EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session
SENATE 
S. No. 
"^8 8
y'v&Uicf of il)r ssfcrftflrif
*19 
JUL 25 P4 50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------REClTTTTT-
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RISA HONTIVEROS
AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Medium-term planning is part of the government tradition in the Philippines. At 
the start of each administration, the government draws up a six-year development plan 
that outlines its goals and objectives for the plan period, along with the strategies, 
policies, programs and projects required to meet them.
Indeed, sound policies and programs are major determinants of development. 
Thus, it is imperative to know if the policies and programs of the country are 
appropriate, being implemented correctly, and are achieving their objectives. Likewise, 
it is important to know if there are better policies or programs that can meet national 
goals more effectively, efficiently, equitably, and sustainably.
A policy or program proven useful in the past may not be as effective and 
relevant under present circumstances. In the same manner, policies and programs that 
have worked well in some countries may not succeed in others. Context is important to 
the soundness of a policy or program. Thus, systematic and context-specific evaluation 
of policies and programs is important.
Evaluation of planned, ongoing, or completed policies and programs provides the 
evidence 
to 
ascertain 
their 
relevance, 
efficiency, 
effectiveness, 
impact, 
and 
sustainability1. It can also yield important lessons for improving policy and program 
formulation and implementation. 
Moreover, evaluation can contribute to good 
governance by promoting transparency and accountability.
1 Valdez, Joseph, and Michael Bamberger. 1994. Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing 
Countries. Washington D.C.: Economic Development Institute, World Bank


Unfortunately, evaluation has not been widely and systematically integrated in 
the processes and systems of government. Evaluation has been conducted on only a 
few and selected programs and projects, largely on the initiative of international 
development agencies. In 2015, the National Economic and Development Authority and 
the Department of Budget and Management issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 
2015-01 establishing an evaluation policy framework to govern the practice of 
evaluation of programs and projects receiving budgetary support from the government. 
However, the Circular applies only to the agencies of the Executive Branch. And like 
other Executive Circulars, its implementation is subject to uncertainty especially when 
there is a change in government administration.
Recognizing the importance of evaluation, some countries have statutes 
institutionalizing variants of a National Evaluation Policy (NEP) that applies to all 
branches and levels of government, while many other countries are in the process of 
establishing their own NEP2. A National Evaluation Policy defining the purpose, 
responsibilities, functions and organization of the public-sector evaluation function in a 
particular country can facilitate the development of an enabling environment and the 
institutional and individual capacities for evaluation to reach its full potential.
This Bill proposes the passage of a law mandating the establishment of a 
National Evaluation Policy to strengthen the legal and institutional framework for the 
regular conduct of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the results of public policies, 
programs, projects and other forms of government intervention intended to promote 
sustainable development and uplift the living standards of all Filipinos, especially the 
poor and the marginalized. As pointed out by a Hon. Mayantha Dissanayaka, a Member 
of Parliament of Sri Lanka, in the Global Parliamentarians for Evaluation Conference 
held in Colombo on 17-19 September 2018, "the National Evaluation Policy (NEP) can 
be ignored by future Governments and Parliaments if it is not passed as an Act by 
Parliament."
2 Rosenstein, B. (2015). Status of National Evaluation Policies. Global Mapping Report. 2nd Edition, 
Implemented by Parliamentarians Forum on Development Evaluation in South Asia jointly with 
EvalPartners


Hence, the immediate passage of this measure is earnestly sought
RISA HONTIVEROS 
Senator


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session
SENATE 
S. No. 
"^8 8
\ ^ i t f  o( tl)p
■19 JUL25 P4 50
R
t C i . : .  • J
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RISA HONTIVEROS
AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House o f Representatives o f the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
Section 1. 
Statement o f Policy. — To improve the national government's 
performance and to enhance the quality of public services, this National Evaluation 
Policy (NEP) is enacted to strengthen the legal and institutional framework for the 
regular conduct of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the results of public policies, 
programs, and projects.
Sec. 2. Policy Objectives. — The NEP intends to achieve the following 
objectives:
a) Facilitate the development and strengthening of an integrated M&E 
system 
of 
the 
national 
government 
to 
ensure 
the 
regular 
measurement, reporting and improvement of the performance of its 
agencies, policies, programs, projects and services;
b) Ensure the timely provision to national government policymakers and 
managers of relevant, updated, valid and reliable knowledge about the 
outputs, outcomes, impacts, and other results of public policies, 
programs, projects and services;
c) Ensure the intensive utilization of M&E findings and recommendations 
in 
the 
planning, 
programming, 
formulation, 
budgeting 
and 
implementation of public policies, programs, projects and services;
d) Ensure the continuous improvement of public policies, programs, 
projects and services to produce outputs, outcomes and impacts that 
substantially contribute to the achievement of national development 
goals and priorities;


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
e) Ensure the accountability of the national government and its agencies 
and various public service providers to produce planned, expected or 
promised results.
Sec. 3. Definitions. — The key terms used in this law are defined as follows:
a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial process of assessing 
the results of public policies, programs, projects, and services 
implemented or carried out by the national government and/or its 
agencies or instrumentalities. It analyzes the level of relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the expected and 
actual outputs, outcomes and impacts of public policies, programs, 
projects and services. It generates credible and useful evidence-based 
information to substantially enable the results-oriented planning, 
programming, 
budgeting, 
formulation 
and 
reformulation 
and 
implementation of public policies, programs, projects and services.
b) Monitoring refers to the systematic and continuous collection of data 
on agreed indicators to track the short-term and medium-term 
progress and results of public policies, programs, projects or services 
being 
implemented vis-3-vis planned targets and objectives. 
It 
generates knowledge to guide government policy/decision makers and 
managers of the necessary corrective actions to ensure that policies, 
programs, projects or services being implemented produce their 
intended results. While different from evaluation, monitoring is a 
crucial pre-requisite for effective evaluations of policies, programs, 
projects and services.
c) Results comprise the outputs, outcomes and impacts of policies, 
programs, projects or services being implemented.
a. Outputs are specific goods and services produced by budgeted 
and implemented public policies, programs, projects, services 
and other interventions.
b. Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in 
the behavior or target individuals, groups, or organizations 
and/or improvements in the quality of processes and services as 
an 
immediate 
effect 
of 
specific 
interventions. 
Outcome 
evaluations generate knowledge on the effectiveness of policies, 
programs, projects and services in meeting their intended 
objectives.
2


1 
c. Impacts are the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level
2 
societal changes, both intended and unintended, that take place
3 
long after target individuals, groups, systems or organizations
4 
have experienced the outputs and outcomes of specific
5 
interventions. Impact evaluations
6 
Sec. 4. Coverage. — The NEP shall apply to the following:
7 
a) All departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCs),
8 
government-owned 
and/or 
controlled 
corporations 
(GOCCs),
9 
government financial institutions and other instrumentalities of the
10 
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the National Government;
11 
b) All public policies, programs, projects, services and other activities
12 
formulated and implemented by the above entities and funded by local
13 
and foreign funds including those contracted to and executed,
14 
produced 
and 
delivered 
by 
private 
sector 
and 
civil 
society
15 
organizations;
16 
The National Evaluation Council (NEC) created under Section 14 hereof may include
17 
other entities and activities imbued with public interest in the coverage of the NEP.
18 
Sec. 5. Evaluation Principles. -  
Evaluations of public policies, programs,
19 
projects and services shall be guided by the following key principles:
20 
a) Key criteria. Evaluations shall address, at a minimum, questions
21 
pertaining to the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and
22 
sustainability of public policies, programs, projects and services;
23 
b) Performance 
improvement 
Evaluations 
shall 
be 
designed,
24 
implemented and used to ensure the continuous improvement of the
25 
planning, programming, budgeting, formulation and reformulation
26 
and implementation of the national government's public policies,
27 
programs, projects and services.
28 
c) Value for money. Evaluations should seek to determine whether the
29 
outputs, outcomes and impacts of the national government's public
30 
policies, programs, projects and services are commensurate to their
31 
invested financial, physical and human resources.
32 
d) Minimum competencies o f evaluators. Evaluators shall have the
33 
required 
minimum competencies to effectively evaluate 
public
34 
policies, programs, projects and services;
35 
e) Ethics. Those who commission, design, conduct, manage, and use
36 
evaluations 
shall 
observe 
standards 
of ethics 
in 
evaluations.
3


