SliVENTEENTH CONGRESS OE H IE  
)
REPUBLIC OE THE PHILIPPINES 
)
Third R egular Session 
)
SENATE
S. B. No. 2225
of IDf
'19 MAY 20 P4 59
R E C E i.'^ s :
Introduced By Senator Ana Theresia “Risa” Honliveros Baruquel
AN ACT' ESTABLISHING A NA ITONAL EVALUATION POLICY
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Medium-term planning is part of the government tradition in the Philippines. At 
the start of each administtation, the government draws up a six-year development plan 
that outlines its goals and objectives for the plan period, along with the strategies, 
policies, programs and projects required to meet them.
Indeed, sound policies and programs are major determinants of development. 
Thus, it is imperative to know if the policies and programs of the country are 
appropriate, being implemented correctly, and are achieving their objectives. Likewise, 
it is important to know if there are better policies or programs that can meet national 
goals more effectively, efficiently, equitably, and sustainably.
A policy or program pro\ en useful in the past may not be as effective and relevant 
under present circumstances. In the same manner, policies and programs that have 
worked well in some countries may not succeed in others. Context is important to the 
soundness of a policy or program. Thus, systematic and context-specific evaluation of 
policies and programs is important.
Evaluation of planned, ongoing, or completed policies and programs provides the 
evidence to ascertain their rele\ ance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability 
(Valdez and Bamberger, 19941)- It can also yield important lessons for improving policy 
and program formulation and implementation. Moreoxer, evaluation can contribute to 
good governance by promoting transparency and accountability.
Unfortunately, evaluation has not been widely and systematically integrated in 
the processes and systems of government. Evaluation has been conducted on only a few 
and selected programs and projects, largely on the initiative of international 
development agencies. In 2015, the National Economic and Development Authority and 
the Department of Budget and Management issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 
2015-01 establishing an evaluation policy framework to govern the practice of
1 Valdez, Joseph, and M ichael Bam berger. 1994. M o n ito rin g  and Evaluating Social Programs in D eveloping 
Countries. W ashington D.C.; Economic D evelopm ent Institute, W orld Bank


evaluation ot programs and projects receiving budgetary support from the government. 
However, the Circular applies only to the agencies of the Executive Branch. And like 
other Executive Circulars, its implementation is subject to uncertainU' especially when 
there is a change in government administration.
Recognizing the importance of evaluation, some countries have statutes 
institutionalizing \'ariants of a National Evaluation Policy (NEP) that applies to all 
branches and le\ els of go\ ernment, while many other countries are in the process of 
establishing their own NEP (Rosenstein, 2015^). A National Evaluation Policy defining 
the purpose, responsibilities, functions and organization of the public-sector evaluation 
function in a particular country can facilitate the development of an enabling 
environment and the institutional and individual capacities for evaluation to reach its 
full potential.
This Bill proposes the passage of a law mandating the establishment of a National 
Evaluation Policy to strengthen the legal and institutional framework for the regular 
conduct of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the results of public policies, programs, 
projects and other forms ot go\’ernment inter\ention intended to promote sustainable 
development and uplift the living standards of all Filipinos, especially the poor and the 
mar ginalized. As pointed out by a Hon. Mayantha Dissanayaka, a Member of Parliament 
of Sri Lanka, in the Global Parliamentarians for Evaluation Conference held in Colombo 
on 17-19 September 2018, “the National Evaluation Policy (NEP) can be ignored by 
future Governments and Parliaments if it is not passed as an Act by Parliament.” Thus, 
the approval of this bill is earnestly sought.
ANA.T H E R E SIA  RISA’ H O I^IV E R O S - BARAQUEL
1 Rosenstein, B. (2015). Status of National Evaluation Policies. Global Mapping Re|X)it. 2nd Edition, Implemented 
by Parliamentarians Forum on Development Evaluation in South Asia jointly with EvalPartners.


SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBUC OE THE PHILIPPINES 
)
Third R eyidar Session 
)
SENATE
2225
HECfe
S. B. No.
tbf «»^'crft«rp
19 
MY 20 P4 59 
-sv .^.1-------
V
Introduced By Senator Ana Theresia “Risa” Hontiveros Baraquel
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
AN ACr ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Statement of Policy.- To improve the national government’s 
performance and to enhance the quality of public serxices, this National Evaluation 
Policy (NEP) is enacted to strengthen the legal and institutional framework for the 
regular conduct of monitoring and ex aluation (M&E) of the results of public policies, 
programs, and projects.
SECTION 2. Policy Objectives.- The NEP intends to achieve the following 
objectixes:
(a) Facilitate the dex elopment and strengthening of an integrated M&E system of 
the national goxernment to ensure the regular measurement, reporting and 
improx ement of the performance of its agencies, policies, programs, projects 
and services;
(b) 
Ensure the timely provision to national government policymakers and 
managers of relevant, updated, valid and reliable knowledge about the 
outputs, outcomes, impacts, and other results of public policies, programs, 
projects and services;
(c) Ensure the intensive utilization of M&E findings and recommendations in the 
planning, programming, formulation, budgeting and implementation of 
public policies, programs, projects and serv ices;
(d) Ensure the continuous improvement of public policies, programs, projects 
and serx'ices to produce outputs, outcomes and impacts that substantially 
contribute to the achievement of national development goals and priorities;
(e) Ensure the accountability of the national government and its agencies and 
x^arious public serxice proxiders to produce planned, expected or promised 
results.


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
45
46
47
48
49
SECTION 3. Definitions.—The key terms used in this law are defined as follows:
(a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial process of assessing the 
results of public policies, programs, projects, and serv ices implemented or carried out 
by the national government and/or its agencies or instrumentalities. It analyzes the level 
of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the expected and 
actual outputs, outcomes and impacts of public policies, programs, projects and 
services. It generates credible and useful evidence-based information to substantially 
enable the results-oriented planning, programming, budgeting, formulation and 
reformulation and implementation of public policies, programs, projects and services.
(b) Monitoring refers to the systematic and continuous collection of data on 
agreed indicators to track the short-term and medium-term progress and results of 
public policies, programs, projects or services being implemented vis-a-vis planned 
targets and objectives. It generates knowledge to guide government policy/decision 
makers and managers of the necessar>' corrective actions to ensure that policies, 
programs, projects or services being implemented produce their intended results. While 
different from evaluation, monitoring is a crucial pre-requisite for effectiv^e evaluations 
of policies, programs, projects and serv ices.
(c) Results comprise the outputs, outcomes and impacts of policies, programs, 
projects or services being implemented.
c.i Outputs are specific goods and services produced by budgeted and 
implemented public policies, programs, projects, serv ices and other intenentions.
C.2 Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in the behavior of 
target individuals, groups, or organizations and/or improvements in the quality of 
processes and senices as an immediate effect of specific interventions. Outcome 
evaluations generate knowledge on the effectiveness of policies, programs, projects and 
sen ices in meeting their intended objectives.
C.3 Impacts are the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level societal 
changes, both intended and unintended, that take place long after target individuals, 
groups, s}’stems or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes of specific 
intei’ventions. Impact evaluations
SECTION 4. Coverage.-The NEP shall apply to the following:
(a) All 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;
(b) All public policies, programs, projects, services and other activities 
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;


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
45
46
47
48
49
50
The National Evaluation Council (NEC) created under Section 14 hereof may 
include other entities and acti\ ities imbued with public interest in the coverage of the 
NEP.
SECTION 5. Evaluation Pi-inciples. Evaluations of public policies, programs, 
projects and serv ices shall be guided by the following key principles:
(a) Key criteria. Evaluations shall address, at a minimum, questions pertaining to 
the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of public policies, 
programs, projects and services;
(b) Performance improvement. Evaluations shall be designed, implemented and 
used to ensure the continuous improvement of the planning, programming, budgeting, 
formulation and reformulation and implementation of the national government’s public 
policies, programs, projects and services.
(c) Value for money. Evaluations should seek to determine whether the outputs, 
outcomes and impacts of the national government’s public policies, programs, projects 
and services are commensurate to their invested financial, physical and human 
resources.
