NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE 
s. No. 1^37
fefuaif
ot tijf ^'iTvrtdi'p
*22 NOV-2 P2^)2
RECEIVED BV:
Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Equally important in the process of legislating and executing national policies 
is an examination of their effectiveness and an honest assessment whether their 
intended results are achieved or not. Such an evaluation identifies gaps in the 
implementation, and allows decision makers to learn and correct weaknesses in the 
interventions. It also ensures that government resources are allocated wisely and 
optimized by directing funds and other assets on strategies that actually work and 
on programs which are periodically refined and enhanced to address social ills.
Over the years, there are laudable efforts to pursue an evaluation agenda. An 
example of which is the Joint Memorandum Circular issued by the Department of 
Budget and Management (DBM) and the National Economic and Development 
Authority (NEDA) which acknowledged the need for an evaluation policy framework 
that would govern the practice of evaluation in the public sector.
The NEDA-DBM JMC No. 2015-01, which covers all projects and programs 
implemented by the agencies of the government, including the state universities and 
colleges, government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial 
institutions, has three-fold objectives: 1) support for evidence-based decisions; 2) 
ensure program improvement; and 3) ensure accountability.


In addition, DBM also issued National Budget Circular No. 565 in 2016 on the 
adoption of a Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Policy (RBMER). 
The policy framework aims to "strengthen, streamline and standardize the RBMER 
system evidenced by a timely, useful, accurate and credible reporting of 
performance information in order to support policy and program improvement, 
expenditure management, and local and national decision making".
This measure seeks to institutionalize via legislation a National Evaluation 
Policy (NEP) to promote evidence-based decision making in government, thereby 
promoting good governance, effective public resources management and 
transparency. It also seeks to ensure that the crafting and implementing of policies 
are aligned towards our long-term goals and aspirations as a nation, and in line with 
our commitments to international conventions.
A version of this measure was already reported out by the Senate Committees 
on Economic Affairs, and Finance during the Eighteenth Congress. However, due to 
lack of material time, the important measure was not passed into law.
In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this legislation is sought.
OY EJERCITO ESTRADA


NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
s. No. 1437
(©ffltP 0( tl)f !&l'( ctarn
*22 NOV ~2 P2:02
RECEIVED BY:
Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
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 "Resuits-Based
2 
National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act"
3 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared a policy of the State to
4 
ensure the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and impact of laws,
5 
policies, strategies, and programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government
6 
through the regular conduct and use of credible evaluations of its interventions to
7 
achieve its inclusive development and poverty reduction goals.
8 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following
9 
objectives:
10 
a) Facilitate the institutionalization of an integrated evaluation system of the
11 
government;
12 
b) Ensure the timely provision to government decision makers of credible and
13 
useful evaluations in support of results-based formulation, planning,
14 
budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions;
15 
c) Ensure the systematic utilization of evaluation findings and
16 
recommendations for the continuous improvement of government
17 
interventions and optimum allocation of resources;


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
d) Promote greater transparency and accountability for results of government 
departments, agencies and other instrumentalities; and,
e) Monitor the progress and assist in the achievement of long-term vision 
and aspirations of the nation as embodied in the AmBisyon Natin 2040 and 
the Philippine Deveiopment Plans (PDP), and in the meeting of the targets 
set by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act are defined as
follows:
a) Government Interventions - refer to the laws, policies, strategies, and 
programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government departments, 
agencies, and other instrumentalities;
b) Results - refer to changes in a state or condition due to a government 
intervention. There are three types of such changes - outputs, outcomes, 
and impacts - which can be intended or unintended, positive and/or 
negative;
c) Evaluation - refers to the systematic, rigorous and impartial assessment of 
the results of government interventions. It provides credible information 
on the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, coherence, impact, and 
sustainability of government interventions, enabling the incorporation of 
lessons learned into the decision-making process;
d) Monitoring - refers to a continuous and systematic collection of data on 
key results indicators to track progress in achieving the objectives of 
government interventions;
e) Outputs - refer to the goods and services deiivered to the external 
stakeholders of government departments, agencies and other 
instrumentalities implementing government interventions;
f) Outcomes - refer to the short-term and medium-term benefits to clients, 
beneficiaries and stakeholders, as a result of the outputs of government 
interventions;
g) Impacts - are higher-level sectoral and societal benefits and other 
consequences of government interventions. Impacts take place long after