1 
Impartiality in the planning and conduct of evaluations shall be
2 
always ensured.
3 
f) Best practices. The conduct of evaluations shall be in accordance with
4 
internationally 
recognized 
best practices and 
standards. 
Clear
5 
standards shall 
govern the design, 
implementation, 
reporting,
6 
dissemination and use of evaluations of public policies, programs,
7 
projects and services. Partnerships with various stakeholders shall be
8 
encouraged in the prioritization, design, implementation and use of
9 
evaluations.
10 
Sec. 6. Evaluation Criteria. -  At the minimum, evaluations of national
11 
government policies, programs, projects and services shall measure and report on
12 
their efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, impact and sustainability.
13 
a) £'/57(C7ie/7cy measures the cost and time by which the intended outputs
14 
and short-term and medium-term outcomes and long-term impacts of
15 
public 
policies 
programs, 
projects 
and 
services 
were
16 
delivered/produced 
by 
national 
government 
agencies 
and
17 
instrumentalities including their networks of private and civil society
18 
service providers. 
Efficiency evaluations shall help government
19 
policy/decision makers to ascertain whether the intended objectives
20 
were achieved on time and at planned cost and to identify better and
21 
efficient ways of meeting the objectives of policies, programs,
22 
projects and policies.
23 
b) Effectiveness 
the quality and timeliness of the intended and
24 
unintended outputs and the short-term and medium-term outcomes
25 
and long-term impacts of public policies, programs, projects and
26 
services. Effectiveness evaluations shall measure the extent to which
27 
valued development and societal impacts can be attributed clearly to
28 
the 
public 
policies, 
programs, 
projects 
and 
services 
being
29 
implemented by the covered entities;
30 
c) Relevance measures the alignment and consistency of the results of
31 
public 
policies, 
programs, 
projects and 
services with 
national
32 
development goals and 
priorities and their responsiveness to
33 
stakeholder needs;
34 
d) Impact measures the fundamental, broad and higher-level societal
35 
effects of public policies, programs, projects, services and other
36 
national government interventions;
4


3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1
2
e) Sustainability measures the extent to which the benefits of policies, 
programs, projects and services continue after funding ceased. 
Sustainability evaluations shall 
help government policy/decision 
makers to identify the major factors that influenced the achievement 
or non-achievement of the sustainability objectives of public policies, 
programs, projects and services.
The NEC shall adopt additional monitoring and evaluation criteria including but not 
limited 
to 
development 
equity 
and 
inclusiveness 
for various 
stakeholders, 
responsiveness to gender-equality goals, and achievement of national development 
and sustainable development goals.
Sec. 7. Evaluation Competencies. -  Organizations and individuals engaged in 
designing, conducting and managing evaluations of public policies, programs, 
projects and services shall have the following minimum competencies:
a) Technical foundation: Understands and makes appropriate use of 
methodological 
concepts and 
practices 
in 
line 
with 
accepted 
professional evaluation standards; gathers relevant evidence for 
evaluation purposes from appropriate sources, assessing its quality 
and 
identifying 
gaps; 
analyzes 
and 
interprets 
data 
fairly, 
comprehensively and objectively in order to effectively address 
evaluation questions.
b) Leading, managing, and delivering evaluations. Manages evaluation 
resources and relationships with stakeholders to deliver high quality 
evaluations on time and to Philippine government standards.
c) Communicating and sharing evaluation findings: Communicates 
effectively orally and in writing in the context of all evaluation 
activities; clearly reports evaluation methods, findings, conclusions 
and recommendations; promotes awareness and use of evaluations 
through effective dissemination and advice.
d) Integrity. 
Demonstrates 
honesty and 
respect in dealing with 
project/program personnel, other interested personnel of the national 
government, and all other evaluation stakeholders.
Sec. 8. Evaluation Ethics. -  Evaluators or organizations and persons engaged 
in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities shall abide by the Code 
of Conduct Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act 2 No. 
6713). They shall:


