Ornate
of tlje Srn't't.ji'j’
NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE ^ ,
S.B. No. 1714
23 JAN 19 P5 33
WCEfVraBY. cr^
Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS
AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION
POLICY (RBNEP)
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The whole-of-government regularly designs and implements multi-year 
programs/projects and undertakes activities, oftentimes huge in scale, using funds from 
the national budget, domestic and foreign loans, grants and donations. As programs 
and projects, these are time-bound, they follow a life cycle where activities undertaken 
should lead to desired objectives and results within the life of the project or program.
However, much remains to be improved with government programs/projects 
which have been usually marked with extensions, cost overruns and outputs and 
outcomes that do not fit the desired objectives. Regular monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E), which is a critical activity within the life of a project or program, aimed to 
monitor progress of implementation, identify problems encountered and ensure that 
the project or program is on track is hardly undertaken. The M&E of these well-meant 
endeavors has not been dedicated enough to ensure that intended results are achieved 
on a timely basis within the costs allocated.
This Bill aims to institutionalize and legalize a National Evaluation Policy that is 
interlinked with Results- Based Management (RBM) approaches and builds upon current 
and future integrated M&E systems. This Results-Based National Evaluation Policy 
(RBNEP) is aimed to apply to all branches of government, i.e. Executive, Legislative 
and Judiciary. Thus, the purpose of RBNEP is to harness the enormous potential of 
evaluations as important means for alleviating poverty and improving the lives of all 
Filipinos by ensuring that public policies, strategies, programs and projects are informed 
by sound evidence and lead to effective and equitable results.
The RBNEP builds upon previous Executive Orders (EOs), Administrative Orders 
(AOs), and Memorandum Circulars (MCs) related to various M&E and performance


management frameworks including: a) EO 376 (1989) establishing the Regional Project 
M&E System (RPMES); b) AO 25 (2011) setting up the Results-Based Performance 
Management System (RBPMS); c) Circulars from the Department of Budget and 
Management (DBM) establishing the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework 
(OPIF); d) NEDA/DBM Joint Memo Circular 2015 (dated July 2015) establishing the 
National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF); and e) NEDA/DBM Joint Memo Circular 
No.2020-01 (dated Jan.2020): Guidelines on the Initial Implementation of the NEPF in 
the National Government.
NEDA and DBM, through their Joint Memo Circulars (2015 and 2020) developed 
the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) to provide a system for the purposive 
conduct of evaluations of programs and projects being implemented by government 
departments and agencies in support of good governance, transparency, 
accountability, and evidence-based decision-making.
The NEPF Circular covered all agencies. State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), 
Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Financial 
Institutions (GFIs) with budgetary support from the National Government, and other 
instrumentalities of the national government. The scope of the NEPF included all 
projects and programs being implemented by the above-mentioned entities supported 
by local and foreign funds.
However, the NEDA/ DBM NEPF Circular applies only to the agencies of the 
Executive Branch and does not cover the Legislative and Judicial branches of 
government. And like other Executive Circulars, the establishment and 
operationalization of the NEPF is not institutionalized through a legal mandate and is 
thus subject to uncertainty especially when there is a change in priorities of a new 
government administration.
It is important to understand the inter-linkages and dependencies (as well as 
differences) between and among evaluation policy frameworks, integrated planning, 
monitoring & evaluation systems, performance management and other results- based 
management approaches. The specific focus of this RBNEP Bill is on evaluations. But 
the effectiveness of evaluation policies requires an enabling environment that consists 
primarily of a working Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system, logical frameworks and 
other results-based approaches.
Evaluation depends to a great extent on good planning and monitoring of 
ongoing activities. Good planning helps to focus on the results that matter, i.e. the 
outputs, outcomes and impact of a program or project. Without proper planning and 
clear description of objectives, scope and intended results, it is not clear what should 
be monitored and how. Without effective planning and the presence of clear results 
frameworks, the basis for evaluation is weak. Monitoring helps us to learn from past 
successes and challenges in implementation of programs and projects.


