes at a substantial cost. Critics contend that it shifts the primary focus away from meaningful policy outcomes and tangible community improvements, redirecting attention toward the optics of leadership and the cultivation of political personas. This phenomenon raises fundamental questions about what truly constitutes effective governance in the Philippine context.
Exemplars of Substance-Driven Leadership
In this evolving context, it is valuable to reflect on a particular strand of leadership that embodies the kind of public service the nation increasingly needs: leaders who consciously prefer substance over publicity, managers who allow results to speak for themselves, and communicators who recognize that justice, safety, and development should be genuinely felt by communities rather than merely showcased by a mayor's name on a signboard.
Several local exemplars immediately come to mind, including Pasig Mayor Vico Sotto, who has been widely noted for a governance approach that prioritizes concrete outcomes over personal branding. While not immune to the inherent complexities of political life, his methodology—where decisions are firmly anchored in policy considerations rather than in cultivating a heavy public-facing persona—offers a useful and instructive contrast to the branding-driven model that frequently dominates local politics.
Pampanga's Leadership Ethos: Action Over Applause
Here in Pampanga, there exists a notable tradition of leaders who have consciously stepped away from the limelight in service of a different, more substantive kind of leadership. During the 2010s, former Mayor Edgardo Pamintuan made a deliberate choice not to have his name or face emblazoned across public or government vehicles. His memorable tagline, "Agyu Tamu," was fundamentally more about fostering a shared call to community action than about perpetuating a ceaseless drumbeat of self-promotion. The underlying message was simple yet powerful: true leadership is demonstrated through action, not through seeking applause.
Today, incumbent Mayor Carmelo "Jon" Lazatin II embodies a strikingly similar ethos. He is not media-savvy in the conventional sense of chasing headlines or seeking constant public attention. As his information officer, I have had the distinct privilege to witness, firsthand, the ongoing traction between genuine transparency and superficial publicity. In the early months of his administration, I drafted standard communications materials announcing a suspension of classes—yet he explicitly did not want his name or face attached to the announcement. His rationale was profoundly instructive: the primary goal was not to please students with a polished public-relations gesture, but to ensure that the decision genuinely served the public's best interest and was firmly anchored in responsible, evidence-based governance.
Philosophy in Practice: Justice Over Sensationalism
Another pivotal moment further underscored this governing philosophy. When one of the suspects connected to the tragic killing of a Korean tourist in Barangay Anunas was brought into police custody, I was prepared to organize a press conference. However, Mayor Jon dismissed the idea immediately, reminding the team that justice for the victim need not be propelled by media sensationalism. He suggested that the true measure of progress is not how loudly achievements are announced, but how effectively and diligently they are pursued behind the scenes.
These specific instances matter greatly because they illuminate a crucial governing principle: authentic public service is fundamentally about delivering tangible results, not about harvesting favorable optics. When leaders consciously eschew public self-promotion, they become less vulnerable to the distorting influences of transactional politics—where projects exist primarily to bolster a personal brand rather than to improve community lives; where the narrative is carefully crafted to win votes rather than to earn lasting public trust.
Interpreting the DILG Directive: Vanity Versus Accountability
The DILG directive can be interpreted in two primary ways. On one hand, it can be perceived as an attack on the individuality of leadership—the aesthetic of a personality-driven governance model that many Filipino voters have come to expect and even demand. On the other hand, and I argue this with considerable conviction, it represents a necessary and timely correction to a pervasive politics of vanity. It challenges provinces, cities, and municipalities to be judged primarily by their outcomes: the speed and efficiency of disaster response, the transparency of public procurement processes, the safety of streets, the accessibility of government services, and the tangible, measurable improvements in critical areas like education and public health.
Leaders who prioritize substance over image are precisely the leaders the Philippines needs—especially at a time when governance challenges are becoming increasingly intricate and multifaceted. The work of public service is inherently arduous and often thankless; it should not be driven by whose name appears most prominently on a banner, but by what is concretely and sustainably done for the community. If the DILG's policy helps re-center the national discourse on governance results, it could effectively nudge the political culture away from personality cults and toward a more accountable, service-oriented framework.
The Path Forward: Institutional Discipline and Cultural Shift
Of course, this significant shift will not be easy or instantaneous. It requires robust institutional discipline, clear and enforceable guidelines from national agencies, and a profound cultural shift within local government units that currently equate public visibility with administrative effectiveness. It demands that communications teams, while remaining essential, prioritize accuracy, integrity, and timeliness over the production of "gotcha" media moments or elaborately branded campaigns. It calls on all public officials to explain their decisions through accessible, evidence-based public updates rather than through reliance on glossy but empty slogans.
A Call to the Public: Valuing Deeds Over Visibility
To the Filipino public, my message is this: actively celebrate and support leaders who lead principally by doing, not merely by being seen. Honor those public servants who, working diligently behind the scenes, strive relentlessly to repair infrastructure, improve schools, and safeguard communities, without constantly seeking a public standing ovation. In Pampanga and across the nation, there are mayors and local officials who genuinely embody this service ethic—leaders who fundamentally understand that governance is a solemn public service, not a personal stage for self-aggrandizement.
Let us treasure and protect these leaders while they still carry the considerable burden of public office. Conversely, let us hold rigorously accountable those who attempt to hide behind branding and publicity rather than facing the hard, unglamorous realities of public life. The ultimate measure of a good government is not the number of posters bearing an official's name, but the number of lives meaningfully improved, the depth of public trust earned, and the quality of justice delivered to all citizens.
In the end, this DILG directive, if applied thoughtfully and consistently, can serve as a powerful catalyst for a healthier, more substantive public discourse—one in which public service remains the primary and paramount act, and political branding recedes to its proper place: a subtle background accompaniment to the real, demanding work of governance. Leaders of substance are not a mere relic of a romanticized past; they represent both the present reality and the future ideal that Philippine democracy should strive tirelessly to protect and promote.