2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
a) Respect the right of entities and individuals to provide information in 
Confidence;
b) Ensure that sensitive data used in evaluations cannot be traced to its 
source;
c) Give opportunity to all stakeholders involved in evaluations to review 
and approve the statements attributed to them;
d) Be sensitive to the cultural, social and economic environment of all 
stakeholders, and conduct themselves in a manner that is feir and 
appropriate to this environment;
e) Be accountable for their performance and their products
Sec. 9, Impartiality. -  The evaluation units (created under Section 18 hereof) 
of entities and interventions covered by the NEP shall ensure that evaluations are 
conducted with the highest possible degree of impartiality in order to maximize 
objectivity and minimize the potential for bias. Where appropriate, they shall 
commission independent third-party evaluators to undertake portions of, or the 
entire, evaluations. Managers and other stakeholders of public policies, programs, 
projects and services being evaluated shall not be allowed to influence evaluation 
findings.
Sec. 10. Evaluation Capacity Building. -  The NEC shall lead the formulation 
and implementation of a comprehensive program to develop the monitoring and 
evaluation capacity of the national government especially for those who design, 
conduct, manage and use evaluations of public policies, programs, projects and 
services. All entities by this policy shall design and implement their respective 
evaluation-capacity building initiatives in line with this program and customized for 
their respective organizational context, roles, and needs.
The national government, through the NEC, shall encourage and support the 
formation and strengthening of national, regional and local professional evaluation 
associations and network. The NEC shall also develop partnerships with state and 
private universities and colleges in the development and conduct of comprehensive 
evaluation courses.
Sec. 11. Evaluation Scale. -  To meet the information needs of government 
policy/decision makers and other stakeholders, different types of evaluations (i.e., 
diagnostic, formative and summative evaluations) of public policies, programs, 
policies and services shall be conducted. To guide the design of public policies, 
programs, projects or services prior to implementation, diagnostic evaluations shall 
be required as needed. To ensure that their intended outcomes are achieved,
6


2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
formative 
evaluations 
shall 
be 
conducted 
at 
the 
mid-point 
of 
period 
of 
implementation of public policies, programs, projects and services. Summative 
impact evaluations shall also be conducted six years after or at the end of 
implementation of a major public policy, program, project or service.
The scale of each diagnostic, formative and summative evaluations should be large 
enough to provide timely answers to critical evaluation questions with an adequate 
level of certainty, but no costlier than necessary. The following factors shall be 
considered in defining the scale of every evaluation:
a) level of ambiguity of outcomes especially for new interventions;
b) potential consequences especially of policies, programs and projects 
whose failure can lead to severe negative consequences;
c) information needs of government policy/decision makers for policies, 
programs and projects whose funding and renewal are at stake or 
those with a high public profile;
d) magnitude of the policy, program and project intervention;
e) complexity of policy, program, project or service in terms of number 
and variation of activities, size of target populations, regional reach; 
and anticipated difficulty associated with acquiring relevant data;
f) uniqueness of the intervention 
with 
respect to outputs and 
outcomes/impacts;
Sec. 12. Evaluation Design and Execution. -  Within the defined evaluation 24 
scale, evaluations shall use research methodologies in line with accepted professional 
25 evaluation practice including but not limited to the following:
a) logic 
models/change 
theories 
that 
depict 
key 
policy/program/project/service 
elements 
(i.e., 
inputs, 
activities, 
intended outputs, short-term outcomes, medium-term outcomes, 
long-term impacts, related higher-level and national priorities) and 
the hypothesized causal links among the elements. Such logic 
models/change theories shall guide the development of questions to 
be answered by evaluations.
b) baseline data and/or ongoing project/program performance data 
collected to support the evaluation;
c) research designs that can significantly establish the extent to which 
outcomes and impact can be attributed to the policies, programs, 
projects and services being evaluated. Research designs shall include 
a mix of quantitative and qualitative research perspectives and
7


3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
methods- e.g., random surveys, interviews and focus groups with a 
diversity of audiences including project/program participants and 
stakeholders; literature/document reviews, and administrative data 
analyses;
d) scientific and rigorous sampling strategies that provide accurate 
representation of the populations of interest;
e) valid and reliable research instruments;
f) comprehensive and accurate quantitative and qualitative data analysis 
strategies that take into account the context of policies, programs and 
projects being evaluated that can generate valid, reliable and 
defensible findings for each evaluation question;
g) conclusions drawn from a synthesis of findings;
h) recommendations based on the findings and conclusions;
i) evaluation reports and related presentations that are concisely and 
clearly 
written 
and 
communicated. 
Evaluation 
reports 
and 
presentations shall ensure that all audiences including decision­
makers (i.e., project/program managers to senior officials and 
legislators) can readily grasp key messages and make informed 
decisions about the policies, programs, projects, and services being 
evaluated.
The NEC and the entities covered by the NEP shall establish evaluation review 
panels, advisory committees and other mechanisms to assure the high quality of 
evaluations.
Sec. 13. Reporting and dissemination of evaluations. -  All final evaluation 
reports shall contain the following essential contents:
a) adequate description of the policy, program, project or service being 
evaluated;
b) adequate background and context including the purpose of the 
evaluation and the evaluation issues and questions;
c) description of the actual evaluation methodology including 
limitations and the approaches adopted to mitigate limitations;
d) clearly stated evaluation findings with the description of the 
evidence on which each finding is based;
e) recommendations developed by the evaluator based on the findings;
f) response from the head(s) of the covered entities, describing 
actions that will be taken in addressing each recommendation;
8