Evaluation is useful in improving programs, policies and organizational 
performance. It provides independent and impartial judgement to the performance of 
government entities and provides findings and recommendations for appropriate 
management actions. Evaluations produce lessons learned and best practices that 
enhance the design and implementation of future programs and projects. Clearly, this 
would deter the repetition of past mistakes or shortfalls, thus raising the bar on the 
quality of implementation and results.
Unfortunately, evaluation has not been widely implemented and systematically 
integrated in the processes and systems of government. Evaluation has been conducted 
on only a few and selected foreign-assisted programs and projects, largely on the 
initiative of international development agencies and donors. Lately, however, starting 
2018, as part of the operationalization of the NEPF, NEDA under the ongoing NEDA- 
UNDP Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation to Accelerate the Implementation of the PDP 
2017-2022 Project (or the Strategic M&E Project) has initiated, the systematic 
evaluations of selected projects and programs as well as the capacity development of 
evaluators from several government agencies.
Recognizing the critical importance of evaluation in policymaking and decision 
making, many developed countries, especially those belonging to the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have passed legislations 
institutionalizing variants of a National Evaluation Policy. Many international 
development organizations and United Nations (UN) agencies have likewise developed 
and operationalized their own Evaluation Policies.
International agencies and development partners have encouraged developing 
countries to institutionalize their respective evaluation policies starting with the 
development of local evaluation capacities and dissemination of documents related to 
internationally accepted evaluation norms, policies, quality standards and good 
practices. Notable among these evaluation agencies and organizations are the: a) OECD 
Development Assistance Committee (DAC); b) United Nations Evaluation Group 
(UNEG); c) World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (lEG); and the d) Asian 
Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department (lED).
Thus, we have an array of experiences gained and lessons learned about 
evaluation to build upon. But we need to do more to exploit further the full potential of 
evaluations to improve living conditions of Filipinos through better results from policies, 
strategies, programs and projects.
The immediate passage of this RBNEP Bill is earnestly sought.
MEER. MARCOS


Senate
(©fficr of fijf CT:!ft.i:p
NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
)
S.B. No.sen1T14
23 JUN 19 P5:33
RECEiV£D BY:
Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS
AN ACT
ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION
POLICY (RBNEP)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled:
1 
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Results-Based
2 
National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act."
3
4 
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to improve the overall
5 
effectiveness of public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and overall
6 
organizational performance by strengthening accountability and learning through the
7 
enactment of this Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP). The RBNEP aims
8 
to contribute to the achievement of inclusive development and poverty reduction goals
9 
by institutionalizing the legal framework for the regular conduct of monitoring and
10 
evaluation (M&E) of the results of ongoing and completed development interventions.
11
12 
SEC. 3. Policy Objectives. -The RBNEP intends to achieve the following specific
13 
objectives:
14 
a) Facilitate the development and strengthening of an integrated M&E system
15 
of the national government to ensure the systematic collection of useful data
16 
and credible information on specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and
17 
time-bound performance indicators that enable the assessment and
18 
reporting of the progress made, the achievement of objectives and the
19 
overall improvement of the performance of departments, agencies and other
20 
government instrumentalities;


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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
b) Validate the results, i.e. output, outcome, and impact and assess the 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of a policy, 
strategy, program, project and other development interventions;
c) Ensure the timely provision to government policymakers, managers and 
other stakeholders of transparent, impartial, independent and useful 
evidence- based information and knowledge to strengthen the policymaking 
and decision-making processes;
d) Ensure the utilization, dissemination and feedback of evaluation findings, 
recommendations and lessons learned for the continuous improvement of 
the design, planning, programming, budgeting and implementation of public 
policies, strategies, programs, and projects;
e) Ensure the accountability to stakeholders and taxpayers by government 
departments, agencies and various instrumentalities for public expenditures 
and the delivery of development results.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act shall be defined as
follows:
a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment or review of a 
completed or ongoing development Intervention, i.e. policy, strategy, program 
or project, its design, implementation and results. It aims to determine the 
relevance and fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, 
impact and sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is 
credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the 
decision- making process. Evaluation should not be confused with 
implementation monitoring and reporting, audit, inspection, investigation or 
assessment of individual performance. Evaluation and monitoring are two 
separate functions that fulfill different purposes and cannot be treated almost 
as if they were synonyms;
b) Monitoring refers to the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to 
provide internal management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing 
development intervention such as a project or program with indications of the 
progress made in Implementing activities towards Intended results. The main 
purpose of monitoring is to enable project management to keep track of what is 
happening and to check that progress is being made towards the achievement 
of objectives. More effective monitoring could prevent projects and programs 
from falling. Systematic monitoring, based on a monitoring framework, is of 
great importance for evaluations, as it provides a significant part of the data on 
which evaluation is based. Monitoring should be linked directly to project 
management on a regular basis as the function provides key Information useful 
for management;


