Tourism marketing is an exercise in persuasion, competition, and credibility. It involves national coordination, placing primary importance on the development and promotion of tourist sites. However, when the Philippines continues to post tourism materials this way, the question is no longer whether the Department of Tourism (DoT) is visible, but whether it is effective.

In a recent Senate hearing, Sen. Raffy Tulfo confronted Tourism Secretary Christina Garcia Frasco, an exchange that trended on social media. Sen. Tulfo did not bother with diplomatic phrasing. “It shouldn’t happen,” he said, referring to tourism materials carrying the Secretary’s face instead of destinations. “When our marketing materials show your face instead of our tourist spots, that does not sell.”

There is no serious study demonstrating that tourists choose destinations because they recognize the tourism secretary. Travelers are persuaded by beaches, safety, food, culture, and price. Verily, they do not imagine the official who signed off on the brochure. When a personality intrudes into that fantasy, the message shifts from invitation to intrusion.

This instinct for self-branding did not begin at the national level. It can be traced to Secretary Frasco’s local governance years as mayor of Liloan, Cebu, and possibly mirrored in the political style of her husband, now an incumbent congressman and former mayor. In that ecosystem, public goods routinely carried personal imagery. Senior citizen cards bore half-body photos of the former mayor. Rice sacks came stamped with photos, and coffee sachets, sports trophies, and community giveaways even doubled as political calling cards.

The Department of Tourism is not a local political fiefdom. Its mandate is defined by law, specifically Executive Order 120, which tasks the department to promote the Philippines as a tourism destination, develop and regulate the tourism industry, and coordinate government and private-sector efforts to ensure sustainable tourism growth. Nowhere in that mandate is personal image-building contemplated. The measure of success is industry performance, not official visibility.

This legal framing matters, especially as the DoT reels from recent embarrassments. The use of foreign stock footage in a flagship campaign and the lukewarm rollout of the “Love the Philippines” tagline suggested creative and administrative lapses. Senator Tulfo’s pointed reminder bears repeating: “We are promoting tourism, not personalities.”

“Love the Philippines” can still resonate, but only if it is told through the right narrators. Overseas Filipino workers may do this instinctively, as they speak of home in office canteens and dorms abroad, defend the country in casual conversations, and sell the Philippines through memory rather than marketing.

In my personal opinion, and without discrediting the hard work of the Tourism Secretary in visiting sites nationwide, the Philippines does not need a face front and center to be loved. Its beaches, landscapes, and people already do the work. What it needs is a leader remembered for outcomes, not appearances and display.

Hence, kudos to Secretary Frasco for instructing the DoT to remove all her images nationwide. We now await the next step of the DoT in this so-called “rebranding.” After all, tourism succeeds when the country and its people are allowed to speak for themselves.

For comments, email him at darren.dejesus@gmail.com.