2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
g) the identities of the principal members of the evaluation team and 
the evaluation steering committees or advisory bodies tasked with 
oversight and assuring the quality of evaluations;
The NEC shall issue additional directives as necessary.
Sec. 14. Creation o f the National Evaluation Council. -  A National Evaluation 
Council is hereby established to act as the lead agency for implementing the NEP. Its 
membership shall ensure adequate representation of the executive, legislative and 
judicial branches of the national government. It shall also ensure that sufficient 
participation of experts from the academe and private sector and civil society 
stakeholders are taken into consideration in decisions of the NEC. Its organizational 
and staffing pattern shall be in accordance with existing government policies, rules 
and regulations.
Sec. 15. Composition o f the National Evaluation Council. -  The NEC shall 5 
have eight (8) voting members:
1) A career Undersecretary of the National Economic and Development 
Authority (NEDA) in charge of monitoring and evaluation; to be 
appointed by the NEDA Secretary as his/her official representative to 
the NEC;
2) A 
career 
Undersecretary 
of the 
Department of 
Budget 
and 
Management (DBM) in charge of government performance reporting, 
monitoring and evaluation and/or improvement as Co-Chairperson, to 
be appointed by the DBM Secretary as his/her official representative;
3) The head of the Presidential Management Staff or his or her officially 
appointed representative;
4) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of 
policy 
planning, 
research 
and/or 
evaluation 
in 
the 
House 
of 
Representatives, to be appointed by the House Speaker as his/her 
official representative;
5) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of 
policy planning, research and/or evaluation in the Philippine Senate, to 
be appointed by the Senate President;
6) A Deputy Court Administrator in charge of performance monitoring 
and evaluation of the judicial branch, to be appointed by the Court 
Administrator as his/her official representative;
7) A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by 
the COA Chairperson as his/her official representative;
9


1 
8) The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) or his/her
2 
officially appointed representative;
3 
Sec. 16. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. -  The NEC shall 38
4 
perform the following functions to implement the NEP:
5 
a) formulate the basic guidelines for ensuring systematic and regular
6 
evaluations 41 of national government policies, programs, projects
7 
and services. The guidelines shall 42 cover the following matters:
8 
a. administrative policy on the conduct of evaluations;
9 
b. evaluation criteria and standards;
10 
c. studying and acquiring information on the effects of government
11 
interventions;
12 
d. conduct of diagnostic, 
formative 
and 
summative 
impact
13 
evaluations;
14 
e. acquisition of experts with knowledge and experience in
15 
evaluation;
16 
f. utilization of evaluation findings in the planning, programming,
17 
budgeting, formulation, reform, implementation of government
18 
interventions;
19 
g. publication of information related to evaluations;
20 
h. other measures to ensure systematic and regular conduct of
21 
evaluations.
22 
b) serve as the national government's administrative policy center for
23 
M&E, providing guidelines for monitoring, measuring and reporting
24 
the performance of public policies, programs, projects and services;
25 
c) lead in the formulation, coordination and implementation of a
26 
comprehensive and continuous program to develop and strengthen
27 
the evaluation capacities including the integrated M8iE system of the
28 
national government and its agencies and instrumentalities;
29 
d) provide 
overall 
policy direction, 
coordination, 
formulation 
and
30 
implementation of the evaluation agenda of the national government
31 
and its agencies/instrumentalities;
32 
e) monitor progress of M&E development and strengthening of the
33 
national government and its agencies/instrumentalities;
34 
f) lead the development of a comprehensive program to improve the
35 
national government's performance;
36 
g) lead 
and 
coordinate the 
preparation 
of the annual 
national
10


