TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
. 14
''•■■T'- tSffirr o( fir I rn . \>
25 JUL 14 All 42
S. No.
SENATE
515
RFCCr/Q L-v'
Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING NATIONAL RESULTS-BASED GOVERNANCE, 
STRENGTHENING MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND UTILIZATION SYSTEMS 
ACROSS ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Every budget season, government agencies are asked the most fundamental 
question:
"How did your program improve the lives of the Filipino people?"
It is a simple question, but it cuts to the very core of public service. Filipinos 
deserve to know not just what was done, but what changed because it was done. Yet 
time and again, we hear the same kind of answers: how many families were reached, 
how many kilometers of road were paved, how many beneficiaries were enrolled. These 
are not unimportant, but they do not tell us the full story.
They tell us what was delivered—not whether it worked.
Did the free Wi-Fi in schools actually lead to better learning outcomes for students?
Did the livelihood trainings offered by agencies translate into real, sustained 
income for families?
Did the additional clinics built in rural areas result in lower maternal deaths or 
improved treatment access for the sick?


We rarely get these answers—because they are rarely asked at the start, rarely 
measured in the middle, and rarely discussed at the end. The truth is that the government 
often implements without a system to ask: Are we making lives better? Are we solving 
the problem we set out to address? Without credible evidence, the accomplishments we 
report are but echoes of effort, not proof of change
This gap between intention and transformation is where many government 
programs falter—not due to a lack of effort, but because of a lack of systems that track, 
measure, and apply lessons from experience. And despite our national culture's aversion 
to systems and rules, a universal truth remains: good systems build behaviors, behaviors 
shape mindsets, mindsets create institutions, and institutions sustain progress. Needless 
to state, without results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization, we are steering the 
ship without a compass.
Despite decades of government spending, the absence of a systematic, integrated, 
and results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework continues to hamper the 
State's ability to answer these questions credibly, consistently, and transparently. 
Performance reports often rely on outputs—not outcomes or impacts. Evaluation is either 
not conducted, not independent, or not used. Even when good studies are produced, 
findings often go unutilized in decision-making. Public funds are released and spent 
without a clear feedback loop to assess effectiveness or guide improvements.
This bill seeks to institutionalize a whole of government results-based governance 
through the National Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB- 
MEUP) to close this gap. By enhancing the three post-implementation pillars of 
governanee—monitoring, evaluation, and utilization—the bill ensures that government 
interventions are tracked meaningfully, evaluated rigorously, and used effectively to 
inform policy, redesign programs, and guide future investments.
The bill also aligns this monitoring and evaluation framework with the national 
development planning architecture established under Republic Act No. 12145 or the 
"Economy, Planning, and Development Act" ensuring coherence across all levels and 
branches of government. It mandates the creation of Independent Monitoring,


Evaluation, and Utilization Divisions (IMEDs), sets minimum standards and protocols for 
evaluations, and ensures that findings are not only produced, but acted upon.
This measure builds upon foundational Executive and Administrative Orders, 
circulars, and joint policies that have progressively institutionalized monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) in government, including:
• 
Executive Order No. 376, s. 1989, which established the Regional Project 
Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) to promote participatory monitoring at 
regional and local levels;
• Administrative Order No. 25, s. 2011, which created the Results-Based 
Performance Management System (RBPMS) as a unified monitoring and reporting 
mechanism for the Executive Branch;
• 
DBM-issued guidelines on the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework 
(OPIF), which introduced results-based budgeting through sectoral performance 
indicators; and
• 
NEDA-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC), July 15, 2015, which adopted the 
National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) to institutionalize evaluations in 
support of evidence-based policy and good governance;
Ultimately, this measure seeks to build a culture of learning, accountability, and 
results orientation across the public sector. It moves government beyond compliance- 
based reporting and into the realm of evidence-based governance—where success is not 
measured by how much we spend or how many we reach, but by how much we truly 
improve people's lives.
At the end of the day, as public servants, we must find the courage to ask 
ourselves—with honesty and humility:
Did we truly help? Did we truly uplift? And what can we do better?
In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this bill is earnestly sought.
LOREN LEGARDA


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session
S. No.
)
SENATE
515
r •.
'v . ' 
of '1 '
25 JUL 14 All 42
RF.CEIVSD!?':
Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING NATIONAL RESULTS-BASED GOVERNANCE, 
STRENGTHENING MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND UTILIZATION SYSTEMS 
ACROSS ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines 
in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "National Results-Based 
Governance Act."
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policies. — It is hereby declared the policy of the State to 
institutionalize a National Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB- 
MEUP) to strengthen public sector performance, transparency, and accountability.
The State shall enhance the critical yet underutilized, often neglected, pillars of 
monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across the entire program management cycle to 
ensure that government interventions are monitored consistently, evaluated rigorously, 
and utilized effectively.
The State shall enhance the critical yet underutilized, often neglected, pillars of 
monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across the entire program management cycle to 
ensure that government interventions are monitored consistently, evaluated rigorously, 
and utilized effectively, and that government programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) 
are streamlined, redundant efforts reduced, and resources directed toward interventions 
that deliver meaningful results.
1