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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
c) Results comprise of the outputs, outcomes and impacts of policies, strategies, 
programs, or projects being implemented or completed;
d) Outputs refer to the specific goods and services produced by budgeted and 
implemented policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other interventions. 
Outputs are the results of the completion of implementing activities. Refer 
specifically to Major Final Outputs (MFO) defined as goods or services that a 
department, agency or government instrumentality is mandated to deliver to 
external clients through the Implementation of the National Expenditure 
Program (NEP) or approved government budget;
e) Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in the behavior of 
target individuals, groups, or organizations and/or improvements in systems, the 
quality of processes and services as an immediate effect of specific interventions. 
Refer more specifically to Organizational Outcomes and Sector Outcomes. 
Organizational Outcomes are the short- to medium-term benefits to the clients 
and community as a result of delivering MOs. Sector Outcomes are the longer- 
term benefits for the sector from initiatives of the department/agency or 
government instrumentality;
f) Impacts refer to the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level societal 
changes (both intended and unintended, positive or negative) that take place 
long after target Individuals, groups, systems or organizations have experienced 
the outputs and outcomes of specific Interventions. Refer more specifically to 
Societal Goals defined as the societal benefits sought from sector-based 
economic activity or the intended desirable impacts of MFOs on society;
g) PAPsvefev to the acronym for Programs, Activities and Projects. It shall pertain 
to the list of priority programs and projects that contribute to the societal goals, 
sector outcomes, organizational outcomes and outputs spelled out in the 
Philippine Development Plan (PDP). Programs are special undertakings by 
department/agency/instrumentality implemented within a definite period and 
intended to result in some pre- determined goods and services. Refer also to a 
group of similar projects. Projects are activities implemented within a specific 
period by a department/agency/instrumentality to achieve the purpose for which 
it is established or created or to deliver its MFOs;
h) Results-Based Management System (RBMS) refers to a management strategy 
that focuses on performance and the achievement of results, i.e. outputs, 
outcomes, and impacts. Refers specifically to Results Based Performance 
Management (RBPMS) as established under AO No.5 series of 2011. RBPMS 
serves as the single performance management system for the whole of the 
Executive Branch in place of the multiple and disparate performance


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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
management systems that were currently being implemented. It consists of a 
set of comprehensive performance indicators that cut across societal and 
sectoral performance, down to organizational and individual performance. The 
logical framework (logframe), the Organizational Performance Indicators 
Framework (OPIF and the Results Matrix (RM) are the underlying frameworks 
for the. RBPMS, which will be used by all government agencies mandated to 
exercise broad oversight over the performance of all agencies in the 
government;
i) 
Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a strategic 
budgeting management framework. An approach to expenditure management 
or budgeting that directs resources for major final outputs (MOs) toward results 
and measures performance by key quality, quantity, timeliness, and cost 
indicators;
j) Logical Framework (or Logframe) refers to a management tool used to Improve 
the design and planning of development Interventions, most often at the project 
level. It involves identifying strategic elements (inputs, outputs, outcomes or 
effects, and impact or goal) and their causal relationships (also called results 
chain), performance indicators, monitoring sources, and the assumptions or risks 
that may influence success and failure. The logframe thus facilitates planning, 
implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a development intervention. 
Results Chain: The causal sequence for a development intervention that 
stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives beginning with 
inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in outcomes, 
impacts, and feedback;
k) Results Framework refers to a management tool that illustrates how the results 
statements at the PDP level (sector and sub-sector outcomes) will link to the 
OPIF logframes (outputs and organizational outcomes) at the organizational 
level. OPIF Agency Logical Framework (OPIF logframe): a planning and 
budgeting tool used to establish the link of MFOs that department/agency 
delivers or produces through the implementation of PAPs to the sector outcomes 
and societal goals it seeks to influence.
As part of the results framework, it shows the focus of resource allocation, 
spending, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of results based on a set of 
performance indicators; and Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System 
(RPMES), as established through EO 376 (dated Nov. 1989, refers to a scheme 
for monitoring and evaluating projects at the national, regional, provincial/city 
and municipal levels, with the extensive and active participation of various 
government agencies , local government units (LCDs) and nongovernment 
organizations (NGOs). The RPMES primarily aims to facilitate project