1 
performance report;
2 
h) facilitate or manage national or sectoral evaluations and special
3 
evaluation studies, on top of those conducted by implementing
4 
agencies;
5 
i) work with the private sector and civil society to promote feedback
6 
mechanisms as input to M&E of the national government and all its
7 
agencies/instrumentalities;
8 
j) facilitate the development of national and regional M&E professional
9 
associations;
10 
k) disseminate the results of evaluations to government policy/decision
11 
makers and managers of programs, projects and services of the
12 
agencies in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the
13 
national government.
14 
The NEC shall meet every quarter or as often as necessary. It may authorize the
15 
creation of technical committees, advisory bodies, and other mechanisms to ensure
16 
high-quality evaluations.
17 
Sec. 17. Creation o f the NEC Secretariat and its Functions. -  In the interim,
18 
the Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the NEDA shall serve as the NEC Secretariat.
19 
Within six months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat attached to
20 
the NEDA shall be formally organized to provide technical, managerial and
21 
administrative support to the NEC. The NEC Secretariat shall be headed by an
22 
Executive Director.
23 
Subject to the approval of the NEC and to existing government laws and regulations
24 
on government organization, staffing, services and divisions as needed to effectively
25 
support the NEC's functions and responsibilities shall be created. The NEC Secretariat
26 
shall be an attached agency of the NEDA. The NEC Secretariat shall have the
27 
following responsibilities:
28 
a) recommend for the NEC's approval, evaluation policies, principles,
29 
standards, 
criteria, 
strategies 
and 
guidelines 
for 
the 
effective
30 
implementation of the NEP;
31 
b) recommend to the NEC the format and content of evaluation plans and
32 
reports;
33 
c) monitor and report on progress and results of evaluation activities
34 
undertaken by the NEC and covered entities;
35 
d) serve as a repository of all evaluation plans and reports of the national
36 
government and its agencies/instrumentalities;
11


2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
e) upload in its website within 15 days from completion of all final 
evaluation reports for public policies, programs, projects and services of 
the national government and its agencies and instrumentalities;
f) notify the key stakeholders of the national government within 15 days 
from completion about final evaluation plans and completed evaluations 
of public policies, programs, projects and services;
g) provide hard and soft copies of final evaluation reports to the following 
stakeholders of the Philippine Congress: the House Speaker; the Senate 
President; the concerned chairpersons and committee secretaries of 
congressional 
committees with jurisdictions over public 
policies, 
programs, projects and services being evaluated; and the support 
offices of the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate 
performing budget and policy research and technical assistance to the 
members of Congress;
h) disseminate evaluation plans and completed evaluation reports of the 
national government and its agencies and instrumentalities;
i) conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners 
from the government, private and civil society sectors;
j) conduct/manage evaluations as authorized by the NEC;
k) provide Secretariat support to the NEC;
l) recommend sanctions and incentives;
m) prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations for the NEC's 
appropriate action.
Sec. 18. Evaluation Agenda. -  
The agencies and instrumentalities of the 
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the national government shall identify 
public policy, program, projects service evaluations for inclusion in the six-year rolling 
National Evaluation Agenda (NEA). The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, 
shall lead the coordination in preparing and finalizing the NEA. It shall adopt 
guidelines and criteria for selecting policies, programs, projects and services for 
evaluations. Such criteria shall include but not limited to the following:
a) high-risk innovative policies, programs, projects, services;
b) any public policy, program, project or service set up as a pilot or 
demonstration;
c) large scale or high-profile policies/programs.
All agencies and instrumentalities of the national government from the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated
12