1 
Results shall be measured credibly, and evidence shall be used to inform policy
2 
decisions, improve program design and implementation, and ensure the strategic
3 
allocation and use of public resources. The policy shall be aligned with Republic Act No.
4 
12145 or the Economy, Planning, and Development Act, designating the Department of
5 
Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) as the primary coordinating agency for
6 
national planning, investment programming, and evaluation.
7 
The State further recognizes the institutional need for a central oversight body to
8 
ensure inter-branch alignment and system-wide accountability in the implementation of
9 
results-based monitoring and evaluation. For this purpose, a National Monitoring,
10 
Evaluation, and Utilization Council is established to exercise policy coordination, standards
11 
formulation, and supervision, with the DEPDev as its principal implementing arm and
12 
technical lead.
13 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. —The Act aims to institutionalize a results-based
14 
framework for improving public sector performance by enhancing the post-
15 
implementation pillars of the program management cycle: monitoring, evaluation, and
16 
utilization. It shall pursue the following objectives:
17 
a) Strengthen the development and institutionalization of an integrated,
18 
government-wide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and plan
19 
under the leadership of the DEPDev, enabling the proactive identification of
20 
relevant data and indicators, ensuring their timely and regular collection,
21 
and supporting credible evaluation and reporting aligned with national
22 
development goals and performance standards;
23 
b) Ensure that government interventions, including policies, strategies,
24 
programs, activities, and projects, are regularly monitored and evaluated in
25 
terms of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and
26 
impact, and that such evaluations are used to streamline programs,
27 
activities, and projects (PAPs), reduce redundancy, and enhance overall
28 
resource effectiveness;
29 
c) Guarantee the timely provision and transparent communication of
30 
monitoring data and independent, useful evaluation findings to decision-
2


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
makers, planners, and stakeholders to support results-based planning, 
budgeting, and oversight;
d) Institutionalize the systematic utilization, dissemination, and feedback of 
monitoring and evaluation results to drive continuous program 
improvement and guide the strategic realignment of public expenditures 
and interventions;
e) Institutionalize the allocation of adequate and integrated financing for 
monitoring, evaluation, and utilization as an essential component of 
government interventions. All government entities shall ensure that 
sufficient M&E budgets are incorporated into planning and budgeting 
processes, including personnel, services, operational, and capital outlays;
f) Promote transparency and accountability in the use of public resources by 
ensuring that government entities are held responsible for achieving 
development results;
g) Foster a culture of learning and adaptive management across all branches 
and levels of government by mainstreaming evidence-informed 
policymaking and continuous performance improvement; and
h) Ensure harmonization of monitoring, evaluation, and utilization practices 
with national planning, investment programming, and development 
coordination mandates, in accordance with Republic Act No. 12145. The 
DEPDev shall serve as the primary agency responsible for overseeing 
coherence between evaluation systems and national development priorities.
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 of the design, 
implementation, and results of government interventions to determine their 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, and impact. 
Evaluation provides credible and useful evidence that informs decision­
making and improves future policy and programming. It shall be


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
distinguished from monitoring, audit, or individual performance 
assessment;
b) Monitoring refers to the continuous and systematic process of collecting, 
analyzing, and using data on key performance indicators to track the 
implementation and progress of government interventions. It enables 
timely detection of issues, supports adaptive management, and provides 
critical inputs for evaluation. Monitoring shall include the proactive and 
purposeful identification of relevant data, indicators, and measurement 
methods at the planning stage—ensuring that what is tracked aligns with 
intended results and anticipated risks. It shall guard against collecting 
irrelevant information and shall prevent the omission of essential data by 
requiring early, deliberate definition of what constitutes meaningful 
evidence for progress and performance;
c) Utiiization refers to the systematic application of monitoring and evaluation 
findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to inform policy reforms, 
improve program and project design, optimize resource allocation, and 
enhance organizational performance. Utilization ensures that evidence is 
acted upon for meaningful results.
It shall be clearly distinguished from budget utilization, which refers 
to the disbursement and obligation of financial resources; in contrast, this 
concept of utilization pertains to the use of knowledge and evidence 
generated from performance assessments;
d) Results refer to the changes in conditions or behaviors brought about by 
government interventions. These include outputs or immediate 
deliverables, outcomes or short to medium-term effects, and impacts long­
term societal changes, whether intended or unintended, positive or 
negative;
e) Outputs refer to the specific goods, services, or deliverables produced as a 
direct result of implementing policies, strategies, programs, or projects.


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
These are typically under the direct control of the implementing agency and 
are measured by quantity, quality, and timeliness;
f) Outcomes refer to the short and medium-term benefits or changes 
experienced by target individuals, groups, systems, or organizations as a 
result of outputs. These are more closely linked to strategic goals than 
outputs;
g) Impacts refer to the long-term, broad sectoral and societal changes 
resulting from government interventions. Impacts include sustained 
improvements in well-being, equity, or system-wide performance;
h) Government Interventions refer to the laws, policies, strategies, programs, 
activities, and projects (PAPs) undertaken by departments, agencies, and 
other instrumentalities of the government, including those supported by 
local and foreign funding;
i) 
PAPs (Programs, Activities, and Projects) refer to the core components of 
government budgeting and implementation structures. Programs are 
coordinated activities designed to achieve specific objectives; activities are 
operations undertaken within programs; projects are time-bound 
undertakings to deliver distinct outputs and outcomes;
j) Resuits-Based Management refers to a performance management approach 
focused on achieving measurable results. It includes planning, monitoring, 
evaluating, and reporting on performance indicators, and aligns with tools 
such as the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF), 
Logical Framework (Logframe), and Results Matrix (RM);
k) Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a 
results-based budgeting framework that links agency outputs to 
organizational and sector outcomes using key indicators of quantity, quality, 
timeliness, and cost;
l) Results Framework refers to a planning and management tool that defines 
the cause-effect relationship among inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes.


