Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 
Third Regular Session 
House Bill No. ____ 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
Introduced by Representative Sharon S. Garin 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Sound public policies and programs are major determinants of development. Thus, it is 
imperative to know through regular and systematic evaluations whether our government agencies 
are doing the right programs and projects, implementing them correctly, efficiently and effectively; 
and achieving the results that matter in many government interventions—the improvement of our 
people’s lives.  
Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial reviews of the results of government 
policies and programs. It focuses on analyzing the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and impact 
of public policies and programs. It can generate credible and valuable information for results-
oriented planning, programming, budgeting, formulation and reformulation and implementation of 
various public policies, programs and projects. Evaluation can also contribute to good governance 
by promoting transparency and accountability for results among those who have been given the 
authority and funds to implement our public policies, programs and projects.    
However, despite its huge potential as a tool for development, evaluation has not been 
widely and systematically integrated in our government’s processes and systems. Evaluation has 
been conducted on only a few and selected programs and projects. While the Executive Branch 
through Joint Circular No. 2015-01 of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) 
and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) has established an evaluation policy 
framework for programs and projects receiving budgetary support from the government, the 
Circular only applies to the agencies of the Executive Branch. Moreover, as an Executive Circular, 
its implementation is subject to uncertainty when there is a change in government administration. 
Some countries have recognized the importance of evaluation by institutionalizing 
versions of National Evaluation Policy that apply to all branches and levels of government. Many 
other countries are in the process of establishing their own NEP (Rosenstein, 2015). A sound 
NEP that defines the purposes, responsibilities, functions and organizations of the public-sector 
September 10, 2021
9:37 am
10181


evaluation function in the country can ensure that there is sufficient supply and demand for 
credible evaluations in national development planning, programming, budgeting, and 
implementation.  
This bill proposes the passage of a law establishing a National Evaluation for Results 
Policy (NERP) that will ensure that regular measurement, reporting, and utilization of the results 
of our public policies, programs, and projects. Its focus is to strengthen accountability for results 
of national government agencies and to ensure the credible evaluations are regularly produced 
and used to serve as guide in continuously improving the planning, formulation, budgeting and 
implementation of government interventions intended to promote sustainable development and 
improve the living standards of all Filipinos especially the poor and the marginalized.  
Approval of this bill is earnestly sought. 
SHARON S. GARIN 
Party-list, AAMBIS-OWA 


Republic of the Philippines 
House of Representatives 
Quezon City 
EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS 
Third Regular Session 
House Bill No. ___________ 
Introduced by Representative Sharon S. Garin 
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL EVALUATION FOR RESULTS POLICY (NERP) 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled: 
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “National Evaluation for Results 
1 
Policy (NERP) Act.”  
2 
3 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to improve the overall effectiveness 
4 
of public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other interventions to strengthen good 
5 
governance, transparency and accountability and learning through the use of evaluation 
6 
findings and promote evidence-based decision making. The NERP aims to contribute to the 
7 
achievement of inclusive development and poverty reduction goals by institutionalizing the 
8 
legal framework for the regular conduct of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for results of 
9 
proposed, ongoing and completed development interventions.  
10 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. – The NERP intends to achieve the following specific objectives: 
11 
12 
a.) Support for evidence-based decisions to ensure the timely provision by concerned 
13 
instrumentality to government policymakers, managers and other stakeholders of 
14 
transparent, impartial, independent and useful evidence- based information and 
15 
knowledge to strengthen the policymaking and decision- making processes;   
16 
17 
b.) Promotion of learning and program improvement.  Ensure the utilization, dissemination 
18 
and feedback of evaluation findings, and learnings for the continuous improvement of the 
19 
design, planning, programming, budgeting and implementation of public policies, 
20 
strategies, programs, projects, and other interventions;  
21 
22 
c.) Transparency and Accountability. Ensure the accountability to various stakeholders and 
23 
taxpayers by government departments, agencies and various instrumentalities for public 
24 
expenditures and the delivery of development results or intended benefits.  
25 
26 
10181


Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. – The terms used in this Act are defined as follows: 
1 
2 
a)
Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment or review of a completed
3 
or ongoing development intervention, i.e. policy, strategy, program or project, its design,
4 
implementation and results. It aims to determine the relevance and fulfillment of
5 
objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. An evaluation
6 
should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of
7 
lessons learned into the decision– making process. Evaluation should not be confused
8 
with implementation monitoring and reporting, audit, inspection, investigation or
9 
assessment of individual performance. Evaluation and monitoring are two separate
10 
functions that fulfill different purposes and cannot be treated almost as if they were
11 
synonyms;
12 
13 
b)
Monitoring refers to the systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide
14 
internal management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development intervention
15 
such as a project or program with indications of the progress made in implementing
16 
activities towards intended results. The main purpose of monitoring is to enable project
17 
management to keep track of what is happening and to check that progress is being made
18 
towards the achievement of objectives. More effective monitoring could prevent projects
19 
and programs from failing. Systematic monitoring, based on a monitoring framework, is
20 
of great importance for evaluations, as it provides a significant part of the data on which
21 
evaluation is based. Monitoring should be linked directly to project management on a
22 
regular basis as the function provides key information useful for management;
23 
24 
c)
Results refer to changes in a state or condition that derive from a cause-and-effect
25 
relationship. There are three types of such changes—outputs, outcomes and impacts—
26 
that can be set in motion by a development intervention. The changes can be intended or
27 
unintended, positive and/or negative.
28 
29 
d)
Outputs refer to the specific goods and services produced by budgeted and implemented
30 
policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other interventions. Outputs are the results
31 
of the completion of implementing activities. Refer specifically to Major Final Outputs
32 
(MFO) defined as goods or services that a department, agency or government
33 
instrumentality is mandated to deliver to external clients through the implementation of
34 
the National Expenditure Program (NEP) or approved government budget;
35 
36 
e)
Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in the behavior of target
37 
individuals, groups, or organizations and/or improvements in systems, the quality of
38 
processes and services as an immediate effect of specific interventions. Refer more
39 
specifically to Organizational Outcomes and Sector Outcomes. Organizational Outcomes
40 
are the short- to medium-term benefits to the clients and community as a result of
41 
delivering MFOs. Sector Outcomes are the longer-term benefits for the sector from
42 
initiatives of the department/agency or government instrumentality;
43 
44 
f)
Impacts refer to the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level societal changes (both
45 
intended and unintended, positive or negative) that take place long after target individuals,
46 


groups, systems or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes of specific 
1 
interventions. Refer more specifically to Societal Goals defined as the societal benefits 
2 
sought from sector-based economic activity or the intended desirable impacts of MFOs 
3 
on society;  
4 
5 
g)
PAPs refer to the acronym for Programs, Activities and Projects. It shall pertain to
6 
the list of priority programs and projects that contribute to the societal goals, sector
7 
outcomes, organizational outcomes and outputs spelled out in the Philippine
8 
Development 
Plan 
(PDP). 
Programs 
are 
special 
undertakings 
by 
a
9 
department/agency/instrumentality implemented within a definite period and intended to
10 
result in some pre- determined goods and services. Refer also to a group of similar
11 
projects. Projects are activities implemented within a specific period by a
12 
department/agency/instrumentality to achieve the purpose for which it is established or
13 
created or to deliver its MFOs;
14 
15 
h)
Results-Based Management System (RBMS) refers to a management strategy that
16 
focuses on performance and the achievement of results, i.e. outputs, outcomes, and
17 
impacts. Refers specifically to Results Based Performance Management (RBPMS) as
18 
established under AO No.5 series of 2011. RBPMS serves as the single performance
19 
management system for the whole of the Executive Branch in place of the multiple and
20 
disparate performance management systems that were currently being implemented. It
21 
consists of a set of comprehensive performance indicators that cut across societal and
22 
sectoral performance, down to organizational and individual performance. The logical
23 
framework, the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) and the
24 
Results Matrix (RM) are the underlying frameworks for the RBPMS, which will be used by
25 
all government agencies mandated to exercise broad oversight over the performance of
26 
all agencies in the government;
27 
28 
i)
Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a strategic
29 
budgeting management framework. An approach to expenditure management or
30 
budgeting that directs resources for major final outputs (MFOs) toward results and
31 
measures performance by key quality, quantity, timeliness, and cost indicators;
32 
33 
j)
Logical Framework (logframe) refers to a management tool used to improve the design
34 
and planning of development interventions, most often at the project level. It involves
35 
identifying strategic elements (inputs, outputs, outcomes or effects, and impact or goal)
36 
and their causal relationships (also called results chain), performance indicators,
37 
monitoring sources, and the assumptions or risks that may influence success and failure.
38 
The logframe thus facilitates planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of a
39 
development intervention. Results Chain: The causal sequence for a development
40 
intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to achieve desired objectives
41 
beginning with inputs, moving through activities and outputs, and culminating in
42 
outcomes, impacts, and feedback;
43 
44 
k)
Results Framework refers to a management tool that illustrates how the results
45 
statements at the PDP level (sector and sub-sector outcomes) will link to the OPIF
46 


