Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. ____ 
Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Public funds are spent every year to deliver key socioeconomic services to Filipinos and reduce 
poverty incidence in the country. Amid growing government expenditures, not enough attention 
has been given to assessing whether interventions implemented by the government achieved 
their intended results.  
In 2015, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) and the Department of Budget 
and Management (DBM) developed a national evaluation policy framework, through Joint Memo 
Circular 2015-01 “to conduct evaluations in the public sector in support of good governance, 
transparency, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making.”1 However, it is considered 
insufficient and weak as it only applies to the Executive Department. Evaluation has not been 
widely integrated into the processes and systems of the Philippine government. 
This bill, therefore, seeks to institutionalize a Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) 
which covers all departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national government 
including 
state 
universities 
and 
colleges 
(SUCs), 
constitutional 
commissions, 
and 
government-owned and/ or controlled corporations (GOCCs); and legislative and judicial 
branches of the government. It shall also cover all government interventions formulated and 
implemented by the above entities including those funded by Official Development Assistance 
(ODA) and those contracted to and executed by local government units (LGUs), private sector 
and civil society organizations. The bill further proposes the creation of the National Evaluation 
Council (NEC) which will provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP. 
There is a need to strengthen the evaluation implementation and management capacities of the 
government to ensure that funds are spent wisely and to improve the delivery of public service. 
Without regular conduct of credible evaluation systems, policies, programs, and projects can 
potentially be left unchecked leading to governance inefficiency and wasted public funds. 
In view of the foregoing, the approval of this bill is earnestly sought. 
LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, JR. 
1 https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/files/100339275.pdf 
September 27, 2022
10:31 am
5181


Republic of the Philippines 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Quezon City 
NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
First Regular Session 
HOUSE BILL NO. ____ 
Introduced by HON. LUIS RAYMUND “LRAY” F. VILLAFUERTE, 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: 
SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Results-Based National 
Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act." 
SECTION 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to ensure the relevance, 
efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and impact of laws, policies, strategies, and 
programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government, through the regular conduct 
and use of credible evaluations of its interventions to achieve its inclusive development 
and poverty reduction goals. 
SECTION 3. Policy Objectives. – The RBNEP intends to achieve the following 
objectives: 
a)
Facilitate the institutionalization of an integrated evaluation system of the 
government;
b)
Ensure the timely provision to government decision makers of credible and 
useful evaluations in support of results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, 
implementation, and oversight of government interventions;
c)
Ensure the systematic utilization of evaluation findings and recommendations for 
5181


 
 
the continuous improvement of government interventions; and 
d) 
Promote greater transparency and accountability for results of government 
departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities. 
 
SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. – The terms used in this Act are defined as follows: 
a) 
Government Interventions refer to the laws, policies, strategies, and programs, 
activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government departments, agencies, and 
other instrumentalities. 
b) 
Results refer to changes in a state or condition due to a government intervention. 
There are three types of such changes-outputs, outcomes, and impacts—which 
can be intended or unintended, positive and/or negative. 
c) 
Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment of the results of 
government interventions. It provides credible information on the efficiency, 
effectiveness, relevance, coherence, impact, and sustainability of government 
interventions, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the 
decision-making process. 
d) 
Monitoring refers to a continuous and systematic collection of data on key 
results indicators to track progress in achieving the objectives of government 
interventions. 
e) 
Outputs refer to the goods and services delivered to the external stakeholders of 
government departments, agencies and other instrumentalities implementing 
government interventions. 
f) 
Outcomes refer to the short-term and medium-term benefits to clients, 
beneficiaries, and stakeholders, as a result of the outputs of government 
interventions. 
g) 
Impacts are higher-level sectoral and societal benefits and other consequences 
of government interventions. Impacts take place long after target individuals, 
groups, systems or organizations have experienced the outputs and outcomes of 
government interventions. 
 
SECTION 5. Coverage. – The RBNEP shall apply to the following: 


 
 
a) 
All departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national 
government, including state universities and colleges (SUCs), constitutional 
commissions, and government-owned and/ or controlled corporations (GOCCs); 
and legislative and judicial branches of the government; 
b) 
All government interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities 
including those funded by Official Development Assistance (ODA) and those 
contracted to and executed by local government units (LGUs), private sector and 
civil society organizations. 
 
SECTION 6. Guiding Principles for Evaluation. – The credibility, quality, and 
usefulness of evaluation shall be ensured through adherence to the following principles: 
a) 
Utility. In commissioning or conducting an evaluation, there shall be a clear 
intention to use the evaluation findings and recommendations for results-based 
formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government 
interventions. The design and timing of evaluations shall address the information 
needs of government decision-makers. 
b) 
Applying evaluation criteria. Evaluations shall assess and report on the 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact and sustainability of 
government interventions in accordance with internationally accepted evaluation 
criteria. The use of these criteria shall be responsive to the needs of 
decision-makers, and to the purpose and context of evaluation. 
c) 
Observing evaluation standards. Evaluation shall be consistent with 
internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and best practices, 
including die use of evaluation designs and methodologies capable of attributing 
observed outputs, outcomes and impacts to government interventions being 
evaluated. Evaluation reference groups and other mechanisms shall be 
established and strengthened to ensure the generation of credible, quality and 
useful evaluations. 
d) 
Independence and Impartiality. The independence of the evaluation units of 
departments, agencies and other instrumentalities shall be ensured at all times. 
Those who design, manage, and conduct evaluations shall be shielded from any 


 
 
undue influence that will undermine the credibility of evaluations. They shall be 
provided with adequate resources to produce credible, high-quality and useful 
evaluation. Evaluation shall be conducted with the highest degree of impartiality. 
In case third-party evaluators are commissioned to ensure impartial evaluation, 
they shall be selected from a wide and diversified pool according to objective 
criteria. 
e) 
Evaluation Competencies. Evaluations shall be conducted by organizations 
and individuals having the required knowledge, skills, and other evaluation 
competencies. Capacity-building initiatives shall be implemented to strengthen 
the evaluation competencies of organizations and individuals who commission, 
design, manage, conduct, communicate and use evaluations. 
f) 
Ethics. Individuals and organizations who commission, manage, design, and 
conduct evaluations shall observe accepted ethical standards including integrity, 
fairness, gender sensitivity, respect for culture and beliefs, and protection of the 
rights of evaluation participants. 
g) 
Transparency. The implementation of RBNEP shall promote transparency 
crucial to ensuring credible, high-quality and useful evaluations. To the greatest 
extent possible, all information required for evaluation shall be made available to 
evaluators, subject to existing laws and regulations governing the confidentiality 
and nondisclosure of information. 
Those who commission or manage evaluation shall ensure the selection of 
evaluators with no conflict of interest with the evaluation to be undertaken. 
Potential evaluators of government interventions shall disclose possible conflict 
of interest that may undermine the credibility of evaluation. They shall disclose 
the identities of the members of the evaluation team. 
Evaluators shall disclose to government decision-makers and other stakeholders 
the purpose, design, implementation, results and utilization, including possible 
constraints or limitations of an evaluation. . Complete evaluation reports shall be 
made easily accessible to government decision-makers, relevant stakeholders, 
and the public. 
h) 
Accountability. Entities responsible for the commissioning, managing and 


 
 
conducting evaluations shall ensure that evaluations are credible, quality, useful 
and timely. Key findings and recommendations of completed evaluations shall be 
communicated clearly by the same entities to government decision makers and 
other stakeholders. The covered entities of the RBNEP shall incorporate the use 
of evaluations in results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, 
and oversight of government interventions. 
 
SECTION 7. Establishment of a National Evaluation Council. – A National Evaluation 
Council (NEC) is hereby established to oversee the implementation of the RBNEP. 
 
SECTION 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 
his/her authorized representative, as Chairperson. The representative of the 
NEDA Secretary shall be an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and 
evaluation in NEDA; 
b) 
Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or his/her 
authorized representative, as co-chairperson. The representative of the DBM 
Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of monitoring and 
evaluation in the DBM; 
c) 
Secretary of the Philippine Senate or his/her 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 his/her duly 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 his/her 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 his/her 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 his/her 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 NEC meetings as non-voting members: 
a) 
The head of the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) or his/her 
duly authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge 
of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; 
b) 
The head of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or his/her duly authorized 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of policy, 
planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and 
c) 
Representative from the voluntary organizations for professional evaluation 
(VOPES). 
 
SECTION 9. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. – The NEC shall perform 
the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP: 
a) 
Provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP; 
b) 
Approve the basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation; 
c) 
Review and approve the National Evaluation Strategy (NES) and ensure its 
implementation; 
d) 
Review, approve, and ensure the implementation of, the costed evaluation 
agenda of covered entities; 
e) 
Provide oversight on the conduct of evaluation by covered entities and their 
management response to evaluation recommendations; 
f) 
Issue the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs of covered 
entities; and 
g) 
Approve and implement a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of lEUs 
and government decision-makers. 


 
 
 
SECTION 10. NEC Secretariat and its Functions. – The NEC Secretariat shall be 
established within the NEDA. The existing staffing complement of the NEDA shall be 
augmented to undertake the functions of the NEC Secretariat. The NEC Secretariat 
shall: 
a) 
Formulate and recommend basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation; 
b) 
Prepare the National Evaluation Strategy; 
c) 
Review and make recommendations on the costed evaluation agenda of 
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. 
 
SECTION 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. 
 
SECTION 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. 
 
SECTION 13. Functions of lEUs. – 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; 
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 evaluation; and 
h) 
Provide inputs to results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, and 
implementation within the entity. 
 
SECTION 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 
entity shall submit the costed evaluation agenda to the NEC. 
 
SECTION 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. He or 
she shall submit to the NEC the management response to evaluation recommendations, 
and ensure its implementation. 
 
SECTION 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 evaluation agenda, NEC Secretariat, and lEUs shall be 


 
 
included in the General Appropriations Act (GAA). 
 
SECTION 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. 
 
SECTION 18. Amendment. – This Act shall be evaluated three years after its initial 
implementation. The results of such evaluation shall guide the proposed amendments of 
this Act and its IRR. 
 
SECTION 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 
repealed or modified accordingly. 
 
SECTION 20. Separability Clause. – If any portion or provision of this Act is declared 
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall 
remain in force and effect. 
 
SECTION 21. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the 
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general 
circulation in the Philippines. 
 
Approved,