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
and impacts. It clarifies performance indicators, assumptions, and data 
sources for M&E;
m) Results Framework refers to a strategic tool that aligns programmatic and 
organizational results with higher-level development outcomes, showing 
how inputs and outputs contribute to the achievement of national and 
sectoral goals;
n) Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) refers to a 
decentralized mechanism established under EO 376 (1989) for monitoring 
and evaluating the implementation of development projects at national, 
regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels. It promotes participatory 
project oversight involving government agencies, LCDs, and civil society 
organizations;
o) Resuits-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB-MEUP) 
refers to the national policy framework institutionalized by this Act that 
mandates the systematic integration of monitoring, evaluation, and 
utilization (M&E/U) functions into the public sector management cycle. It 
seeks to strengthen government performance, accountability, and 
transparency by ensuring that interventions are monitored consistently, 
evaluated rigorously, and results are used meaningfully to inform policy, 
planning, and budgeting decisions across all levels and branches of 
government;
p) National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Strategy (NMEUS) refers to 
the national operational and technical framework that guides the 
implementation of the RB-MEUP. It sets the principles, standards, protocols, 
and methodologies for results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization 
across government entities. The NMEUS ensures alignment and 
interoperability with national planning and budgeting systems and provides 
the reference for agency-level monitoring and evaluation systems and 
practices;


1 
q) National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Agenda (NMEUA) refers to
2 
the official, government-wide, medium-term agenda that identifies the
3 
priority policies, programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) to be subjected
4 
to results-based monitoring and evaluation. It is formulated by the Council,
5 
in consultation with DEPDev and other stakeholders, and aligns with the
6 
Philippine Development Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and
7 
other national strategies. The NMEUA provides strategic focus for the
8 
application of M&E resources and informs the development of agency-
9 
specific M&E agendas;
10 
r) Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Division (IMED) refers
11 
to a permanent organizational unit established within a government
12 
department, agency, or instrumentality responsible for leading and
13 
coordinating institutional monitoring, evaluation, and utilization (M&E/U)
14 
functions. An IMED operates with functional independence from program
15 
implementors and is staffed with full-time personnel mandated to conduct
16 
results-based assessments of agency-wide interventions, consistent with
17 
national standards and planning frameworks; and
18 
s) Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Unit (IMEU) refers to a
19 
dedicated, project-specific, or time-bound unit established within a
20 
government agency, department, or program implementing office to
21 
perform monitoring, evaluation, and utilization functions for high-value
22 
programs, special projects, or flagship interventions. An IMEU may also be
23 
created as a sub-unit under the IMED when additional staffing or technical
24 
specialization is needed for complex or voluminous activities. IMEUs operate
25 
under the same principles of independence, objectivity, and methodological
26 
rigor but may be limited in scope and duration.
27 
Sec. 5. Coverage. — Subject to the provision of Section 12 on the phased
28 
implementation, this Act shall apply to:
29 
(a) All departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCs),
30 
government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs), government
7


1 
financial institutions (GFIs), constitutional commissions, and other
2 
instrumentalities of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the
3 
National Government, consistent with the national planning and evaluation
4 
frameworks under Republic Act No. 12145; and
5 
(b)AII public policies, strategies, programs, projects, activities, and other
6 
development interventions formulated and implemented by the above
7 
entities, including those funded by local or foreign sources—such as Official
8 
Development Assistance (ODA), subject to the rules and conditions
9 
governing such assistance—and those contracted to or implemented
10 
through local government units (LGUs), the private sector, or civil society
11 
organizations.
12 
Sec. 6. Guiding Principles. — The credibility, quality, and usefulness of results-
13 
based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization shall be ensured through adherence to the
14 
following principles:
15 
a) Results Orientation. Institutionalize monitoring, evaluation, and utilization
16 
as tools to achieve measurable results such as outputs, outcomes, and
17 
impacts that align with national priorities. M&E shall focus on improving
18 
actual performance, not merely satisfying procedural requirements;
19 
b) Proactive and Purposeful Data Use. Ensure that M&E systems are designed
20 
from the planning stage to identify relevant indicators and data needs early.
21 
Data collection must be strategic, purposeful, and clearly aligned with
22 
defined objectives to support timely and relevant evidence;
23 
c) Integration into the Management Cycle. Embed monitoring, evaluation, and
24 
utilization across the full cycle of public sector management, including
25 
planning, budgeting, implementation, and post-implementation stages. This
26 
promotes continuous learning, improvement, and accountability;
27 
d) Adequate and Integrated Financing. Institutionalize the allocation of
28 
sufficient resources for M&E as a standard element of program and project
29 
implementation. Government entities shall incorporate appropriate budgets


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
for personnel, services, and operational and capital expenditures to ensure 
high-quality and sustainable M&E efforts;
e) Utility and Use. Design M&E activities with the intent to inform decisions, 
improve policy and program design, and guide resource allocation. Results 
must be used meaningfully and should never be treated as mere compliance 
outputs;
f) Independence and Impartiality. Safeguard the credibility of evaluations by 
ensuring independence from implementing units. Third-party evaluators 
shall be commissioned through objective and transparent processes when 
necessary;
g) Competence and Professionalism. Ensure that all M&E work is carried out 
by qualified professionals who possess the necessary technical skills and 
follow international standards and ethical practices;
h) Ethics and Indusivity. Uphold respect for human dignity, cultural and 
gender sensitivity, and stakeholder protection in all M&E processes;
i) Environmental Consciousness. Assess environmental impacts during 
planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Align M&E practices 
with sustainability goals and climate resilience objectives;
j) 
Transparency and Accessibility. Make M&E processes and findings 
accessible to stakeholders and the public, subject to applicable 
confidentiality laws. Reports must clearly explain methods, assumptions, 
limitations, and intended uses;
k) Accountability for Use. Require agencies to respond formally to M&E 
findings within a reasonable period, indicating whether they accept the 
findings in full, accept them in part with justification, or reject them with 
supporting evidence. Accepted recommendations must be integrated into 
future planning and implementation;
l) Alignment with International Standards. Ensure that the Results-Based 
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy aligns with internationally 
recognized standards and principles, including those of the Organisation for
9


1 
Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Assistance
2 
Committee (OECD-DAC) and the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG),
3 
among other relevant global bodies that promote high-quality, credible, and
4 
results-based evaluation systems; and
5 
m) High-value projects refer to government programs, activities, or projects
6 
(PAPs) that meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) Large financial
7 
allocation, typically exceeding a threshold amount to be determined by the
8 
Council (e.g., P1,000,000,000.00 as an initial standard pending formal
9 
threshold setting); 2) National or sectoral strategic significance, such as
10 
those identified as flagship programs or priority investments in the
11 
Philippine Development Plan (PDP) or Public Investment Program (PIP); 3)
12 
High public visibility, complexity, or risk, including projects with substantial
13 
socio-environmental impact, multi-agency coordination, or potential
14 
implementation challenges; 4) Projects requiring approval by the Economic
15 
Development Council under RA 12145 (DEPDev Act); or 5) Foreign-assisted
16 
or co-financed programs with stringent performance or results-based
17 
reporting requirements (e.g., ODA-funded projects).
18 
Sec. 7. Monitoring Criteria. — To ensure the consistency, relevance, and utility of
19 
monitoring activities under this Act, all government entities shall, at a minimum, track
20 
and report performance using the following criteria:
21 
(a) Timeliness - The extent to which data is collected and reported at
22 
appropriate intervals to support real-time decision-making;
23 
(b) Accuracy - The degree to which monitored data reliably reflects actual
24 
performance or conditions;
25 
(c) Completeness - The coverage of indicators and data points necessary to
26 
fully assess the progress of interventions;
27 
(d) Consistency - The application of uniform data definitions, methods, and
28 
formats across time and reporting units;
10


1 
(e) Responsiveness - The extent to which monitoring systems detect
2 
deviations, risks, or emerging issues and trigger appropriate management
3 
actions; and
4 
(f) Other criteria as may be identified by the Councii.
5 
These criteria shall be aligned with the Results Framework or other results-based
6 
planning tools established for the intervention.
7 
Sec. 8. Evaiuation Criteria — To ensure the credibility, usefulness, and integrity
8 
of all evaluations conducted under this Act, the application of evaluation criteria shall be
9 
mandatory, transparent, and based on recognized international standards.
10 
Evaluations of national government policies, strategies, programs, activities, and
11 
projects shall, at a minimum, assess and report on the following five (5) core criteria:
12 
(a) Reievance. The extent to which the intervention addresses identified needs
13 
and remains aligned with current priorities;
14 
(b) Effectiveness. The degree to which the intended objectives or outcomes
15 
have been achieved;
16 
(c) Efficiency. How well resources, including time and funds, have been used
17 
to achieve the results;
18 
{d) Coherence. The extent to which the intervention is compatible with and
19 
reinforces, or avoids duplication or contradiction with, other policies,
20 
programs, and institutional frameworks—both internal and external to the
21 
government;
22 
(e) Impact. The broader, long-term effects of the intervention on communities,
23 
systems, or sectors;
24 
(f) Sustainabiiity. The likelihood that benefits will continue after the
25 
intervention end; and
26 
(g) Other criteria as may be identified by the Councii.
27 
These criteria shall be applied in a clear, consistent, and transparent manner, and
28 
shall be grounded in the results framework, results chain, or equivalent results-based
29 
planning structure established by the implementing agency.
11


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
Sec. 9. Establishment of the National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization 
Council. — A National Monitoring, Evaluation and Utilization Council (Council) is hereby 
established to oversee the implementation of the Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, 
and Utilization Policy (RB-MEUP). The Council shall provide policy direction, promote 
coordination across government branches, and ensure alignment with national 
development goals and standards for results-based monitoring and evaluation.
Sec. 10. Composition of the National Monitoring, Evaluation and Utilization Council 
(Council). — The Council shall be composed of the following seven (7) voting members:
(1) The Secretary of the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development 
(DEPDev), or his/her duly authorized representative, as Chairperson. The 
representative shall be an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and 
evaluation;
(2) The Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or 
his/her duly authorized representative, as Co-Chairperson. The 
representative shall be at least an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring 
and evaluation;
(3) The Secretary of the Philippine Senate, or his/her duly authorized 
representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, 
research, and/or evaluation;
(4) The Secretary General of the House of Representatives, or his/her duly 
authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, 
planning, research, and/or evaluation;
(5) The Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, or his/her duly authorized 
representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, 
and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;
(6) The Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA), or his/her duly 
authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, 
planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and
12


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
(7) The Head of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), or his/her duly 
authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, 
planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation.
The Council shall convene at least once every year or as often as necessary. To 
ensure the Council is guided by technical expertise, the following shall serve as non­
voting members and attend Council meetings in an advisory capacity:
(a) The President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), or 
his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in 
charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;
(b) The National Statistician and Civil Registrar General of the Philippine 
Statistics Authority (PSA), or his/her duly authorized representative, who 
shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance 
monitoring and evaluation;
(c) The President of the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), or 
his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director 
responsible for governance and capacity development, particularly in 
monitoring and evaluation systems and institutional performance 
management;
(d) The Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission in charge of the Civil 
Service Institute (CSC-CSI), or his/her duly authorized representative;
(e) The Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), or his/her 
duly authorized representative;
(f) The Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and Local 
Government (DILG) in charge of local government capability development, 
or his/her duly authorized representative; and
(g) A representative from the academic and professional sector, as may be 
appointed by the Chairperson.
Sec. 11. Functions of the Council- The Council shall serve as the central policy 
coordination and standard-setting body for the implementation of the RB-MEUP, without
13


1 
prejudice to the primary planning and evaluation mandates of the DEPDev under Republic
2 
Act No. 12145. It shall perform the following functions:
3 
(a) Provide strategic policy direction and technical oversight over the
4 
implementation of the RB-MEUP across the Executive, Legislative, and
5 
Judicial branches, and ensure alignment with the development planning and
6 
evaluation priorities set by the DEPDev;
7 
(b) Review and endorse the NMEUS prepared by the Secretariat to ensure
8 
coherence with national development goals, including the Philippine
9 
Development Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and Results-
10 
Based Performance Management System (RBPMS);
11 
(c) Establish and promulgate standards, protocols, and methodologies for
12 
results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization applicable across
13 
sectors and agencies, consistent with internationally recognized practices
14 
and the guidance issued by DEPDev;
15 
(d) Ensure the formal and timely response to certified M&E findings within a
16 
reasonable timeframe, indicating acceptance, partial acceptance with
17 
justification, or reasoned rejection, and to integrate accepted
18 
recommendations into their plans and budgets consistent with planning
19 
instructions issued by DEPDev;
20 
(e) Promote the use and application of M&E findings in legislative oversight,
21 
judicial policy review, and executive policy adjustments, including
22 
facilitation of inter-branch policy dialogues and sectoral roundtables to
23 
support evidence-informed governance;
24 
(f) Institutionalize and support the development of internal monitoring,
25 
evaluation, and utilization units (IMEUs) within government agencies, and
26 
establish guidelines for their staffing, structure, and functional
27 
independence;
28 
(g) Recognize and promote best practices in monitoring, evaluation, and
29 
utilization, including the issuance of performance commendations and
30 
citations for exemplary M&E practices at the agency or sectoral level;
14


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
(h) Promote inter-agency and inter-branch learning exchanges, communities of 
practice, and other collaborative mechanisms for advancing M&E standards 
and innovation;
(i) Recommend to DEPDev proposals for refinement of the medium-term 
National Evaluation Agenda or priority topics for strategic evaluation and 
cross-cutting policy studies;and
(j) Ensure that all Council decisions, recommendations, and evaluation 
summaries are publicly accessible in accordance with transparency and 
access-to-information laws, subject to applicable confidentiality safeguards.
The Council shall exercise these functions in support of, and in full recognition of, 
the DEPDev's lead role in national planning, evaluation, and data systems integration. 
The Council shall not duplicate planning or evaluation functions already reserved to 
DEPDev under Republic Act No. 12145.
The Council shall meet at least once every quarter, or as often as necessary, and 
may constitute technical working groups or advisory panels to fulfill its mandates 
effectively.
Sec. 12. Council Secretariat and Its Functions. - The DEPDev shall serve as the 
Council Secretariat, with its Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (MES) acting as the dedicated 
support unit for this function.
Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the Secretariat shall be 
formally organized. Subject to the approval of the Council and in accordance with 
applicable laws and regulations on staffing and organizational structure, such offices, 
services, and divisions as may be necessary to support the functions of the Secretariat 
may be created.
The Secretariat shall perform the following functions:
(a) Provide technical and administrative support to the Council, including 
convening meetings, preparing documentation, and coordinating technical 
committees;
(b) Consolidate agency-submitted evaluation reports, monitoring data, and 
utilization feedback into a synthesized report for Council review, and
15


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
facilitate coordination with DEPDev's national evaluation agenda and 
reporting systems;
(c) (Track agency compliance with monitoring and evaluation requirements and 
submission deadlines, and coordinate follow-through with DEPDev's 
performance tracking mechanisms;
(d) Operate and maintain the centralized online repository of M&E reports and 
knowledge products in coordination with DEPDev's official knowledge and 
data systems;
(e) Facilitate and monitor agency compliance with the requirement to respond 
to M&E findings within the prescribed timeframe. This includes maintaining 
records of agency responses, validating the implementation of accepted 
recommendations into agency plans and budgets, and coordinating with 
DEPDev to align such integration with official planning instructions;
(f) Certify the quality and methodological soundness of agency-level evaluation 
reports and ensure the timely uploading of M&E findings to a centralized 
M&E knowledge management portal;
(g) Coordinate dissemination of evaluation findings, including submission of 
final reports to Congress and relevant oversight bodies, and ensure timely 
public access subject to applicable laws;
(h) Oversee the implementation of national capacity-building programs for M&E 
by identifying agency needs, coordinating logistics and partnerships, 
supporting reporting requirements, and conducting M&E capacity 
development initiatives across government, in collaboration with relevant 
institutions such as the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the 
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), and accredited 
professional associations;
(i) Provide recommendations to the Council regarding agency-level 
performance in utilization of evaluation results, including proposed 
incentives or compliance measures;
16


1 
(j) Prepare an Annual RB-MEUP Synthesis Report for submission to Congress
2 
and the President, drawing on national evaluation agenda outputs, certified
3 
agency reports, and utilization tracking data; and
4 
(k) Perform such other functions as may be directed by the Council consistent
5 
with this Act and the mandates of DEPDev under RA 12145.
6 
All activities of the Secretariat shall be undertaken in close coordination with and
7 
under the technical guidance of DEPDev, in a manner that reinforces, and does not
8 
duplicate, the existing evaluation and planning system under RA 12145.
9 
Sec. 13. National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Strategy (NMEUS). -The
10 
NMEUS shall serve as the overarching operational and technical framework for the
11 
implementation of the Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB-
12 
MEUP). It shall guide all branches, departments, and instrumentalities of government in
13 
developing and institutionalizing monitoring, evaluation, and utilization systems that are
14 
coherent, interoperable, and aligned with national development priorities.
15 
The NMEUS shall:
16 
a) Identify priority sectors, themes, and programs for monitoring and
17 
evaluation, based on their strategic relevance to the Philippine Development
18 
Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and other national
19 
frameworks issued by the Department of Economy, Planning, and
20 
Development (DEPDev);
21 
b) Define principles, methodologies, protocols, and minimum standards for
22 
results-based monitoring, credible evaluation, and evidence-based
23 
utilization, consistent with international practices and national planning
24 
guidance;
25 
c) Provide the framework and parameters for the formulation of the National
26 
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Agenda (NMEUA), and serve as a
27 
reference for agency-level M&E agendas;
28 
d) Establish linkages between monitoring and evaluation systems and the
29 
broader planning, budgeting, and performance management processes, to
30 
support integrated public sector management;
17


1 
e) Outline mechanisms to ensure that M&E findings are used to inform the
2 
design, reprioritization, expansion, or discontinuation of government
3 
interventions and guide public resource allocation;
4 
f) Specify procedures for quality assurance, stakeholder engagement, and the
5 
transparent public dissemination of M&E reports and findings, in accordance
6 
with access-to-information laws; and
7 
g) Ensure full interoperability and alignment with existing data and knowledge
8 
management systems, statistical frameworks, and evaluation protocols
9 
developed and overseen by DEPDev pursuant to Republic Act No. 12145.
10 
The NMEUS shall be prepared by the Secretariat and submitted to the Council for
11 
review and approval. It shall be reviewed and updated at least every six (6) years,
12 
synchronized with the PDP cycle, or as may be deemed necessary by the Council.
13 
Sec. 14. Phased Implementation. - The implementation of this NMEUS shall be
14 
carried out in phases to ensure institutional readiness, build technical capacity, and allow
15 
for the progressive adoption of results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization
16 
systems across the government.
17 
Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, the Council shall issue a Phased
18 
Implementation Plan, which include, but not be limited to, the following
19 
components:
20 
(a) Phase I: Priority Agencies and Programs. Within two (2) years from the
21 
effectivity of this Act, implementation shall begin with selected national
22 
government agencies, instrumentalities, and special projects identified by
23 
the Council. Selection shall be based on criteria such as high-value
24 
programs, significant budgetary allocations, and strategic alignment with
25 
national development objectives;
26 
(b) Phase II: National Expansion. Within three (3) years from the
27 
commencement of Phase I, implementation shall be expanded to cover all
28 
departments, agencies, government-owned or -controlled corporations
29 
(GOCCs), and state universities and colleges (SUCs) under the Executive
18


1 
Branch, as well as entities in the Legislative and Judicial branches,
2 
constitutional commissions, and other independent bodies;
3 
(c) Phase III: Local Government Units and Autonomous Regions. Within five
4 
(5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the implementation shall extend to
5 
local government units (LGUs) and autonomous regional governments,
6 
ensuring full integration of the Act's provisions across all levels of
7 
government;
8 
(d) Capacity Development and Resource Support. Each phase shall be
9 
supported by appropriate capacity-building programs, organizational
10 
development assistance, and resource mobilization to ensure agency
11 
readiness and sustained compliance with monitoring, evaluation, and
12 
utilization requirements; and
13 
(e) Annual Progress Reporting. The Council shall submit an annual report to
14 
Congress and the President on the status of implementation, agency
15 
compliance, key milestones, and any recommended adjustments to the
16 
Phased Implementation Plan.
17 
All implementing activities under this Section shall observe the standards,
18 
priorities, and interoperability requirements established in the NMEUS and shall be
19 
coordinated with DEPDev to ensure alignment with national planning, programming, and
20 
evaluation systems.
21 
For major capital outlays and other high-value projects requiring approval by the
22 
Economic Development (ED) Council under Republic Act No. 12145, as well as for
23 
government flagship programs identified by the Council, the implementing agency shall
24 
establish a dedicated Special Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Units
25 
(Special IMEU). These units shall be responsible for project-specific monitoring,
26 
evaluation, and utilization functions in accordance with Section 13 of this Act and shall
27 
remain operational throughout the entire project lifecycle.
28 
Sec. 15. Special Capacity-Building Unit — A Special Capacity-Building Unit (SCBU)
29 
shall be established under the Secretariat to provide sustained technical and institutional
30 
development support for the implementation of this Act. The SCBU shall be composed of
19


1 
representatives and technical experts from the DEPDev, the DAP, the CSC-CSI, DILG,
2 
CHED, State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and other accredited academic institutions.
3 
The SCBU shall perform the following functions:
4 
(a) Develop and implement a competency framework for monitoring,
5 
evaluation, and utilization (M&E/U), and design corresponding training
6 
programs, certification modules, and mentoring activities for government
7 
personnel engaged in M&E/U functions, ensuring alignment with the
8 
established competency standards;
9 
(b) Provide customized capacity-building packages to support the
10 
operationalization of IMEDs, particularly in agencies with low technical
11 
readiness;
12 
(c) Assist LGUs in developing local M&E competencies, systems, and tools
13 
aligned with national standards;
14 
(d) Support the development of a pool of accredited M&E professionals within
15 
government;
16 
(e) Regularly assess capacity-building outcomes and update training curricula
17 
to reflect emerging practices and evaluation standards;and
18 
(f) Ensure that M&E competencies are incorporated into the Qualification
19 
Standards for relevant plantilla positions. Required trainings and
20 
certifications under the framework shall form part of the minimum eligibility
21 
criteria for hiring, appointment, or promotion to M&E-designated roles.
22 
The SCBU shall issue rules and standards for the accreditation of training
23 
institutions and facilities that will provide monitoring, evaluation, and utilization capacity-
24 
building programs under this Act.
25 
The SCBU shall coordinate with DBM, CSC, and CHED to ensure institutional
26 
support and long-term sustainability of M&E capacity development in government.
27 
The SCBU, in coordination with the DEPDev, DBM, and Department of Finance
28 
(DOF), shall formulate guidelines to facilitate access to Official Development Assistance
29 
(ODA) and other external financing mechanisms for capacity building, technology
20


1 
acquisition, and innovation support related to monitoring, evaluation, and utilization
2 
systems.
3 
Sec. 16. Organization of Independent Monitoring, Evaiuation, and Utiiization
4 
Divisions (IMEDs). - Subject to the phased implementation provided under Section 14 of
5 
this Act, all covered departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the national
6 
government shall establish an Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization
7 
Divisions (IMED) within their respective organizations. These units shall be responsible
8 
for leading and coordinating the agency's monitoring, evaluation, and utilization
9 
functions, and shall operate with functional independence to ensure objectivity, integrity,
10 
and credibility of outputs.
11 
IMEDs shall be sufficiently staffed, capacitated, and resourced to effectively
12 
monitor, evaluate, and facilitate the use of findings from programs, activities, and projects
13 
of agencies. Personnel assigned to the IMED shall be distinct from individual or unit
14 
performance assessors responsible for employee performance evaluations and shall
15 
instead focus on institutional, sectoral, and programmatic results.
16 
IMEDs shall report directly to the head of the department, agency, or
17 
instrumentality, and function independently from units involved in the design or
18 
implementation of programs and projects. The head of agency shall:
19 
(a) Ensure the operationalization of the IMED through appropriate staffing,
20 
resource allocation, and organizational support;
21 
(b) Provide the IMED with full access to performance and financial data,
22 
implementation reports, and relevant stakeholders necessary to carry out
23 
independent monitoring and evaluation functions;
24 
(c) Uphold the functional autonomy of the IMED in planning, conducting, and
25 
reporting evaluation activities and in formulating recommendations based
26 
on evidence;
27 
(d) Institutionalize internal procedures for the formal review of IMED findings
28 
and ensure that accepted recommendations are integrated into subsequent
29 
planning and budgeting cycles, in accordance with planning instructions
30 
issued by the DEPDev; and
21


1 
(e) Designate or establish a Senior-Level M&E Advisory Committee to provide
2 
technical support, ensure methodological quality, and guide the strategic
3 
direction of the IMED's work.
4 
Subject to the phased implementation, agencies that do not currently maintain an
5 
M&E unit shall submit to the DBM a proposal for the creation of plantilla positions and
6 
necessary organizational units to operationalize the IMED. Such proposals shall align with
7 
the technical standards and sectoral priorities set by the Council, and shall be informed
8 
by the phased implementation strategy agency agendas.
9 
IMEDs and Special IMEDs in accordance with Section 17 shall operate
10 
independently from agency planning divisions but shall maintain structured coordination
11 
with them to ensure that monitoring and evaluation findings are formally considered in
12 
the design, revision, and prioritization of programs, activities, and projects (PAPs).
13 
Planning divisions shall incorporate accepted recommendations from IMEDs into the
14 
formulation of agency plans, budget proposals, and performance targets, in accordance
15 
with planning instructions issued by DEPDev. This coordination shall be governed by
16 
internal protocols that preserve the IMED's independence while ensuring effective
17 
feedback loops into the planning and programming cycle.
18 
Sec. 17. Special IMEDs for High-Value Projects and Expanded Staffing for High-
19 
Volume Agencies. - Upon full integration of the Executive Branch into the Results-Based
20 
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy, all government agencies implementing
21 
programs, activities, or projects (PAPs) whose total appropriations exceed a threshold
22 
amount to be determined by the Council, shall establish a dedicated Special IMEDs or
23 
smaller units (IMEUs) dedicated for the said PAPs. These divisions or units shall carry out
24 
project-specific M&E functions throughout the lifecycle of the covered interventions, in
25 
accordance with this Act and the standards set under the national strategy and the agency
26 
agendas.
27 
Pending formal threshold setting by the Council, high-value projects shall initially
28 
refer to PAPs exceeding One Billion Pesos (P 1,000,000,000.00) in total cost or having
29 
strategic national significance.
22


1 
Agencies whose mandates involve highly complex, technical, or voluminous
2 
functions—such that a single IMED is demonstrably insufficient to deliver meaningful
3 
monitoring, evaluation, and utilization—may, upon justification, submit a request to the
4 
DBM for additional staffing, organizational augmentation, or the creation of additional
5 
internal IMEUs, in accordance with government organizational and staffing standards.
6 
Sec. 18. Implementation by the Legislative and Judicial Branches and
7 
Constitutional Commissions. - The Legislative and Judicial branches, as well as the
8 
Constitutional Commissions, shall retain full institutional independence in designing and
9 
implementing their respective monitoring, evaluation, and utilization agendas.
10 
These bodies shall coordinate with the Council, to the extent consistent with their
11 
respective mandates and constitutional autonomy, to ensure coherence with the NMEUS
12 
and alignment with national development priorities and applicable standards. Such
13 
coordination shall be consultative in nature and shall respect the independent operational,
14 
budgetary, and policy-making authority of these institutions.
15 
For this purpose, these bodies may apply results-based monitoring and evaluation
16 
to their internal programs, legislative instruments, judicial and quasi-judicial reforms,
17 
institutional performance initiatives, and other strategic interventions aligned with their
18 
mandates. Post-legislative assessments, evaluation of laws with sunset clauses, and
19 
judicial reform outcomes may be prioritized for inclusion in their respective M&E agendas.
20 
Their respective IMEDs or Special IMEUs shall be supported through their own
21 
appropriations, and may voluntarily adopt methodologies, protocols, and reporting
22 
mechanisms developed under this Act.
23 
Sec. 19. Roie of Local Government Units. —To strengthen alignment between
24 
national and local development priorities, LGUs shall:
25 
(a) Integrate RB-MEUP principles into their local planning, programming,
26 
budgeting, and performance monitoring systems;
27 
(b) Designate or establish a Local M&E Unit or focal person to coordinate with
28 
national agencies and regional DEPDev offices;
23


1 
(c) Receive technical assistance from DEPDev, the Department of the Interior
2 
and Local Government (DILG), and 
the SCBU to strengthen local M&E
3 
capacity; and
4 
(d) Ensure dedicated budget allocations for monitoring, evaluation, and
5 
utilization activities, proportionate to the scale of LGU programs and aligned
6 
with national standards and DEPDev guidelines.
7 
Rules and regulations for the implementation of the RB-MEUP at the local level
8 
shall be issued by the Council in coordination with the DILG.
9 
Sec. 20. Public Participation and Stakeholder Engagement —The RB-MEUP shall
10 
promote transparency and inclusivity by:
11 
(a) Institutionalizing mechanisms for citizen feedback, stakeholder
12 
consultations, 
and participatory evaluation 
in 
relevant government
13 
interventions;
14 
(b) Ensuring that marginalized groups, civil society organizations, and sectoral
15 
representatives have access to evaluation findings and may contribute
16 
inputs; and
17 
(c) Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms for complaints or feedback
18 
on project implementation or evaluation processes;
19 
Encouraging the participation of civil society organizations, non-governmental
20 
organizations, and academic institutions in the design, conduct, and validation of
21 
monitoring and evaluation activities, subject to guidelines that ensure transparency,
22 
accountability, and methodological integrity.
23 
Sec. 21. Enforcement Sanctions, and Incentives. —To ensure effective
24 
implementation:
25 
(a) Heads of agencies shall be held accountable for inaction or failure to comply
26 
with the provisions of this Act, including undue delays, failure to establish
27 
IMEDs, or neglect or deliberate inaction in formally responding to certified
28 
M&E findings and recommendations;
29 
(b)The Council may recommend administrative sanctions in accordance with
30 
civil service laws or existing governance frameworks;
24


1 
(c) Agencies with exemplary compliance and innovation in M&E may be eligible
2 
for performance-based incentives or commendations to be developed jointly
3 
by DEPDev and DBM.
4 
Sec. 22. Rote of the Commission on Audit (COA) - As part of its regular audit
5 
processes, the COA shall assess the extent to which government agencies utilize M&E
6 
findings and recommendations certified under this Act. Specifically, COA shall:
7 
(a) Examine and report on how agencies respond to M&E recommendations—
8 
whether fully accepted, partially accepted with justification, or formally
9 
rejected with explanation—and evaluate the extent of integration into
10 
planning, budgeting, and implementation;
11 
(b) Incorporate results-based approaches in performance and compliance
12 
audits to assess efficiency, effectiveness, and value-for-money in the
13 
adoption or non-adoption of evaluation findings;
14 
(c) Share audit-based insights to support improved evidence use across
15 
agencies, without prejudice to its constitutional independence and audit
16 
discretion; and
17 
(d) Coordinate with DEPDev and the Council, where appropriate, to align
18 
performance audit frameworks with national M&E systems, provided such
19 
coordination does not impair the Commission's autonomy.
20 
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or interfere with the constitutional
21 
mandate and authority of the Commission on Audit under Article IX-D of the 1987
22 
Constitution.
23 
Sec. 23. Publication of Government Evaluation Studies. —All evaluation reports,
24 
studies, and knowledge products that have been reviewed by the Secretariat and
25 
approved by the Council shall be published through a centralized online portal
26 
administered by the DEPDev. This portal shall be accessible to the public, subject to
27 
applicable laws on confidentiality and data protection.
28 
Sec. 24. Appropriations. —To ensure the honest and effective implementation of
29 
the RB-MEUP, and subject to the phased implementation of this Act, all departments,
30 
agencies, and instrumentalities of the Executive branch, the Legislative and Judicial
25


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
branches, the Constitutional Commissions, and local government units shall allocate no 
less than three percent (3%) of their annual budgets specifically for monitoring, 
evaluation, and utilization activities. This allocation shall be treated as a distinct budget 
line and shall be used exclusively for the following purposes:
(a) Evaluation Capacity Development - Including training programs, technical 
workshops, certification courses, and peer learning to build internal capacity 
across all levels of the agency;
(b) Personnel and Staffing - Covering the recruitment, compensation, and 
continuous upskilling of qualified personnel dedicated to monitoring, 
evaluation, and results utilization functions;
(c) Monitoring Operations - Supporting the conduct of regular and special 
monitoring activities such as field and site visits, data collection, data 
validation, interviews, means of verification, client satisfaction checks, 
citizen scorecards, and other participatory monitoring tools;
(d) Evaluation Toots and Methodologies- Including design and implementation 
of surveys, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, impact 
assessments, process evaluations, and outcome tracking;
(e) System Development and Maintenance - Covering the operation and 
enhancement of M&E information systems, databases, knowledge 
repositories, dashboards, and digital platforms for performance tracking 
and reporting;
(f) Engagement of External Experts - Payment of professional fees and 
procurement of services for independent evaluations, technical audits, or 
third-party assessments to ensure objectivity and methodological rigor;
(g) Special Evaluation Projects - Funding of high-priority or cross-cutting 
evaluation initiatives identified by the agency or the Council, including 
experimental studies, evaluation research, or collaborative efforts with 
academic and research institutions; and
26


1 
(h) Other monitoring, evaluation, or utilization expenditures justified by the
2 
agency and approved by the Council, consistent with the purposes of this
3 
Act.
4 
An initial amount of Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be appropriated to
5 
the DEPDev to support the establishment and operations of the Secretariat, the
6 
formulation of the NMEUS, technical capacity-building, systems development, and other
7 
foundational activities under this Act.
8 
The DBM shall issue the necessary guidelines to ensure compliance with this
9 
provision and monitor the appropriate use of allocated funds, provided, that the DBM
10 
may approve a lower allocation for agencies or LGUs with limited fiscal capacity, upon
11 
justified request.
12 
Sec. 25. Separability Clause. — If any provision of this Act is declared
13 
unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full
14 
force and effect.
15 
Sec. 26. Repeating Clause. — All laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, and
16 
other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, amended,
17 
or modified accordingly.
18 
Sec. 27. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
19 
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation.
Approved,
27