logframes (outputs and organizational outcomes) at the organizational level. OPIF 
1 
Agency Logical Framework (OPIF logframe): a planning and budgeting tool used to 
2 
establish the link of MFOs that department/agency delivers or produces through the 
3 
implementation of PAPs to the sector outcomes and societal goals it seeks to influence. 
4 
As part of the results framework, it shows the focus of resource allocation, spending, 
5 
monitoring, reporting and evaluation of results based on a set of performance indicators; 
6 
and  
7 
8 
l)
Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES), as established through
9 
EO 376 (dated Nov. 1989, refers to a scheme for monitoring and evaluating projects at
10 
the national, regional, provincial/city and municipal levels, with the extensive and active
11 
participation of various government agencies, local government units (LGUs) and
12 
nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The RPMES primarily aims to facilitate project
13 
implementation, and devolve project facilitation, problem-solving, monitoring and
14 
evaluation to the regional, provincial/city and municipal levels.
15 
16 
Sec. 5. Coverage. — The NERP shall apply to the following: 
17 
18 
a)
departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCs), government-owned
19 
and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs), government financial institutions and other
20 
instrumentalities of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the National
21 
Government; and
22 
23 
b)
all public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other development interventions
24 
formulated and implemented by the above entities and funded by local and foreign funds
25 
including those contracted to and executed, produced and delivered by private sector and
26 
civil society organizations.
27 
28 
Sec. 6. Evaluation Principles.  The credibility, quality and usefulness of evaluations will be 
29 
ensured through adherence to the following core principles:  
30 
31 
a)
Adherence to international good practice and evaluation standards. The national
32 
evaluation policy will be consistent with internationally accepted evaluation norms,
33 
standards and good practices in the context of RBM approaches.
34 
35 
b)
Evaluation ethics.  Ethical standards will apply to the managers of evaluations and
36 
individual evaluators. Organizations and persons engaged in evaluation activities shall
37 
abide by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
38 
(Republic Act 2 No. 6713).
39 
40 
c)
Independence of evaluation process.  There will be separation of evaluation management
41 
and implementation responsibility from line management functions for policies, strategies,
42 
programs and projects. Evaluators will be selected from a wide and diversified pool
43 
according to agreed criteria. Evaluation reports will provide critical assessment and an
44 
independent perspective, be informative, and recommend actionable follow-up.
45 
46 


d)
Ensuring professionalism in the conduct and management of evaluation.  Evaluations will
1 
be undertaken by qualified technical experts and evaluators with the needed knowledge,
2 
skills and abilities in evaluation as well as expertise and relevant experience on the
3 
subject area they are evaluating. Evaluators will adhere to the highest technical
4 
standards, and respond to all criteria of professionalism, including the responsible
5 
handling of confidential information.
6 
7 
e)
Transparency of evaluation process. Evaluation findings, conclusions, recommendations
8 
and lessons learned will be disseminated to constituents, Congress and other oversight
9 
agencies and partners concerned, to inform decision-making and support organizational
10 
learning.
11 
12 
Sec. 7. Evaluation Criteria. -    In all evaluations, however, the evaluation criteria must be 
13 
applied in an unambiguous and, above all, transparent way. Evaluation criteria refer to 
14 
different result levels founded on the logical framework or result chains.  
15 
At the minimum, evaluations of national government policies, strategies, programs, and 
16 
projects shall assess and report on the following five (5) internationally accepted set of criteria, 
17 
namely: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability.  
18 
19 
Sec. 8. Creation of the National Evaluation Council (NEC). - A National Evaluation Council 
20 
(NEC) is hereby established as the lead agency for the full development and operationalization 
21 
of the NERP. The membership of the NEC shall ensure adequate representation of the 
22 
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government. The NEC shall also ensure that 
23 
sufficient participation of experts and other stakeholders from the academe, private sector and 
24 
civil society are taken into consideration in its decisions. Its organizational and staffing pattern 
25 
shall be in accordance with existing DBM policies, rules and regulations.  
26 
27 
Sec. 9. Composition of the National Evaluation Council (NEC) - The NEC shall have eight 
28 
(8) voting members which shall consist of the following:
29 
a)
A career Undersecretary of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in
30 
charge of monitoring and evaluation to be appointed by the NEDA Secretary and Director
31 
General as his/her official representative to the NEC;
32 
33 
b)
A career Undersecretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) in charge
34 
of government performance reporting, monitoring and evaluation and/or improvement as
35 
Co-Chairperson, to be appointed by the DBM Secretary as his/her official representative;
36 
37 
c)
The head of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS) or his/her official representative;
38 
39 
d)
A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy planning,
40 
research and/or evaluation in the House of Representatives, to be appointed by the House
41 
Speaker as his/her official representative;
42 
43 
e)
A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy planning,
44 
research and/or evaluation in the Philippine Senate, to be appointed by the Senate
45 
President;
46 