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
implementation, and devolve project facilitation, problem-solving, monitoring 
and evaluation to the regional, provincial/city and municipal levels.
SEC. 5. Coverage. - The RBNEP shall apply to the following:
a) 
departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCs), 
government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs), 
government financial institutions and other instrumentalities of the 
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the National Government; 
and
b) 
all public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other development 
interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities and funded by 
local and foreign funds including those contracted to and executed, produced 
and delivered by private sector and civil society organizations.
SEC. 6. Evaluation Principles. The credibility, quality and usefulness of evaluations 
will be ensured through adherence to the following core principles:
a) Adherence to international good practice and evaluation standards.
The national evaluation policy will be consistent with internationally accepted 
evaluation norms, standards and good practices in the context of RBM 
approaches.
b) Evaluation ethics.
Ethical standards will apply to the managers of evaluations and individual 
evaluators. Organizations and persons engaged in evaluation activities shall 
abide by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and 
Employees (Republic Act 2 No. 6713).
c) Independence of evaluation process.
There will be separation of evaluation management and implementation 
responsibility from line management functions for policies, strategies, programs 
and projects. Evaluators will be selected from a wide and diversified pool 
according to agreed criteria. Evaluation reports will provide critical assessment 
and an independent perspective, be informative, and recommend actionable 
follow-up.


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
37
38
d) Ensuring professionalism in the conduct and management of evaluation.
Evaluations will be undertaken by qualified technical experts and evaluators with 
the needed knowledge, skills and abilities in evaluation as well as expertise and 
relevant experience on the subject area they are evaluating. Evaluators will 
adhere to the highest technical standards, and respond to all criteria of 
professionalism, including the responsible handling of confidential information.
e) Transparency of evaluation process.
Evaluations will be conducted using a transparent process involving stakeholders 
to ensure factual accuracy and full ownership. Evaluation findings, conclusions, 
recommendations and lessons learned will be disseminated to constituents. 
Congress and other oversight agencies and partners concerned, to inform 
decision-making and support organization learning.
SEC. 7. Evaluation Criteria. - In all evaluations, however, the evaluation criteria 
must be applied in an unambiguous and, above all, transparent way. Evaluation criteria 
refer to different result levels founded on the logical framework or result chains. At the 
minimum, evaluations of national government policies, strategies, programs, and 
projects shall assess and report on the following five (5) internationally accepted set of 
criteria, namely: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance. Impact and sustainability.
SEC. 8. Creation of the RBNEC National Evaluation Council (NEC). - A National 
Evaluation Council (NEC) Is hereby established as the lead agency for the full 
development and operationalization of the RBNEP. The membership of the NEC shall 
ensure adequate representation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of 
the government. The NEC shall also ensure that sufficient participation of experts and 
other stakeholders from the academe, private sector and civil society are taken into 
consideration in its decisions. Its organizational and staffing pattern shall be in 
accordance with existing DBM policies, rules and regulations.
SEC. 9. Composition of the National Evaluation Council (NEC). - The NEC shall 
have eight (8) voting members which shall consist of the following:
a) A career Undersecretary of the National Economic and Development Authority 
(NEDA) in charge of monitoring and evaluation to be appointed by the NEDA 
Secretary and Director General as his/her official representative to the NEC;


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
b) 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;
c) The head of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) or his/her official 
representative;
d) 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;
e) 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;
f) 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;
g) A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by the COA 
Chairperson as his/her official representative; and
h) The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PS) or his/her official 
representative.
SEC. 10. Functions of the RBNEP National Evaluation Council (NEC). - The NEC 
shall perform the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP:
a) provide overall policy direction and coordination on the implementation of 
the Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP), Including its agenda, 
plans and strategies in all branches of the government;


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
b) develop the basic guidelines for the systematic, impartial and credible 
evaluations of national policies, strategies, programs and projects. 
Knowledge management and learning from evaluation
c) serve as the national government's repository for ME reports;
d) review the evaluation reports to ensure these meet international standards 
and good practices;
e) disseminate the findings, recommendations and lessons learned from 
evaluations for use in decision making by government policy makers and 
managers of programs and projects in the executive, legislative and judicial 
branches of the government;
f) develop and strengthen institutional capacities for evaluation so that a critical 
number of Institutions are able to promote and facilitate quality evaluations;
g) build individual capacities for evaluation by organizing and conducting evaluation 
training courses for evaluators, managers, and users of evaluation;
h) strengthen the enabling environment for evaluation by ensuring that all 
government departments, agencies and instrumentalities understand and appreciate 
the value of evaluation;
i) facilitate or manage the conduct of high-level evaluations (policy and strategy) 
and special evaluation studies, on top of those independent evaluations conducted by 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities;
j) prepare the annual National Evaluation Report for submission to Congress, 
NEDA Board, oversight agencies and other government agencies and instrumentalities.
k) facilitate the development of national and regional M&E professional 
associations; and
l) work for the development and eventual recognition of evaluation as a 
profession.
The RBNEP NEC shall meet every quarter or as often as necessary. It may 
authorize the creation of technical committees, advisory bodies and other mechanisms 
to ensure high-quality evaluations.


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
37
38
SEC. 11. Creation of the RBNEP NEC Secretariat and Its Functions. - In the 
interim, the Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the NEDA shall serve as the NEC 
Secretariat. Within six (6) months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat 
shall be formally organized to provide technical, managerial and administrative support 
to the NEC. The NEC Secretariat shall be headed by an Executive Director.
Subject to the approval of the NEC and to existing government laws and 
regulations on government organization, staffing, services and divisions as needed to 
effectively support the NEC's functions and responsibilities shall be created.
The NEC Secretariat shall have the following functions:
a) recommend for the NEC's approval, evaluation policies, principles, standards, 
criteria, strategies and guidelines for the effective Implementation of the RBNEP;
b) recommend to the NEC the format and content of evaluation plans and 
reports;
c) monitor and report on progress and results of evaluation activities undertaken 
by the NEC and covered entities;
d) serve as a repository of all evaluation plans and reports of the national 
government and Its departments, agencies and Instrumentalities;
e) upload in its website within 15 days from completion all final evaluation 
reports for public policies, strategies, programs, and projects 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) prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations, disseminate 
completed evaluation reports and gather management replies and feedback (to the 
evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations);
i) conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners from the 
government, private and civil society sectors and donors and development partners;


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
37
38
j) provide Secretariat support to the NEC;
k) recommend sanctions and incentives; and
l) prepare a consolidated report of Individual evaluations for the NEC's 
appropriate action.
SEC. 12. National Evaluation Agenda (NEA). - All departments, agencies and 
Instrumentalities of the national government from the executive, legislative and judicial 
branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated six-year evaluation 
agenda, to coincide with the timeframe of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and 
Public Investment Program (PIP). The evaluation agenda shall specify public policies, 
strategies, programs, projects and services to be subjected to impact, thematic, project 
or self-evaluations and their timelines.
The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, shall review the six-year 
evaluation agenda of national government agencies and instrumentalities to Identify 
high- priority evaluations for integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.
SEC. 13. Creation of Independent Evaluation Units (lEUs) of Covered Entities. 
- The head of any national government department, agency or instrumentality shall 
establish capable Independent Evaluation Units (lEU) initially at the central level subject 
to existing policies, rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing 
pattern changes. The head of the lEU reports directly to the head of the department, 
agency or instrumentality.
To support the work of the independent evaluation unit, the head of the national 
government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish a senior-level M&E 
advisory committee for support and oversight of M&E initiatives of the entity covered 
by the NEP.
SEC. 14. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. -The heads 
of departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall submit reports on their 
management, response and other actions on the findings, conclusions 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 Evaluation 
findings recommendations and lessons learned are used to guide and improve the
10


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
design, planning, programming, budgeting, implementation and oversight of pulle 
policies, strategies, programs and projects.
The NEC and Its Secretariat and the evaluation units and ME 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. 15. Funding for Operationalization of the RBNEP. - The national 
government and Its departments, agencies and instrumentalities in the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their 
annual budgets for the implementation of the RBNEP. Such funds shall be used for:
a) evaluation capacity development;
b) ongoing salaries, recruitment and training to ensure an adequate supply of 
Internal personnel competent in evaluation;
c) operations and maintenance; and,
d) external evaluation professional service fees.
SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The NEC shall formulate the 
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act. The IRR shall specify the target 
outputs, short-term and medium-term outcomes, long-term impacts and other intended 
results of this policy. The IRR shall provide for the conduct of formative and summative 
evaluations of the NEP for two (2) and five (5) years, respectively, after its Initial 
Implementation.
SEC. 17. Amendment. - The findings and recommendations of the formative 
and summative evaluations, in addition to the feedback of various stakeholders 
including but not limited to the NEC and its Secretariat, neutral evaluation units of 
entities covered by the NER and private sector and civil society organizations including 
International donor agencies shall guide proposed amendments of the NEP including 
the basic guidelines for NEP's Implementation formulated by the NEC.
SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or 
other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby 
repealed or modified accordingly.
11


1
2
3
4
5
6 
7
SEC. 19. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared 
unconstitutionai, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall 
remain in force and effect.
SEC. 20. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following 
the completion of its publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of 
general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved,
12