(d) Minimum competencies of evaluators. Evaluators shall have the required 
minimum competencies to effectively evaluate public policies, programs, projects and 
services;
(e) Ethics. Those who commission, design, conduct, manage, and use evaluations 
shall observe standards of ethics in evaluations. Impartiality in the planning and 
conduct of evaluations shall be alwavs ensured.
(f) Best practices. The conduct of evaluations shall be in accordance with 
internationally recognized best practices and standards. Clear standards shall govern 
the design, implementation, reporting, dissemination and use of evaluations of public 
policies, programs, projects and senices. Partnerships with various stakeholders shall 
be encouraged in the prioritization, design, implementation and use of evaluations.
SECTION 6. Evaluation Criteria. At the minimum, evaluations of national 
government policies, programs, projects and services shall measure and report on their 
efficiency, effectiv^eness, relev^ance, impact and sustainability.
(a) Efficiency measures the cost and time by which the intended outputs and 
short-term and medium-term outcomes and long-term impacts of public policies, 
programs, projects and services were delivered/produced by national government 
agencies and instrumentalities including their networks of private and civil society 
serv ice providers. Efficiency evaluations shall help government policy/decision makers 
to ascertain whether the intended objectives were achieved on time and at planned cost 
and to identify better and efficient ways of meeting the objectives of policies, programs, 
projects and policies.
(b) Effectiveness measures the quality and timeliness of the intended and 
unintended outputs and the short-term and medium-term outcomes and long-term


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
45
46
47
48
49
impacts of public policies, programs, projects and services. Effectiveness evaluations 
shall measure the extent to which valued development and societal impacts can be 
attributed clearly to the public policies, programs, projects and senices being 
implemented by the covered entities;
(c) Relevance measures the alignment and consistency of the results of public 
policies, programs, projects and sen ices with national development goals and priorities 
and their responsiveness to stakeholder needs;
(d) Impact measures the fundamental, broad and higher-level societal effects of 
public policies, programs, projects, ser\ices and other national government 
interventions;
(e) Sustainahility measures the extent to which the benefits of policies, 
programs, projects and senices continue after funding ceased. Sustainability 
evaluations shall help goxernment policy/decision makers to identify the major factors 
that influenced the achie\ ement or non-achievement of the sustainability objectives of 
public policies, programs, projects and sendees.
The NEC shall adopt additional monitoring and evaluation criteria including but 
not limited to de\elopment equity and inclusiveness for various stakeholders, 
responsiveness to gender-equality goals, and achievement of national development and 
sustainable development goals.
SECTION j.—Evaluation Competencies. Organizations and individuals engaged 
in designing, conducting and managing evaluations of public policies, programs, 
projects and semces shall have the following minimum competencies:
(a) Technical foundation: 
Understands and makes appropriate use of
methodological concepts and practices in line with accepted professional evaluation 
standards; gathers relevant evidence for evaluation purposes from appropriate sources, 
assessing its quality and identifying gaps; analyzes and interprets data fairly, 
comprehensively and objectively in order to effectiv'elv address ev aluation questions.
(b) Leading, managing, and delivering evaluations: Manages evaluation 
resources and relationships with stakeholders to deliv er high qualify' evaluations on time 
and to Philippine government standards.
(c) Communicating and sharing evaluation findings: Communicates effectively 
orally and in w riting in the context of all evaluation activ ities; clearly reports evaluation 
methods, findings, conclusions and recommendations; promotes awareness and use of 
evaluations through effective dissemination and advice.
(d) Integrity: Demonstrates honesty and respect in dealing w ith project/program 
personnel, other interested personnel of the national government, and all other 
evaluation stakeholders.
SECTION 8.—Evaluation Ethics. 
Evaluators or organizations and persons 
engaged in designing, conducting and managing evaluation activities shall abide by the


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
45
46
47
48
49
50
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act 
No. 6713). They shall:
(a) Respect the right of entities and individuals to provide information in 
confidence;
(b) Ensure that sensitive data used in evaluations cannot be traced to its source;
(c) Give opportunity to all stakeholders involved in evaluations to review and 
approve the statements attributed to them;
(d) Be sensitive to the cultural, social and economic environment of all 
stakeholders, and conduct themselves in a manner that is fair and appropriate to this 
environment;
(e) Be accountable for their performance and their products.
SECTION g.—Impartiality. The evaluation units (created under Section 18 
hereoO of entities and interx^entions covered by the NEP shall ensure that evaluations 
are conducted with the highest possible degree of impartiality in order to maximize 
objectivity and minimize the potential for bias. Where appropriate, they shall 
commission independent third-paity’ evaluators to undertake portions of, or the entire, 
evaluations. Managers and other stakeholders of public policies, programs, projects and 
serv ices being evaluated shall not be allowed to influence evaluation findings.
SECTION 10.—Evaluation Capacity Building. The NEC shall lead the 
formulation and implementation of a comprehensive program to develop the 
monitoring and ev aluation capacity of the national government especially for those who 
design, conduct, manage and use evaluations of public policies, programs, projects and 
senices. All entities by this policy shall design and implement their respective 
evaluation-capacity building initiatives in line with this program and customized for 
their respective organizational context, roles, and needs.
The national government, through the NEC, shall encourage and support the 
formation and strengthening of national, regional and local professional evaluation 
associations and network. The NEC shall also develop partnerships with state and 
private universities and colleges in the development and conduct of comprehensive 
evaluation courses.
SECTION 11.—Evaluation Scale. To meet the information needs of government 
policy/decision makers and other stakeholders, different types of ev’aluations (i.e., 
diagnostic, formative and summative evaluations) of public policies, programs, policies 
and services shall be conducted. To guide the design of public policies, programs, 
projects or services prior to implementation, diagnostic evaluations shall be required as 
needed. To ensure that their intended outcomes are achieved, formative evaluations 
shall be conducted at the mid-point of period of implementation of public policies, 
programs, projects and services. Summative impact evaluations shall also be conducted 
six years after or at the end of implementation of a major public policy, program, project 
or service.


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
45
46
47
48
49
The scale of each diagnostic, formative and summative evaluations should be 
large enough to pro\ ide timely answers to critical evaluation questions with an adequate 
le\el of certainty, but no costlier than necessary. The following factors shall be 
considered in defining the scale of eveiy evaluation;
(a) level oj ambiguity of outcomes especially for new interventions;
(b) potential consequences especially of policies, programs and projects whose 
failure can lead to severe negative consequences;
(c) information needs of government policy/decision makers for policies, 
programs and projects whose funding and renewal are at stake or those with a high 
public profile;
(d) magnitude of the policy, program and project intervention;
(e) complexity of policy, program, project or service in terms of number and 
variation of activities, size of target populations, regional reach; and anticipated 
difficulU' associated with acquiring relevant data;
(f) uniqueness of the intervention with respect to outputs and outcomes/impacts;
SECTION 12—. Evaluation Design and Execution. Within the defined evaluation 
scale, evaluations shall use research methodologies in line with accepted professional 
evaluation practice including but not limited to the following:
(a) logic models/change theories that depict key policy/program/project/service 
elements (i.e., inputs, activities, intended outputs, short-term outcomes, medium-term 
outcomes, long-term impacts, related higher-level and national priorities) and the 
hy pothesized causal links among the elements. Such logic models/change theories shall 
guide the development of questions to be answ ered by evaluations.
(b) baseline data and/or ongoing project/program performance data collected to 
support the evaluation;
(c) research designs that can significantly establish the extent to which outcomes 
and impact can be attributed to the policies, programs, projects and services being 
evaluated. Research designs shall include a mix of quantitative and qualitative research 
perspectives and methods- e.g., random sun^eys, interviews and focus groups with a 
diversity' of audiences including project/program participants and stakeholders; 
literature/document reviews, and administrative data analyses;
(d) scientific and rigorous sampling strategies that provide accurate 
representation of the populations of interest;
(e) valid and reliable research instniments;
(f) comprehensive and accurate quantitative and qualitative data analysis 
strategies that take into account the context of policies, programs and projects being


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
45
46
47
48
49
evaluated and that can generate valid, reliable and defensible findings for each 
e\ ablation question.
(g) conclusions draw T i from a synthesis of findings;
(h) recommendations based on the findings and conclusions;
(i) evaluation reports and related presentations that are concisely and clearly 
written and communicated. E\ aluation reports and presentations shall ensure that all 
audiences including decision-makers (i.e., project/program managers to senior officials 
and legislators) can readily grasp key messages and make informed decisions about the 
policies, programs, projects, and services being evaluated.
The NEC and the entities covered by the NEP shall establish evaluation review 
panels, advisory committees and other mechanisms to assure the high quality of 
evaluations.
SECTION 13. Reporting and dissemination of evaluations. All final evaluation 
reports shall contain the following essential contents;
(a) adequate description of the policy, program, project or seivice being 
evaluated;
(b) adequate background and context including the purpose of the evaluation 
and the evaluation issues and questions;
(c) description of the actual evaluation methodology including limitations and 
the approaches adopted to mitigate limitations;
(d) clearly stated evaluation findings with the description of the evidence on 
which each finding is based;
(e) recommendations developed by the evaluator based on the findings;
(f) response from the head(s) of the covered entities, describing actions that will 
be taken in addressing each recommendation;
(g) the identities of the principal members of the evaluation team and the 
evaluation steering committees or advisory bodies tasked with oversight and assuring 
the quality of evaluations;
The NEC shall issue additional directives as necessary.
SECTION 14.—Creation of the National Evaluation Council. 
A National 
Evaluation Council is hereby established to act as the lead agency for implementing the 
NEP. Its membership shall ensure adequate representation of the executive, legislative 
and judicial branches of the national government. It shall also ensure that sufficient 
participation of experts from the academe and private sector and civil society 
stakeholders are taken into consideration in decisions of the NEC. Its organizational and


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
45
46
47
48
49
50
staffing pattern shall be in accordance with existing government policies, rules and 
regulations.
SECTION 15. Composition of the National Evaluation Council. The NEC shall 
have eight (8) \ oting members:
(1) A career Undersecretary of the National Economic and Development 
Authority (NEDA) in charge of monitoring and evaluation; to be appointed by the NEDA 
Secretaiy as his/her official representative to the NEC;
(2) A career Undersecretary 
of the Department of Budget and Management 
(DBM) in charge of government performance reporting, monitoring and evaluation 
and/or improvement as Co-Chairperson, to be appointed by the DBM Secretary as 
his/her official representative;
(3) The head of the Presidential Management Staff or his or her officially 
appointed representative
(4) A career Deputy Secretary General/Director General in charge of policy 
planning, research and/or evaluation in the House of Representati\ es, to be appointed 
by the House Speaker as his/her official representative;
(5) A career Deputy Secretary General/Director General in charge of policy 
planning, research and/or exaluation in the Philippine Senate, to be appointed by the 
Senate President;
(6) A Deputy Court Administrator in charge of performance monitoring and 
evaluation of the judicial branch, to be appointed by the Court Administrator as his/her 
official representati\e;
(7) A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by the 
COA Chairperson as his/her official representative;
(8) The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) or his/her officially 
appointed representative;
SECTION lb.—Functions of the National Evaluation Council. The NEC shall 
perform the following functions to implement the NEP:
(a) 
formulate the basic guidelines for ensuring systematic and regular evaluations 
of national government policies, programs, projects and services. The guidelines shall 
cover the following matters:
a.i administrative policy on the conduct of evaluations; 
a.2 evaluation criteria and standards;
a.3. studying and acquiring information on the effects of government 
interventions;
a.4. conduct of diagnostic, formative and summative impact evaluations; 
a.5 acquisition of experts with know'ledge and experience in evaluation; 
a.6 utilization of evaluation findings in the planning, programming, budgeting.


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
45
46
47
48
49
50
formulation, reform, and implementation of go\'ernment inter\entions; 
a.7 publication of information related to evaluations;
a.8 other measures to ensure systematic and regular conduct of evaluations.
(b) 
sene as the national goxernment’s administrative policy center for M&E, 
providing guidelines for monitoring, measuring and reporting the performance of public 
policies, programs, projects and sen ices;
c) lead in the formulation, coordination and implementation of a comprehensive 
and continuous program to de\elop and strengthen the e\raluation capacities including 
the integrated M&E s\stem of the national government and its agencies and 
instrumentalities;
(d) 
provide 
overall 
policy 
direction, 
coordination, 
formulation 
and 
implementation of the evaluation agenda of the national government and its 
agencies/instrumentalities;
(e) monitor progress of M&E development and strengthening of the national 
government and its agencies/instrumentalities;
(f) lead the development of a comprehensive program to improve the national 
government’s performance;
(g) lead and coordinate the preparation of the annual national performance
report;
(h) facilitate or manage national or sectoral evaluations and special evaluation 
studies, on top of those conducted by implementing agencies;
(i) work with the private sector and civil society to promote feedback mechanisms
as 
input 
to 
M&E 
of 
the 
national 
government 
and 
all 
its
agencies/instrumentalities;
(j) facilitate the development of national and regional M&E professional
associations;
(k) disseminate the results of evaluations to government policy/decision makers 
and managers of programs, projects and sen ices of the agencies in the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches of the national government.
The NEC shall meet e\ ery quarter or as often as necessary. It may authorize the 
creation of technical committees, ad\ isoiy bodies, and other mechanisms to ensure 
high-quality e\aluations.
SECTION 17. Creation of the NEC Secretariat and its Functions. In the interim, 
the Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the NEDA shall ser\e as the NEC Secretariat. 
Within six months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat attached to the 
NEDA 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


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
45
46
47
48
49
50
government organization and staffing, serv ices and divisions as needed to effectively 
support the NEC’s functions and responsibilities shall be created. The NEC Secretariat 
shall be an attached agency of the NEDA. The NEC Secretariat shall have the following 
responsibilities:
(a) recommend for the NEC’s approv al, evaluation policies, principles, standards, 
criteria, strategies and guidelines for the effective implementation of the NEP;
(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) sene as a repositoiy of all evaluation plans and reports of the national 
government and its agencies/instrumentalities;
(e) upload in its website within 15 days from completion of all final evaluation 
reports for public policies, programs, projects and sen ices 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) prov ide hard and soft copies of final evaluation reports to the following 
stakeholders of the Philippine Congress: the House Speaker; the Senate President; the 
concerned chairpersons and committee secretaries of congressional committees with 
jurisdictions over public policies, programs, projects and services being evaluated; and 
the support offices of the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate 
performing budget and policy research and technical assistance to the members of 
Congress;
(h) disseminate evaluation plans and completed evaluation reports of the 
national government and its agencies and instrumentalities;
(i) conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners from the 
government, private and civil society sectors;
(j) conduct/manage evaluations as authorized by the NEC;
(k) provide Secretariat support to the NEC;
(l) recommend sanctions and incentives;
(m) prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations for the NEC’s 
appropriate action.
SECTION 18.—Evaluation Agenda. The agencies and instrumentalities of the 
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the national government shall identify'
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
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
public policy, program, projects and sen ice evaluations for inclusion in the six-year 
rolling National E\aluation Agenda (NEA). The NEC, with the assistance of its 
Secretariat, shall lead the coordination in preparing and finalizing the NEA. It shall 
adopt guidelines and criteria for selecting policies, programs, projects and services for 
evaluations. Such criteria shall include but not limited to the following
(a) high-risk innovative policies, programs, projects, semces;
(b) any public policy, program, project or service set up as a pilot or
demonstration;
(c) large scale or high-profile policies/programs
All agencies and instrumentalities of the national government from the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated 
six-year ev^aluation agenda, to coincide with the timeframe of the preparation of the 
Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and Public Investment Program (PIP). The 
evaluation agenda of the national government agencies and instrumentalities shall 
specify public policies, programs, projects and sen ices to be subjected to diagnostic, 
formativ’e and summative ev aluations 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-prioritvT evaluations for integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.
SECTION ig.—Creation of Neutral Evaluation Units of Covered Entities. The 
head of anv national government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish 
capable and neutral evaluation unit initialfy- at the central level subject to existing 
policies, rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing pattern 
changes. The head of the ev aluation unit reports directlv to the head of the department, 
agency or instrumentalify'.
To support the work of the neutral evaluation unit, the head of the national 
government department, agency or instrumentalify' shall establish a senior-level M&E 
advisoiy committee for support and oversight of M&E initiatives of the entity covered by 
the NEP.
SECTION 20. Functions of the Neutral Evaluation Units. The evaluation unit of 
national government departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall:
(a) formulate and submit the agency’s six-year rolling evaluation agenda to the 
head of the agency, copy furnished the NEC Secretariat;
(b) lead the implementation of the evaluation agenda of the department, agency 
or instrumentality;
(c ) plan, conduct and manage evaluations of policies, programs, projects and 
services within the mandated functions and responsibilities of the department, agency 
or instrumentalify';
(d) ensure that evaluations are undertaken with due regard for impartiality and 
in line with evaluation best practices;
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
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
(e) manage the agency’s evaluation budget and related activities;
(f) submit to the agency head evaluation findings and recommendations, copy 
furnished the NEC and its Secretariat;
(g) sen e as repository of all evaluation studies conducted/commissioned by the 
department, agency or instrumentality;
(h) upload in its website within 15 days from completion of completed evaluation 
plans and final evaluation reports;
(i) submit evaluation plans and final ex aluation reports to the NEC Secretariat in 
accordance with prescribed guidelines;
(j) develop and strengthen the M&E system of the department, agency or 
instrumentality;
(k) prepare annual reports on the performance of policies, programs, projects 
and ser\rices implemented by the department, agency or instrumentality, and 
disseminate the same to the head of the department, agency or instrumentality; the 
relevant committees and support offices of the House of Representati\es and the 
Philippine Senate; and the NEC and its Secretariat.
(l) prox ide input to budget and policy discussions.
The NEC shall issue guidelines governing the formation and operation of neutral 
evaluation units of entities cox ered by this policy.
SECTION -ii.—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 and recommendations of 
completed ex aluations, to the NEC and its Secretariat, the Speaker of the House and the 
Senate President and to the relevant committee chairpersons and support offices of the 
two branches of Congress.
The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive, 
legislative and judicial branches of the national government shall ensure that M&E data, 
findings and recommendations are used to guide and improve the planning, 
programming, budgeting, formulation, implementation and ox^ersight of public policies, 
programs, projects and serxices.
The NEC and its Secretariat and the evaluation units and M&E advisory 
committees of the entities cox-ered by this policy shall monitor the actions of the 
national government and its agencies and instrumentalities, on evaluation findings and 
recommendations.
SECTION 22.—Project/Program Proposals. All policies, programs, projects or 
serxices put forwrard for annual budgeting shall include an evaluation plan in accordance 
xxith the best practices. The policies, programs, projects or senices for funding shall
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
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
consider the lesults of their completed evaluations and make reference to relevant 
evaluation findings, recommendations, and resulting changes to the proposed policies, 
programs or projects. In cases where evaluations recommendations were not followed, 
the proposal tor funding shall include an explanation.
SECTION 2S.-Mcimstreaminy of the NEP. The national government and its 
agencies and instrumentalities in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the 
national government shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their annual budgets 
for implementation of the NEP. Such funds shall be used for:
(a) evaluation capacit>' 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 professional seiwice fees.
SECTION 
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. I he IRR shall provide for the conduct of formative and 
summative evaluations of the NEP two and five years, respectively, after its initial 
implementation.
SECTION 25.—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 NEP, and private sector and civil society organizations including 
international donor agencies shall guide amendments of the NEP including the basic 
guidelines for NEP’s implementation formulated by the NEC
SECTION 26.—Repealing Clause.—A\\ policies and issuances or parts thereof 
inconsistent with the NEP are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
SECTION 27.—Effectiuity.__This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in a national newspaper of general circulation.
Approved,
13