1 
f)
A Deputy Court Administrator in charge of performance monitoring and evaluation of the
2 
judicial branch, to be appointed by the Court Administrator as his/her official
3 
representative;
4 
5 
g)
A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by the COA
6 
Chairperson as his/her official representative; and
7 
8 
h)
The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) or his/her official representative.
9 
10 
Sec. 10. Functions of the NERP National Evaluation Council (NEC). - The NEC shall 
11 
perform the following functions to operationalize the NERP:  
12 
a)
provide overall policy direction and coordination on the implementation of the National
13 
Evaluation for Results Policy (NERP), including its agenda, plans and strategies in all
14 
branches of the government;
15 
16 
b)
develop the basic guidelines for the systematic, impartial and credible evaluations of
17 
national policies, strategies, programs and projects. Knowledge management and
18 
learning from evaluation
19 
20 
c)
serve as the national government's repository for M&E reports;
21 
22 
d)
review the evaluation reports to ensure these meet international standards and good
23 
practices;
24 
25 
e)
disseminate the findings, recommendations and lessons learned from evaluations for use
26 
in decision making by government policy makers and managers of programs and projects
27 
in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government;
28 
29 
f)
develop and strengthen institutional capacities for evaluation so that a critical number of
30 
institutions are able to promote and facilitate quality evaluations;
31 
32 
g)
build individual capacities for evaluation by organizing and conducting evaluation training
33 
courses for evaluators, managers, and users of evaluation;
34 
35 
h)
strengthen the enabling environment for evaluation by ensuring that all government
36 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities understand and appreciate the value of
37 
evaluation;
38 
39 
i)
facilitate or manage the conduct of high-level evaluations (policy and strategy) and special
40 
evaluation studies, on top of those independent evaluations conducted by departments,
41 
agencies and instrumentalities;
42 
43 
j)
prepare the annual National Evaluation Report for submission to Congress, NEDA Board,
44 
oversight agencies and other government agencies and instrumentalities.
45 
46 


k)
facilitate the development of national and regional M&E professional associations; and 
1 
2 
l)
work for the development and eventual recognition of evaluation as a profession.
3 
4 
The NERP NEC shall meet every quarter or as often as necessary. It may authorize the 
5 
creation of technical committees, advisory bodies and other mechanisms to ensure high-
6 
quality evaluations 
7 
8 
Sec. 11. Creation of the NERP NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - In the interim, the 
9 
Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the NEDA shall serve as the NEC Secretariat. Within six 
10 
(6) months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat shall be formally organized
11 
to provide technical, managerial and administrative support to the NEC. The NEC Secretariat
12 
shall be headed by an Executive Director.
13 
14 
 Subject to the approval of the NEC and to existing government laws and regulations on 
15 
government organization, staffing, services and divisions as needed to effectively support the 
16 
NEC's functions and responsibilities shall be created.   
17 
18 
The NEC Secretariat shall have the following functions: 
19 
20 
a)
recommend for the NEC's approval, evaluation policies, principles, standards, criteria,
21 
strategies and guidelines for the effective implementation of the NERP;
22 
23 
b)
recommend to the NEC the format and content of evaluation plans and reports;
24 
25 
c)
monitor and report on progress and results of evaluation activities undertaken by the NEC
26 
and covered entities;
27 
28 
d)
serve as a repository of all evaluation plans and reports of the national government and
29 
its departments, agencies and instrumentalities;
30 
31 
e)
upload in its website within 15 days from completion all final evaluation reports for public
32 
policies, strategies, programs, and projects of the national government and its agencies
33 
and instrumentalities;
34 
35 
f)
notify the key stakeholders of the national government within 15 days from completion
36 
about final evaluation plans and completed evaluations of public policies, programs,
37 
projects and services;
38 
39 
g)
provide hard and soft copies of final evaluation reports to the following stakeholders of
40 
the Philippine Congress: the House Speaker; the Senate President; the concerned
41 
chairpersons and committee secretaries of congressional committees with jurisdictions
42 
over public policies, programs, projects and services being evaluated; and the support
43 
offices of the House of Representatives and the Philippine Senate performing budget and
44 
policy research and technical assistance to the members of Congress;
45 
46 