1 
target individuals, groups, systems, or organizations have experienced the
2 
outputs and outcomes of government interventions.
3 
Sec. 5. Coverage. -The RBNEP shall apply to the following:
4 
a) All departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national
5 
government, including state universities and colleges (SUCs),
6 
constitutional commissions, and government-owned and/or controlled
7 
corporations (GOCCs); and legislative and judicial branches of the
8 
government;
9 
b) All government interventions formulated and implemented by the above
10 
entities including those funded by Official Development Assistance (ODA)
11 
and those contracted to and executed by local government units (LCDs),
12 
private sector and civil society organizations.
13 
Sec. 6. Guiding Principles for Evaluation. - The credibility, quality, and
14 
usefulness of evaluation shall be ensured through adherence to the following
15 
principles:
16 
a) Utility - In commissioning or conducting an evaluation, there shall be a
17 
clear intention to use the evaluation findings and recommendations for
18 
results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and
19 
oversight of government interventions. The design and timing of
20 
evaluations shall address the information needs of government decision-
21 
makers.
22 
b) Applying evaluation criteria - Evaluations shall assess and report on the
23 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact and sustainability of
24 
government interventions in accordance with internationally accepted
25 
evaluation criteria. The use of these criteria shall be responsive to the
26 
needs of decision-makers, and to the purpose and context of evaluation.
27 
The following factors shall be assessed and measured:
28 
i. Alignment and consistency with national priorities and policies.
29 
ii. 
Responsiveness to stakeholder needs.
30 
iii. 
Complementation with other programs and projects.
31 
iv. 
Programmatic alternatives.
32 
V. 
Objectiveness achievement.


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
Vi. 
Unintended results.
vii. 
Efficient delivery of outputs.
viii. 
Operations alternatives.
ix. 
Timeliness.
X. 
Continuation of intended results.
xi’. 
Capacities needed to sustain the benefits over time.
xii. Ultimate significance and transformative effects of the intervention.
c) Observing evaluation standards. - Evaluation shall be consistent with 
internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and best practices, 
including the use of evaluation designs and methodologies capable of 
attributing observed outputs, outcomes and impacts to government 
interventions being evaluated. Evaluation reference groups and other 
mechanisms shall be established and strengthened to ensure the 
generation of credible, quality and useful evaluations.
d) Independence and Impartiality. - The independence of the evaluation 
units of departments, agencies and other instrumentalities shall be 
ensured at all times. Those who design, manage and conduct evaluations 
shall be shielded from any undue influence that will undermine the 
credibility of evaluations. They shall be provided with adequate resources 
to produce credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. Evaluation shall 
be conducted with the highest degree of impartiality. In case third-party 
evaluators are commissioned to ensure impartial evaluation, they shall be 
selected from a wide and diversified pool according to objective criteria.
e) Evaluation Competencies. - Evaluations shall be conducted by 
organizations and individuals having the required knowledge, skills, and 
other evaluation competencies. Capacity-building initiatives shall be 
implemented to strengthen the evaluation competencies of organizations 
and individuals who commission, design, manage, conduct, communicate 
and use evaluations. Subject matter experts, professionals with technical 
and multi-disciplinary proficiency, and individuals with relevant knowledge 
and experience may be consulted and sought for their insights and 
recommendations.


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
f) Ethics. - Individuals and organizations who commission, manage, design 
and conduct evaluations shall observe accepted ethical standards including 
integrity, fairness, gender sensitivity, respect for culture and beliefs, and 
protection of the rights of evaluation participants.
g) Human rights and gender equaiity. - Evaluations should protect, promote, 
and uphold the universally-recognized values and principles of human 
rights, and address issues involving gender, inequalities, underrepresented 
groups and marginalized sector. Each evaluation goal, methodology, 
finding, and recommendation should embrace and reinforce the "no one 
left behind" principle.
h) Transparency. -The implementation of RBNEP shall promote transparency 
crucial to ensuring credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. To the 
greatest extent possible, all information required for evaluation shall be 
made available to evaluators, subject to existing laws and regulations 
governing the confidentiality and nondisclosure of information.
Those who commission or manage evaluation shall ensure the 
selection of evaluators with no conflict of interest with the evaluation to be 
undertaken. Potential evaluators of government interventions shall 
disclose possible conflict of interest that may undermine the credibility of 
evaluation. They shall disclose the identities of the members of the 
evaluation team.
Evaluators shall disclose to government decision-makers and other 
stakeholders the purpose, design, implementation, results, and utilization, 
including possible constraints or limitations of an evaluation. Complete 
evaluation reports shall be made easily accessible to government decision­
makers, relevant stakeholders, and the public.
i) Accountabiiity. - Entities responsible for the commissioning, managing and 
conducting evaluations shall ensure that evaluations are credible, quality, 
useful and timely. Key findings and recommendations of completed 
evaluations shall be communicated clearly by the same entities to 
government decision-makers and other stakeholders. The covered entities 
of the RBNEP shall incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based


1 
formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of
2 
government interventions.
3 
Sec. 7. Establishment of a National Evaluation Council. - A National
4 
Evaluation Council (NEC) is hereby established to oversee the implementation of the
5 
RBNEP.
6 
Sec. 8. Composition of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall have
7 
the following seven (7) voting members:
8 
a) Secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), or
9 
his/her authorized representative, as Chairperson. The representative of
10 
the NEDA Secretary shall be an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring
11 
and evaluation in NEDA;
12 
b) Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or
13 
his/her authorized representative, as Co-Chairperson. The representative
14 
of the DBM Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of
15 
monitoring and evaluation in the DBM;
16 
c) Secretary of the Philippine Senate or his/her representative who shall at
17 
least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research and/or
18 
evaluation in the Senate;
19 
d) Secretary General of the House of Representatives or his/her duly
20 
authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge
21 
of policy, planning, research and/or evaluation in the House of
22 
Representatives;
23 
e) Court Administrator of the Supreme Court or his/her authorized
24 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy,
25 
planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;
26 
f) Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) or his/her authorized
27 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy,
28 
planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and,
29 
g) Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)
30 
or his/her authorized representative. The representative of the DILG
31 
Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of monitoring
32 
and evaluation in the DILG.


1 
The NEC shall meet at least once every quarter or as often as necessary. To
2 
ensure that the NEC is guided by inputs of evaluation experts, the following shall
3 
attend the NEC meetings as non-voting members:
4 
a) The head of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) or
5 
his/her duly authorized representative who shall at least be a career
6 
Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and
7 
evaluation;
8 
b) The head of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or his/her duly
9 
authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge
10 
of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;
11 
c) Head of the Presidential Management Staff or his/her authorized
12 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy,
13 
planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and
14 
d) Representative from the voluntary organizations for professional
15 
evaluation (VOPES).
16 
Sec. 9. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall perform
17 
the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP:
18 
a) Provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP;
19 
b) Approve the basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation;
20 
c) Review and approve the National Evaluation Strategy (NES) and ensure its
21 
implementation;
22 
d) Review, approve and ensure the implementation of the costed evaluation
23 
agenda of covered entities;
24 
e) Provide oversight on the conduct of evaluation by covered entities and
25 
their management response to evaluation recommendations;
26 
f) Issue the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs of
27 
covered entities; and,
28 
g) Approve and implement a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity
29 
of lEUs and government decision-makers.
30 
Sec. 10. NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - The NEC Secretariat shall be
31 
established within the NEDA. The existing staffing complement of the NEDA shall be


1 
augmented and professionalized to undertake the functions of the NEC Secretariat.
2 
The NEC Secretariat shall:
3 
a) Formulate and recommend basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation;
4 
b) Prepare the National Evaluation Strategy;
5 
c) Review and make recommendations on the costed evaluation agenda of
6 
covered entities;
7 
d) Monitor the implementation of entities' evaluation agenda and their
8 
management response to evaluation recommendation in support of the
9 
oversight function of the NEC;
10 
e) Formulate the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs of
11 
entities covered;
12 
f) Provide quality assurance of evaluations conducted by covered entities;
13 
g) Facilitate the dissemination to decision-makers of key findings, lessons
14 
learned, and recommendations from completed evaluations;
15 
h) Maintain a public website containing the evaluation plans and reports of
16 
covered entities;
17 
i) Develop a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of covered
18 
entities and government decision makers;
19 
j) Provide recommendations and guidelines to the higher educational
20 
institutions (HEIs) and the academic sector on the development of
21 
courses, curriculum and degrees related to evaluation and monitoring;
22 
k) Prepare and submit to the DBM the annual funding requirement of the
23 
program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of the government; and
24 
I) Carry out other directives of the NEC, as necessary.
25 
Sec. 11. National Evaluation Strategy. - The National Evaluation Strategy
26 
(NES) shall identify the priority areas for evaluation in line with the Philippine
27 
Development Plan. It shall guide the formulation of evaluation agenda of the
28 
covered entities.
29 
Sec. 12. Organization of Independent Evaluation Units (lEUs) of Covered
30 
Entities. - Each covered entity shall organize an lEU that shall report directly to the
31 
head of the entity. The head of the entity shall ensure that the lEU can perform its
32 
evaluation functions independently and objectively.


1 
Sec. 13. Functions of the lEUs. - The lEUs shall:
2 
a) Coordinate the formulation and approval of the costed evaluation agenda
3 
of the covered entity;
4 
b) Manage or conduct evaluations identified in the costed evaluation agenda;
5 
c) Submit evaluation plans and final evaluation reports to the entity's head
6 
and to the NEC Secretariat in accordance with prescribed guidelines;
7 
d) Disseminate the key findings and recommendations of completed
8 
evaluations to the head of the entity, decision-makers and other
9 
stakeholders;
10 
e) Facilitate the formulation of the management response to key findings and
11 
recommendations from the completed evaluations;
12 
f) Monitor the entity's progress in implementing the management response;
13 
g) Establish quality assurance and participatory mechanisms for evaluation;
14 
and,
15 
h) Provide inputs to results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, and
16 
implementation within the entity.
17 
Sec. 14. Formulation of the Costed Evaluation Agenda. - Each covered entity
18 
shall formulate a six-year costed evaluation agenda aligned with the NES. The head
19 
of entity shall submit the costed evaluation agenda to the NEC.
20 
Sec. 15. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The head
21 
of a covered entity shall incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based
22 
formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government
23 
interventions. He or she shall submit to the NEC the management response to
24 
evaluation recommendations, and ensure its implementation.
25 
Sec. 16. Transparency and Dissemination of Evaluation Findings. - Evaluation
26 
findings and recommendations, along with the methodologies and frameworks
27 
employed in the conduct of the evaluation, shall be published in the official website
28 
of the concerned government instrumentality and shall be made available to the
29 
general public.
30 
Sec. 17. Funding for the Implementation of the RBNEP. - The funding
31 
requirement for the implementation of the RBNEP, including the budget for the


1 
conduct of evaluation indicated in the costed evaluation agenda, NEC Secretariat,
2 
and lEUs shall be included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
3 
Sec. 18. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The NEDA, in consultation
4 
with the prospective members of NEC, shall promulgate the IRR to operationalize the
5 
guiding principles of the RBNEP and to implement its specific provisions within sixty
6 
(60) days upon the approval of this Act.
7 
Sec. 19. Amendment. - This Act shall be evaluated three (3) years after its
8 
initial implementation. The results of such evaluation shall guide the proposed
9 
amendments of this Act and its IRR.
10 
Sec. 20. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid
11 
or unconstitutional, the remaining provision not affected thereby shall continue to be
12 
in full force and effect.
13 
Sec. 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders or regulations or part
14 
thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
15 
Sec. 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the
16 
completion of its publication in the OfTicial Gazette or in a national newspaper of
17 
general circulation.
Approved,
10