NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session
S. No.
)
)
)
SENATE
1392
fetiiatc
of £1)0
■2 OCT 13 P6 35 
received BV:
Introduced by SENATOR RAMON BONG REVILLA, JR.
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Medium-term planning is part of the customs of every new administration - 
drafting a six-year development plan that outlines its goals and objectives, and 
specifying the strategies, policies, programs and projects required to meet them.
Indeed, sound policies and programs are major determinants of development. 
It is therefore imperative to determine whether these policies and programs are 
appropriate, implemented correctly, and able to meet their objectives. It is necessary 
to know if there are better policies or programs that can meet the desired national 
goals and deter delays, cost overruns and unmet objectives.
A policy or program which may have succeeded in a particular context may no 
longer be relevant and effective in another, thus context-specific evaluation is 
important in determining its soundness and timeliness.
Evaluation of planned, ongoing, or completed policies and programs provides 
the evidence to ascertain their relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and 
sustainability (Valdez and Bamberger, 1994). It can also yield important lessons to 
improve policy and program formulation and implementation. Moreover, evaluation 
can contribute to good governance by promoting transparency and accountability.
Unfortunately, evaluation is yet to be systematically integrated in the processes 
and systems of government. Evaluation has been conducted on only a few and 
selected programs and projects, mostly on the initiatives of international development 
agencies. In 2015, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the


Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Joint Memorandum Circular No. 
2015-01 establishing an evaluation policy framework to govern the practice of 
evaluation of programs and projects receiving budgetary support from the 
government. However, the Circular is only limited to the Executive Branch and subject 
to uncertainty especially when there is a change in government administration.
Recognizing the importance of evaluation, some countries have statutes 
institutionalizing variants of a National Evaluation Policy (NEP) that applies to all 
government branches and levels, while many other countries are still 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 aims to mandate the establishment of a Result-Based National 
Evaluation Policy to harness the enormous potential of evaluation as important means 
for addressing poverty and improving the lives of all Filipinos by ensuring that public 
policies, strategies, programs and projects are guided by sound evidence and lead to 
effective and equitable results.
Hence, the immediate passage of this measure is earnestly sought.
RAMON
>NG REVILLA, JR.
fA


NINETEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S. No. 1392
Senate
ol tin' iwcrffsri'
OCT T3 P6 35
RECEIVED BY:
Introduced by SENATOR RAMON BONG REVILLA, JR.
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in 
Congress assembled:
1 
Section 1. Short Tide. - This Act shall be known as the"Results-Based National
2 
Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act."
3
4 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to ensure the
5 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and impact of laws, policies,
6 
strategies, and programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government, through
7 
the regular conduct and use of credible evaluations of its interventions to achieve its
8 
inclusive development and poverty reduction goals.
9
10 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following
11 
objectives:
12 
a. Facilitate the institutionalization of an integrated evaluation system of the
13 
government;
14 
b. Ensure the timely provision to government decision makers of credible and
15 
useful evaluations in support of results-based formulation, planning, budgeting,
16 
implementation, and oversight of government interventions;
17 
c. Ensure the systematic utilization of evaluation findings and recommendations
18 
for the continuous improvement of government interventions; and
19 
d. Promote greater transparency and accountability for results of government


1 
departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities.
2
3 
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act are defined as follows:
4 
a. Government Interventions refer to the laws, policies, strategies, and programs,
5 
activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government departments, agencies, and
6 
other instrumentalities.
7 
b. Results refer to changes in a state or condition due to a government
8 
intervention. There are three types of such changes-outputs, outcomes, and
9 
impacts—which can be intended or unintended, positive and/or negative.
10 
c. Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment of the results of
11 
government interventions. It provides credible information on the efficiency,
12 
effectiveness, relevance, coherence, impact, and sustainability of government
13 
interventions, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-
14 
making process.
15 
d. Monitoring refers to a continuous and systematic collection of data on key
16 
results indicators to track progress in achieving the objectives of government
17 
interventions.
18 
e. Outputs refer to the goods and services delivered to the external stakeholders
19 
of government departments, agencies and other instrumentalities
20 
implementing government interventions.
21 
f. Outcomes refer to the short-term and medium-term benefits to clients,
22 
beneficiaries, and stakeholders, as a result of the outputs of government
23 
interventions.
24 
g. Impacts^xe higher-level sectoral and societal benefits and other consequences
25 
of government interventions. Impacts take place long after target individuals,
26 
groups, systems or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes
27 
of government interventions.
28
29 
Sec. 5. Coverage. - The RBNEP shall apply to the following:
30 
a. All departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national
31 
government, including state universities and colleges 
(SUCs), constitutional
32 
commissions, and government-owned and/ 
or controlled 
corporations