h)
prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations, disseminate completed evaluation
1 
reports and gather management replies and feedback (to the evaluation findings,
2 
conclusions and recommendations);
3 
4 
i)
conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners from the government,
5 
private and civil society sectors and donors and development partners;
6 
7 
j)
provide Secretariat support to the NEC;
8 
9 
k)
recommend sanctions and incentives; and
10 
11 
l)
prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations for the NEC's appropriate action.
12 
13 
Sec. 12. National Evaluation Agenda (NEA) - All departments, agencies and 
14 
instrumentalities of the national government from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial 
15 
branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated six-year evaluation agenda, to 
16 
coincide with the timeframe of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and Public Investment 
17 
Program (PIP). The evaluation agenda shall specify public policies, strategies, programs, 
18 
projects and services to be subjected to impact, thematic, project or self-evaluations and their 
19 
timelines.  
20 
21 
The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, shall review the six-year evaluation agenda of 
22 
national government agencies and instrumentalities to identify high- priority evaluations for 
23 
integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.  
24 
25 
Sec. 13. Creation of Independent Evaluation Units (IEUs) of Covered Entities. - The head 
26 
of any national government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish capable 
27 
Independent Evaluation Units (IEU) initially at the central level subject to existing policies, 
28 
rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing pattern changes. The head 
29 
of the IEU reports directly to the head of the department, agency or instrumentality.  
30 
31 
To support the work of the independent evaluation unit, the head of the national government 
32 
department, agency or instrumentality shall establish a senior-level M&E advisory committee 
33 
for support and oversight of M&E initiatives of the entity covered by the NEP.  
34 
35 
Sec. 14. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The heads of 
36 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities shall submit reports on their management 
37 
response and other actions on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of completed 
38 
evaluations, to the NEC and its Secretariat, the Speaker of the House and the Senate 
39 
President and to the relevant committee chairpersons and support offices of the two branches 
40 
of Congress.  
41 
42 
The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive, legislative and 
43 
judicial branches of the national government shall ensure that Evaluation findings 
44 
recommendations and lessons learned are used to guide and improve the design, planning, 
45 


programming, budgeting, implementation and oversight of public policies, strategies, 
1 
programs and projects.  
2 
3 
The NEC and its Secretariat and the evaluation units and M&E advisory committees of the 
4 
entities covered by this policy shall monitor the actions of the national government and its 
5 
agencies and instrumentalities, on evaluation findings and recommendations.  
6 
7 
Sec. 15.  Funding for Operationalization of the NERP. – The national government and its 
8 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial 
9 
branches shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their annual budgets for the 
10 
implementation of the NERP. Such funds shall be used for:  
11 
a)
evaluation capacity development;
12 
b)
ongoing salaries, recruitment and training to ensure an adequate supply of internal
13 
personnel competent in evaluation.
14 
c)
operations and maintenance; and,
15 
d)
external evaluation professional service fees.
16 
17 
Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within sixty (60) days from the effectivity 
18 
of this Act, the NEDA and the DBM, in coordination with other concerned agencies, shall 
19 
formulate the rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Act.  
20 
21 
Sec. 17. Amendment. - The findings, recommendations and learnings from the formative and 
22 
summative evaluations, in addition to the feedback of various stakeholders including but not 
23 
limited to the NEC and its Secretariat, neutral evaluation units of entities covered by the NER 
24 
and private sector and civil society organizations including international donor agencies shall 
25 
guide proposed amendments of the NEP including the basic guidelines for NEP's 
26 
implementation formulated by the NEC.  
27 
28 
Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or other 
29 
issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or 
30 
modified accordingly.   
31 
32 
Sec. 19. Separability Clause. – If any portion or provision of this Act is declared 
33 
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall remain 
34 
in force and effect.   
35 
36 
Sec. 20. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion 
37 
of its publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
38 
Philippines.  
39 
40 
Approved, 
41