1 
six-year evaluation agenda, to coincide with the timeframe of the preparation of the
2 
Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and Public Investment Program (PIP). The
3 
evaluation agenda of the national government agencies and instrumentalities shall
4 
specify public policies, programs, projects and services to be subjected to diagnostic,
5 
formative and summative evaluations and their timelines.
6 
The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, shall review the six-year evaluation
7 
agenda of national government agencies and instrumentalities to identify high-
8 
priority evaluations for integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.
9 
Sec. 19. Creation of Neutral Evaluation Units of Covered Entities. -  The head
10 
of any national government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish
11 
capable and neutral evaluation unit initially at the central level subject to existing
12 
policies, rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing pattern
13 
changes. The head of the evaluation unit reports directly to the head of the
14 
department, agency or instrumentality.
15 
To support the work of the neutral evaluation unit, the head of the national
16 
government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish a senior-level M&E
17 
advisory committee for support and oversight of M&E initiatives of the entity covered
18 
by the NEP.
19 
Sec. 20. Functions of the Neutral Evaluation Units. -  The evaluation unit of
20 
national government departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall:
21 
a) formulate and submit the agency's six-year rolling evaluation agenda
22 
to the head of the agency, copy furnished the NEC Secretariat;
23 
b) lead the implementation of the evaluation agenda of the department,
24 
agency or instrumentality;
25 
c) plan, conduct and manage evaluations of policies, programs, projects
26 
and services within the mandated functions and responsibilities of the
27 
department, agency or instrumentality;
28 
d) ensure that evaluations are undertaken with due regard for impartiality
29 
and in line with evaluation best practices;
30 
e) manage the agency's evaluation budget and related activities;
31 
f) submit to the agency head evaluation findings and recommendations,
32 
copy furnished the NEC and its Secretariat;
33 
g) serve as repository of all evaluation studies conducted/commissioned
34 
by the department, agency or instrumentality;
35 
h) upload in its website within 15 days from completion of completed
36 
evaluation plans and final evaluation reports;
13


2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 
21 
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
i) submit evaluation plans and final evaluation reports to the NEC 
Secretariat in accordance with prescribed guidelines;
j) develop and strengthen the M&E system of the department, agency o 
instrumentality;
k) prepare annual reports on the performance of policies, programs, 
projects and services implemented by the department, agency or 
instrumentality, and disseminate the same to the head of the 
department, agency or instrumentality; the relevant committees and 
support offices of the House of Representatives and the Philippine 
Senate; and the NEC and its Secretariat.
l) provide input to budget and policy discussions.
The NEC shall issue guidelines governing the formation and operation of neutral 
evaluation units of entities covered by this policy.
Sec. 21. Utilization o f Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. -  The heads 
of departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall submit reports on their 
management response and other actions on the findings and recommendations of 
completed evaluations, to the NEC and its Secretariat, the Speaker of the House and 
the Senate President and to the relevant committee chairpersons and support offices 
of the two branches of Congress.
The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches of the national government shall ensure that M&E 
data, findings and recommendations are used to guide and improve the planning, 
programming, budgeting, formulation, implementation and oversight of public 
policies, programs, projects and services.
The NEC and its Secretariat and the evaluation units and M&E advisory committees 
of the entities covered by this policy shall monitor the actions of the national 
government and its agencies and instrumentalities, on evaluation findings and 
recommendations.
Sec. 22. Project/Program Proposals. -  All policies, programs, projects or 
services put forward for annual budgeting shall include an evaluation plan in 
accordance with the best practices. The policies, programs, projects or services for 
funding shall consider the results of their completed evaluations and make reference 
to relevant evaluation findings, recommendations, and resulting changes to the 
proposed 
policies, 
programs 
or 
projects. 
In 
cases 
where 
evaluations 
recommendations were not followed, the proposal for funding shall include an 
explanation.
14


1 
Sec. 23. Mainstreaming o f the NEP. -  The national government and its
2 
agencies and instrumentalities in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
3 
the national government shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their annual
4 
budgets for implementation of the NEP. Such funds shall be used for:
5 
a) evaluation capacity development;
6 
b) ongoing salaries, recruitment and training to ensure an adequate
7 
supply of internal personnel competent in evaluation;
8 
c) operations and maintenance; and,
9 
d) external professional service fees.
10 
Sec. 24. Implementing Rules and Regulations. -  The NEC shall formulate the
11 
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act. The IRR shall specify the target
12 
outputs, short-term and medium-term outcomes, long-term impacts and other
13 
intended results of this policy. The IRR shall provide for the conduct of formative and
14 
summative evaluations of the NEP two and five years, respectively, after its initial
15 
implementation.
16 
Sec. 25. Amendment. -  The findings and recommendations of the formative
17 
and summative evaluations, in addition to the feedback of various stakeholders
18 
including but not limited to the NEC and its Secretariat, neutral evaluation units of
19 
entities covered by the NER and private sector and civil society organizations
20 
including international donor agencies shall guide amendments of the NEP including
21 
the basic guidelines for NEP's implementation formulated by the NEC.
22 
Sec. 26. Repeating Clause. -  All policies and issuances or parts thereof
23 
inconsistent with the NEP are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
24 
Sec. 27. Effectivity. -  This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
25 
publication in the Official Gazette or in a national newspaper of general circulation.
Approved,
15