1 
(GOCCs); and legislative and judicial branches of the government;
2 
b. All government interventions formulated and implemented by the above
3 
entities including those funded by Official Development Assistance (ODA) and
4 
those contracted to and executed by local government units (LCDs), private
5 
sector and civil society organizations.
6
7 
Sec. 6. Guiding Principies for Evaiuation. - The credibility, quality, and
8 
usefulness of evaluation shall be ensured through adherence to the following
9 
principles:
10 
a. Utility. In commissioning or conducting an evaluation, there shall be a clear
11 
intention to use the evaluation findings and recommendations for results-based
12 
formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of
13 
government interventions. The design and timing of evaluations shall address
14 
the information needs of government decision-makers.
15 
b. Appiying evaiuation criteria. Evaluations shall assess and report on the
16 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact and sustainability of
17 
government interventions in accordance with internationally accepted
18 
evaluation criteria. The use of these criteria shall be responsive to the needs
19 
of decision-makers, and to the purpose and context of evaluation.
20 
c. Observing evaiuation standards. Evaluation shall be consistent with
21 
internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and best practices,
22 
including the use of evaluation designs and methodologies capable of
23 
attributing observed outputs, outcomes and impacts to government
24 
interventions being evaluated. Evaluation reference groups and other
25 
mechanisms shall be established and strengthened to ensure the generation of
26 
credible, quality and useful evaluations.
27 
d. Independence and Impartiality. The independence of the evaluation units of
28 
departments, agencies and other instrumentalities shall be ensured at all times.
29 
Those who design, manage, and conduct evaluations shall be shielded from
30 
any undue influence that will undermine the credibility of evaluations. They
31 
shall be provided with adequate resources to produce credible, high-quality
32 
and useful evaluation. Evaluation shall be conducted with the highest degree


1 
of impartiality. In case third-party evaluators are commissioned to ensure
2 
impartial evaluation, they shall be selected from a wide and diversified pool
3 
according to objective criteria.
4 
e. Evaluation Competencies. Evaluations shall be conducted by organizations and
5 
individuals having the required knowledge, skills, and other evaluation
6 
competencies. Capacity-building initiatives shall be implemented to strengthen
7 
the evaluation competencies of organizations and individuals who commission,
8 
design, manage, conduct, communicate and use evaluations.
9 
f. Ethics. Individuals and organizations who commission, manage, design, and
10 
conduct evaluations shall observe accepted ethical standards including
11 
integrity, fairness, gender sensitivity, respect for culture and beliefs, and
12 
protection of the rights of evaluation participants.
13 
g. Transparency. The implementation of RBNEP shall promote transparency
14 
crucial to ensuring credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. To the greatest
15 
extent possible, all information required for evaluation shall be made available
16 
to evaluators, subject to existing laws and regulations governing the
17 
confidentiality and nondisclosure of information.
18 
Those who commission or manage evaluation shall ensure the selection
19 
of evaluators with no conflict of interest with the evaluation to be undertaken.
20 
Potential evaluators of government interventions shall disclose possible conflict
21 
of interest that may undermine the credibility of evaluation. They shall disclose
22 
the identities of the members of the evaluation team.
23 
Evaluators shall disclose to government decision-makers and other
24 
stakeholders the purpose, design, implementation, results and utilization,
25 
including possible constraints or limitations of an evaluation. Complete
26 
evaluation reports shall be made easily accessible to government decision-
27 
makers, relevant stakeholders, and the public.
28 
h. Accountability. Entities responsible for the commissioning, managing and
29 
conducting evaluations shall ensure that evaluations are credible, quality,
30 
useful and timely. Key findings and recommendations of completed evaluations
31 
shall be communicated clearly by the same entities to government decision
32 
makers and other stakeholders. The covered entities of the RBNEP shall


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
incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based formulation, planning, 
budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government interventions.
Sec. 7. Establishment of a National Evaluation Council. - A National Evaluation 
Council (NEC) is hereby established to oversee the implementation of the RBNEP,
Sec. 8. Composition of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall have 
the following seven (7) voting members:
a. Secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), or 
authorized representative, as Chairperson. The representative shall be an 
Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in NEDA;
b. Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or authorized 
representative, as co-chairperson. The representative shall at least be an 
Assistant Secretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in DBM;
c. Secretary of the Philippine Senate or authorized representative who shall at 
least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research and/or 
evaluation in the Senate;
d. Secretary General of the House of Representatives or authorized representative 
who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research 
and/or evaluation in the House of Representatives;
e. Court Administrator of the Supreme Court or authorized representative who 
shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and /or 
performance monitoring and evaluation;
f. Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) or authorized representative 
who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and /or 
performance monitoring and evaluation; and
g. Head of the Presidential Management Staff or authorized representative who 
shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning and /or 
performance monitoring and evaluation.
The NEC shall meet at least once every quarter or as often as necessary. To ensure 
that the NEC is guided by inputs of evaluation experts, the following shall attend the


1 
NEC meetings as non-voting members:
2 
a. The head of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) or
3 
authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of
4 
policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;
5 
b. The head of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or his/her duly authorized
6 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy,
7 
planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and
8 
c. Representative from the voluntary organizations for professional evaluation
9 
(VOPES).
10
11 
Sec. 9. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall perform
12 
the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP:
13 
a. Provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP;
14 
b. Approve the basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation;
15 
c. Review and approve the National Evaluation Strategy (NES) and ensure its
16 
implementation;
17 
d. Review, approve, and ensure the implementation of the costed evaluation
18 
agenda of covered entities;
19 
e. Provide oversight on the conduct of evaluation by covered entities and their
20 
management response to evaluation recommendations;
21 
f. Issue the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of Independent
22 
Evaluation Units (lEUs) of covered entities; and
23 
g. Approve and implement a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of
24 
lEUs and government decision makers.
25
26 
Sec. 10. NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - The NEC Secretariat shall be
27 
established within the NEDA. The existing staffing complement of the NEDA shall be
28 
augmented to undertake the functions of the NEC Secretariat. The NEC Secretariat
29 
shall:
30 
a. Formulate and recommend basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation;
31 
b. Prepare the National Evaluation Strategy;
32 
c. Review and make recommendations on the costed evaluation agenda of


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
covered entities;
d. Monitor the implementation of the entities' evaluation agenda and their 
management response to evaluation recommendation in support of the 
oversight function of the NEC;
e. Formulate the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs of 
entities covered;
f. Provide quality assurance of evaluations conducted by covered entities;
g. Facilitate the dissemination to decision makers of key findings, lessons learned, 
and recommendations from completed evaluations;
h. Maintain a public website containing the evaluation plans and reports of 
covered entities;
i. 
Develop a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of covered entities 
and government decision makers;
j. 
Prepare and submit to the DBM the annual funding requirement of the program 
to strengthen the evaluation capacity of the government; and
k. Carry out other directives of the NEC, as necessary.
Sec. 11. National Evaluation Strategy. - The National Evaluation Strategy (NES) 
shall identify the priority areas for evaluation in line with the Philippine Development 
Plan. It shall guide the formulation of evaluation agenda of the covered entities.
Sec. 12. Organization of Independent Evaluation Units (lEUs) of Covered 
Entities. - Each covered entity shall organize an lEU that shall report directly to the 
head of the entity. The head of the entity shall ensure that the lEU can perform its 
evaluation functions independently and objectively.
Sec. 13. Functions oflEUs. - The lEUs shall:
a. Coordinate the formulation and approval of the costed evaluation agenda of 
the covered entity;
b. Manage or conduct evaluations identified in the costed evaluation agenda;
c. Submit evaluation plans and final evaluation reports to the entity's head and to 
the NEC Secretariat in accordance with prescribed guidelines;


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
d. Disseminate the key findings and recommendations of completed evaluations 
to the head of the entity, decision-makers and other stakeholders;
e. Facilitate the formulation of the management response to key findings and 
recommendations from the completed evaluations;
f. Monitor the entity's progress in implementing the management response;
g. Establish quality assurance and participatory mechanisms for evaiuation; and
h. Provide inputs to results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, and 
implementation within the entity.
Sec. 14. Formulation of the Costed Evaluation Agenda. - Each covered entity 
shall formulate a six-year costed evaluation agenda aligned with the NES. The head 
of the entity shall submit the costed evaluation agenda to the NEC.
Sec. 15. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The head 
of a covered entity shall incorporate the use of evaluations in results-based 
formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government 
interventions. The head shall submit to the NEC the management response to 
evaluation recommendations, and ensure its implementation.
Sec. 16. Funding for the Implementation of the RBNEP. - The funding 
requirement for the implementation of the RBNEP, including the budget for the 
conduct of evaluation indicated in the costed evaiuation agenda, NEC Secretariat, and 
lEUs shall be included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
Sec. 17. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). - The NEDA, in 
consultation with the prospective members of NEC, shall promulgate the IRR to 
operationalize the guiding principles of the RBNEP and to implement its specific 
provisions within 60 days upon the approval of this Act.
Sec. 18. Amendment - This Act shall be evaluated three (3) years after its 
initial implementation and every three (3) years thereafter. The results of such 
evaluation shali guide the proposed amendments of this Act and its IRR.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 
9
10
11
12
Sec. 19. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or 
other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby 
repeaied or modified accordingly.
Sec. 20. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared 
invalid or unconstitutional, other provisions hereof which are not affected thereby 
shall remain in full force and effect.
Sec. 21. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following 
the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) 
newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved,