EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Second Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S.B. No. 1885
October
TW.IE¥NOEX
6ILL&
Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION
POLICY (RBNEP)
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The whole-of-government regularly designs and implements multi-year 
programs/projects and undertakes activities, oftentimes huge in scale, using funds from 
the national budget, domestic and foreign loans, grants and donations. As programs 
and projects, these are time-bound, they follow a life cycle where activities undertaken 
should lead to desired objectives and results within the life of the project or program.
However, much remains to be improved with government programs/projects 
which have been usually marked with extensions, cost overruns and outputs and 
outcomes that do not fit the desired objectives. Regular monitoring and evaluation 
(M&E), which is a critical activity within the life of a project or program, aimed to 
monitor progress of implementation, identify problems encountered and ensure that 
the project or program is on track is hardly undertaken. The M&E of these well-meant 
endeavors has not been dedicated enough to ensure that intended results are achieved 
on a timely basis within the costs allocated.
This Bill aims to institutionalize and legalize a National Evaluation Policy that is 
interlinked with Results- Based Management (RBM) approaches and builds upon current 
and future integrated M&E systems. This Results-Based National Evaluation Policy 
(RBNEP) is aimed to apply to all branches of government, i.e. Executive, Legislative 
and Judiciary. Thus, the purpose of RBNEP is to harness the enormous potential of 
evaluations as important means for alleviating poverty and improving the lives of all 
Filipinos by ensuring that public policies, strategies, programs and projects are informed 
by sound evidence and lead to effective and equitable results.
The RBNEP builds upon previous Executive Orders (EOs), Administrative Orders' 
(AOs), and Memorandum Circulars (MCs) related to various M&E and performance 
management frameworks including: a) EO 376 (1989) establishing the Regional Project 
M&E System (RPMES); b) AO 25 (2011) setting up the Results-Based Performance
1


Management System (RBPMS); c) Circulars from the Department of Budget and 
Management (DBM) establishing the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework 
(OPIF); d) NEDA/DBM Joint Memo Circular 2015 (dated July 2015) establishing the 
National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF); and e) NEDA/DBM Joint Memo Circular 
No.2020-01 (dated Jan.2020): Guidelines on the Initial Implementation of the NEPF in 
the National Government.
NEDA and DBM, through their Joint Memo Circuiars (2015 and 2020) developed 
the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) to provide a system for the purposive 
conduct of evaluations of programs and projects being implemented by government 
departments and agencies in support of good governance, transparency, 
accountability, and evidence-based decision-making.
The NEPF Circular covered all agencies. State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), 
Government-Owned and/or Controlled Corporations (GOCCs), Government Rnancial 
Institutions (GRs) with budgetary support from the National Government, and other 
Instrumentalities of the national government. The scope of the NEPF included all 
projects and programs being implemented by the above-mentioned entities supported 
by local and foreign funds.
However, the NEDA/ DBM NEPF Circular applies only to the agencies of the 
Executive Branch and does not cover the Legislative and Judicial branches of 
government. And like other Executive Circulars, the establishment and 
operationalization of the NEPF is not institutionalized through a legal mandate and Is 
thus subject to uncertainty especially when there is a change in priorities of a new 
government administration.
It Is important to understand the inter-linkages and dependencies (as well as 
differences) between and among evaluation policy frameworks, integrated planning, 
monitoring & evaluation systems, performance management and other results- based 
management approaches. The specific focus of this RBNEP Bill Is on evaluations. But 
the effectiveness of evaluation policies requires an enabling environment that consists 
primarily of a working Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system, logical frameworks and 
other results-based approaches.
Evaluation depends to a great extent on good planning and monitoring of 
ongoing activities. Good planning helps to focus on the results that matter, i.e. the 
outputs, outcomes and impact of a program or project. Without proper planning and 
clear description of objectives, scope and intended results, it is not clear what should 
be monitored and how. Without effective planning and the presence of clear results 
frameworks, the basis for evaluation is weak. Monitoring helps us to learn from past 
successes and challenges in implementation of programs and projects.
Evaluation is useful in improving programs, policies and organizational 
performance. It provides independent and impartial judgement to the performance of


government entities and provides findings and recommendations for appropriate 
management actions. Evaluations produce lessons learned and best practices that 
enhance the design and implementation of future programs and projects. Clearly, this 
would deter the repetition of past mistakes or shortfalls, thus raising the bar on the 
quality of implementation and resuits
Unfortunately, evaluation has not been widely Implemented and systematically 
integrated in the processes and systems of government. Evaluation has been conducted 
on only a few and selected foreign-assisted programs and projects, largely on the 
initiative of international development agencies and donors. Lately, however, starting 
2018, as part of the operationalization of the NEPF, NEDA under the ongoing NEDA- 
UNDP Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation to Accelerate the Implementation of the PDP 
2017-2022 Project (or the Strategic M&E Project) has initiated, the systematic 
evaluations of selected projects and programs as well as the capacity development of 
evaluators from several government agencies.
Recognizing the critical importance of evaluation in policymaking and decision 
making, many developed countries, especially those belonging to the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have passed legislations 
institutionalizing variants of a National Evaluation Policy. Many international 
development organizations and United Nations (UN) agencies have likewise developed 
and operationalized their own Evaluation Policies,
International agencies and development partners have encouraged developing 
countries to institutionalize their respective evaluation poiicies starting with the 
development of local evaluation capacities and dissemination of documents related to 
Internationally accepted evaluation norms, policies, quality standards and good 
practices. Notable among these evaluation agencies and organizations are the: a) OECD 
Development Assistance Committee (DAC); b) United Nations Evaluation Group 
(UNEG); c) World Bank Independent Evaluation Group (lEG); and the d) Asian 
Development Bank Independent Evaluation Department (lED).
Thus, we have an array of experiences gained and lessons learned about 
evaluation to build upon. But we need to do more to exploit further the full potential of 
evaluations to improve living conditions of Filipinos through better results from policies, 
strategies, programs and projects.
The immediate passage of this RBNEP Biil is earnestly sought.
IMEE R. MARCOS


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE ) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
Second Regular Session 
)
SENATE
S.B. No.
Introduced by SENATOR IMEE R. MARCOS
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION
POLICY (RBNEP)
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembied:
1 
Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Results-Based National
2 
Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act."
3 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the policy of the State to improve the overall
4 
effectiveness of public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and overail
5 
organizational performance by strengthening accountability and learning through the
6 
enactment of this Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP). The RBNEP aims
7 
to contribute to the achievement of inclusive development and poverty reduction goals
8 
by institutionalizing the legal framework for the regular conduct of monitoring and
9 
evaluation (M&E) of the results of ongoing and completed development interventions.
10 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following specific
11 
objectives:
12 
a.) Facilitate the development and strengthening of an integrated M&E system
13 
of the national government to ensure the systematic collection of useful data and
14 
credible information on specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound
15 
performance indicators that enable the assessment and reporting of the progress
16 
made, the achievement of objectives and the overall improvement of the performance
17 
of departments, agencies and other government instrumentalities;


1
2 
b.) Validate the results, i.e. output, outcome, and impact and assess the
3 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact of a policy, strategy,
4 
program, project and other development interventions.
5 
c.) Ensure the timely provision to government policymakers, managers and other
6 
stakeholders of transparent, impartial, independent and useful evidence- based
7 
information and knowledge to strengthen the policymaking and decision- making
8 
processes;
9 
d) Ensure the utilization, dissemination and feedback of evaluation findings,
10 
recommendations and lessons learned for the continuous improvement of the design,
11 
planning, programming, budgeting and implementation of public policies, strategies,
12 
programs, and projects;
13 
e) Ensure the accountability to stakeholders and taxpayers by government
14 
departments, agencies and various instrumentalities for public expenditures and the
15 
delivery of development results.
16 
Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used In this Act are defined as follows:
17 
a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment or review of a
18 
completed or ongoing development Intervention, i.e. policy, strategy, program or
19 
project, its design, implementation and results. It aims to determine the relevance and
20 
fulfillment of objectives, development efficiency, effectiveness, impact and
21 
sustainability. An evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful,
22 
enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision- making process.
23 
Evaluation should not be confused with implementation monitoring and reporting,
24 
audit, inspection, investigation or assessment of individual performance. Evaluation and
25 
monitoring are two separate functions that fulfill different purposes and cannot be
26 
treated almost as if they were synonyms;
27 
b) Monitoring refers to the systematic collection of data on specified indicators
28 
to provide internal management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing development
29 
Intervention such as a project or program with indications of the progress made in


1 
implementing activities towards intended resuits. The main purpose of monitoring is to
2 
enable project management to keep track of what is happening and to check that
3 
progress is being made towards the achievement of objectives. More effective
4 
monitoring could prevent projects and progranis from failing. Systematic monitoring,
5 
based on a monitoring framework, is of great importance for evaluations, as it provides
6 
a significant part of the data on which evaluation is based. Monitoring should be linked
7 
directly to project management on a regular basis as the function provides key
8 
information useful for management;
9. 
c) Results comprise of the outputs, outcomes and impacts of policies, strategies,
10 
programs, or projects being implemented or completed;
11 
d) Outputs refer to the specific goods and services produced by budgeted and
12 
implemented policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other interventions. Outputs
13 
are the results of the completion of implementing activities. Refer specifically to Major
14 
Final Outputs (MFO) defined as goods or services that a department, agency or
15 
government instrumentality is mandated to deliver to external clients through the
16 
implementation of the National Expenditure Program (NEP) or approved government
17 
budget;
18 
e) Outcomes refer to the actual finite and measurable changes in the behavior
19 
of target individuals, groups, or organizations and/or improvements in systems, the
20 
quality of processes and services as an immediate effect of specific interventions. Refer
21 
more specifically to Organizational Outcomes and Sector Outcomes. Organizational
22 
Outcomes are the short- to medium-term benefits to the clients and community as a
23 
result of delivering MFOs. Sector Outcomes are the longer-term benefits for the sector
24 
from initiatives of the department/agency or government instrumentality;
25 
f) Impacts refer to the fundamental, broad sectoral and higher-level societal
26 
changes (both intended and unintended, positive or negative) that take place long after
27 
target individuals, groups, systems or organizations have experienced the outputs and
28 
outcomes of specific interventions. Refer more specifically to Societal Goals defined as


1 
the societal benefits sought from sector-based economic activity or the intended
2 
desirable impacts of MFOs on society;
3 
g) PAPs refer to the acronym for Programs, Activities and Projects. It shall
4 
pertain to the list of priority programs and projects that contribute to the societal goals,
5 
sector outcomes, organizational outcomes and outputs spelled out in the Philippine
6 
Development Plan (PDP). Programs are special 
undertakings by 
a
7 
department/agency/instrumentality implemented within a definite period and Intended
8 
to result in some pre- determined goods and services. Refer also to a group of similar
9 
projects. Projects are activities implemented within a specific period by a
10 
department/agency/instrumentality to achieve the purpose for which it Is established
11 
or created or to deliver its MFOs;
12 
h) Results-Based Management System (RBMS) refers to a management strategy
13 
that focuses on performance and the achievement of results, i.e. outputs, outcomes,
14 
and impacts. Refers specifically to Results Based Performance Management (RBPMS)
15 
as established under AO No.5 series of 2011. RBPMS serves as the single performance
16 
management system for the whole of the Executive Branch in place of the multiple and
17 
disparate performance management systems that were currently being implemented.
18 
It consists of a set of comprehensive performance indicators that cut across societal
19 
and sectoral performance, down to organizational and individual performance. The
20 
logical framework (logframe), the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework
21 
(OPIF) and the Results Matrix (RM) are the underlying frameworks for the RBPMS,
22 
which will be used by all government agencies mandated to exercise broad oversight
23 
over the performance of all agencies in the government;
24 
i) Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a strategic
25 
budgeting management framework. An approach to expenditure management or
26 
budgeting that directs resources for major final outputs (MFOs) toward results and
27 
measures performance by key quality, quantity, timeliness, and cost indicators;
28 
j) Logical Framework (or Logframe) refers to a management tool used to
29 
improve the design and planning of development interventions, most often at the


1 
project level. It Involves Identifying strategic elements (inputs, outputs, outcomes or
2 
effects, and impact or goal) and their causal relationships (also called results chain),
3 
performance indicators, monitoring sources, and the assumptions or risks that may
4 
influence success and failure. The logframe thus facilitates planning, implementation,
5 
monitoring and evaluation of a development intervention. Results Chain: The causal
6 
sequence for a development intervention that stipulates the necessary sequence to
7 
achieve desired objectives beginning with inputs, moving through activities and
8 
outputs, and culminating in outcomes, impacts, and feedback;
9 
k) Results Framework refers to a management tool that Illustrates how the
10 
results statements at the PDP level (sector and sub-sector outcomes) will link to the
11 
OPIF logframes (outputs and organizational outcomes) at the organizational level. OPIF
12 
Agency Logical Framework (OPIF logframe): a planning and budgeting tool used to
13 
establish the link of MFOs that department/agency delivers or produces through the
14 
implementation of PAPs to the sector outcomes and societal goals It seeks to Influence.
15 
As part of the results framework. It shows the focus of resource allocation, spending,
16 
monitoring, reporting and evaluation of results based on a set of performance
17 
Indicators; and
18 
I) Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES), as established
19 
through EO 376 (dated Nov. 1989, refers to a scheme for monitoring and evaluating
20 
projects at the national, regional, provinclal/city and municipal levels, with the
21 
extensive and active participation of various government agencies , local government
22 
units (LGUs) and nongovernment organizations (NGOs). The RPMES primarily alms to
23 
facilitate project implementation, and devolve project facilitation, problem-solving,
24 
monitoring and evaluation to the regional, provinclal/city and municipal levels.
25 
Sec. 5. Coverage. — The RBNEP shall apply to the following:
26 
a) departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCs),
27 
government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCs), government financial
28 
Institutions and other instrumentalities of the executive, legislative and judicial
29 
branches of the National Government; and


1 
b) all public policies, strategies, programs, projects, and other development
2 
interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities and funded by local
3 
and foreign funds Including those contracted to and executed, produced and delivered
4 
by private sector and civil society organizations.
5 
Sec. 6. Evaluation Principles. The credibility, quality and usefulness of
6 
evaluations will be ensured through adherence to the following core principles:
7 
a) Adherence to international good practice and evaluation standards.
8 
The national evaluation policy will be consistent with internationally accepted
9 
evaluation norms, standards and good practices in the context of RBM approaches.
10 
b) Evaluation ethics.
11 
Ethical standards will apply to the managers of evaluations and individual
12 
evaluators. Organizations and persons engaged in evaluation activities shall abide by
13 
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic
14 
Act 2 No. 6713).
15 
c) Independence of evaluation process.
16 
There will be separation of evaluation management and implementation
17 
responsibility from line management functions for policies, strategies, programs and
18 
projects. Evaluators will be selected from a wide and diversified pool according to
19 
agreed criteria. Evaluation reports will provide critical assessment and an independent
20 
perspective, be informative, and recommend actionable follow-up.
21 
d) Ensuring professionalism in the conduct and management of evaluation.
22 
Evaluations will be undertaken by qualified technical experts and evaluators with
23 
the needed knowledge, skills and abilities in evaluation as well as expertise and relevant
24 
experience on the subject area they are evaluating. Evaluators will adhere to the
25 
highest technical standards, and respond to all criteria of professionalism, including the
26 
responsible handling of confidential information.
27 
e) Transparency of evaluation process
28 
Evaluations will be conducted using a transparent process involving
29 
stakeholders to ensure factual accuracy and full ownership. Evaluation findings.


1 
conclusions, recommendations and lessons ieamed wiii be disseminated to
2 
constituents, Congress and other oversight agencies and partners concerned, to inform
3 
decision-making and support organizationai iearning.
4 
Sec. 7. Evaluation Criteria. - In aii evaiuations, however, the evaiuation criteria
5 
must be appiied in an unambiguous and, above aii, transparent way. Evaiuation criteria
6 
refer to different resuit ieveis founded on the iogicai framework or resuit chains.
7 
At the minimum, evaiuations of nationai government poiicies, strategies,
8 
programs, and projects shaii assess and report on the foiiowing five (5) internationaiiy
9 
accepted set of criteria, nameiy: effectiveness, efficiency, reievance, impact and
10 
sustainabiiity.
11 
Sec. 8. Creation of the RBNEC National Evaluation Council (NEC). - A Nationai
12 
Evaiuation Councii (NEC) is hereby estabiished as the iead agency for the fuii
13 
deveiopment and operationaiization of the RBNEP. The membership of the NEC shaii
14 
ensure adequate representation of the executive, iegisiative and judiciai branches of
15 
the government. The NEC shaii aiso ensure that sufficient participation of experts and
16 
other stakehoiders from the academe, private sector and civii society are taken into
17 
consideration in its decisions. Its organizationai and staffing pattern shaii be in
18 
accordance with existing DBM poiicies, ruies and reguiations.
19 
Sec. 9. Composition of the National Evaluation Council (NEC) - The NEC shaii
20 
have eight (8) voting members which shaii consist of the foiiowing:
21 
a) A career Undersecretary of the Nationai Economic and Deveiopment Authority
22 
(NEDA) in charge of monitoring and evaiuation to be appointed by the NEDA Secretary
23 
and Director Generai as his/her officiai representative to the NEC;
24 
b) A career Undersecretary of the Department of Budget and Management
25 
(DBM) in charge of government performance reporting, monitoring and evaiuation
26 
and/or improvement as Co-Chairperson, to be appointed by the DBM Secretary as
27 
his/her officiai representative;
28 
c) The head of the Presidentiai Management Staff (PMS) or his/her officiai
29 
representative;


1 
d) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy
2 
planning, research and/or evaluation In the House of Representatives, to be appointed
3 
by the House Speaker as his/her official representative;
4 
e) A career Deputy Secretary General/ Director General in charge of policy
5 
planning, research and/or evaluation in the Philippine Senate, to be appointed by the
6 
Senate President;
7 
f) A Deputy Court Administrator in charge of performance monitoring and
8 
evaluation of the judicial branch, to be appointed by the Court Administrator as his/her
9 
official representative;
10 
g) A Commissioner of the Commission on Audit (COA) to be appointed by the
11 
COA Chairperson as his/her official representative; and
12 
h) The head of the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) or his/her official
13 
representative.
14 
Sec. 10. Functions of the RBNEP National Evaluation Council (NEC). - The NEC
15 
shall perform the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP:
16 
a) provide overall policy direction and coordination on the implementation of the
17 
Results-Based National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP), including its agenda, plans and
18 
strategies in all branches of the government;
19 
b) develop the basic guidelines for the systematic, impartial and credible
20 
evaluations of national policies, strategies, programs and projects. Knowledge
21 
management and learning from evaluation
22 
c) serve as the national government's repository for M&E reports;
23 
d) review the evaluation reports to ensure these meet international standards
24 
and good practices;
25 
e) disseminate the findings, recommendations and lessons learned from
26 
evaluations for use in decision making by government policy makers and managers of
27 
programs and projects in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the
28 
government;


1 
f) develop and strengthen institutional capacities for evaluation so that a critical
2 
number of institutions are abie to promote and faciiitate quality evaluations;
3 
g) build individual capacities for evaluation by organizing and conducting
4 
evaluation training courses for evaluators, managers, and users of evaluation;
5 
h) strengthen the enabling environment for evaluation by ensuring that all
6 
government departments, agencies and instrumentalities understand and appreciate
7 
the value of evaluation;
8 
i) facilitate or manage the conduct of high-level evaluations (policy and strategy)
9 
and special evaluation studies, on top of those independent evaluations conducted by
10 
departments, agencies and instrumentalities;
11 
j) prepare the annual National Evaluation Report for submission to Congress,
12 
NEDA Board, oversight agencies and other government agencies and instrumentalities.
13 
k) facilitate the development of national and regional M8iE professional
14 
associations; and
15 
I) work for the development and eventual recognition of evaluation as a
16 
profession.
17 
The RBNEP NEC shail meet every quarter or as often as necessary. It may
18 
authorize the creation of technical committees, advisory bodies and other mechanisms
19 
to ensure high-quality evaluations.
20 
Sec. 11. Creation of the RBNEP NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - In the
21 
interim, the Monitoring and Evaluation Staff of the NEDA shall serve as the NEC
22 
Secretariat. Within six (6) months after the enactment of this policy, the NEC Secretariat
23 
shall be formally organized to provide technical, managerial and administrative support
24 
to the NEC. The NEC Secretariat shall be headed by an Executive Director.
25 
Subject to the approval of the NEC and to existing government laws and
26 
regulations on government organization, staffing, services and divisions as needed to
27 
effectively support the NEC's functions and responsibilities shall be created.
28 
The NEC Secretariat shall have the following functions:


1 
a) recommend for the NEC's approval, evaluation policies, principles, standards,
2 
criteria, strategies and guideiines for the effective implementation of the RBNEP;
3 
b) recommend to the NEC the format and content of evaluation plans and
4 
reports;
5 
c) monitor and report on progress and resuits of evaiuation activities undertaken
6 
by the NEC and covered entities;
7 
d) serve as a repository of ali evaluation plans and reports of the national
8 
government and its departments, agencies and instrumentalities;
9 
e) upload in its website within 15 days from completion ali final evaluation
10 
reports for public policies, strategies, programs, and projects of the national
11 
government and its agencies and instrumentalities;
12 
f) notify the key stakeholders of the national government within 15 days from
13 
completion about finai evaluation pians and completed evaluations of public policies,
14 
programs, projects and services;
15 
g) provide hard and soft copies of finai evaluation reports to the foliowing
16 
stakeholders of the Philippine Congress: the House Speaker; the Senate President; the
17 
concerned chairpersons and committee secretaries of congressionai committees with
18 
jurisdictions over public poiicies, programs, projects and services being evaluated; and
19 
the support offices of the House of Representatives and the Phiiippine Senate
20 
performing budget and poiicy research and technical assistance to the members of
21 
Congress;
22 
h) prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations, disseminate
23 
completed evaluation reports and gather management replies and feedback (to the
24 
evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations);
25 
i) conduct capacity-development activities on evaluation with partners from the
26 
government, private and civil society sectors and donors and development partners;
27 
j) provide Secretariat support to the NEC;
28 
k) recommend sanctions and incentives; and
10


1 
I) prepare a consolidated report of individual evaluations for the NEC's
2 
appropriate action.
3 
Sec. 12. National Evaluation Agenda (NEA) - All departments, agencies and
4 
instrumentalities of the national government from the executive, legislative and judicial
5 
branches shall formulate and maintain a continuously updated six-year evaluation
6 
agenda, to coincide with the timeframe of the Phiiippine Development Plan (PDP) and
7 
Public Investment Program (PIP). The evaluation agenda shall specify pubiic policies,
8 
strategies, programs, projects and services to be subjected to impact, thematic, project
9 
or self-evaluations and their timeiines.
10 
The NEC, with the assistance of its Secretariat, shali review the s'lx-year
11 
evaluation agenda of national government agencies and instrumentalities to identify
12 
high- priority evaluations for integration in the National Evaluation Agenda.
13 
Sec. 13. Creation of Independent Evaluation Units (JEUs) of Covered Entities. -
14 
The head of any national government department, agency or instrumentality shall
15 
establish capable Independent Evaluation Units (lEU) initialiy at the central level subject
16 
to existing policies, rules, and regulations of the DBM on organizational and staffing
17 
pattern changes. The head of the lEU reports directly to the head of the department,
18 
agency or instrumentality.
19 
To support the work of the independent evaluation unit, the head of the national
20 
government department, agency or instrumentality shall establish a senior-level M&E
21 
advisory committee for support and oversight of M&E Initiatives of the entity covered
22 
by the NEP.
23 
Sec. 14. Utilization of Evaluation Findings and Recommendations. - The heads
24 
of departments, agencies and Instrumentalities shall submit reports on their
25 
management response and other actions on the findings, conclusions and
26 
recommendations of completed evaluations, to the NEC and its Secretariat, the Speaker
27 
of the House and the Senate President and to the relevant committee chairpersons and
28 
support offices of the two branches of Congress.
11


1 
The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the executive,
2 
legisiative and judiciai branches of the national government shall ensure that Evaluation
3 
findings recommendations and lessons learned are used to guide and improve the
4 
design, planning, programming, budgeting, implementation and oversight of public
5 
policies, strategies, programs and projects.
6 
The NEC and its Secretariat and the evaiuation units and M&E advisory
7 
committees of the entities covered by this policy shall monitor the actions of the
8 
nationai government and its agencies and instrumentaiities, on evaluation findings and
9 
recommendations.
10 
Sec. 15. Funding for Operationalization of die RBNEP. - The national
11 
government and its departments, agencies and instrumentaiities in the executive,
12 
legislative and judicial branches shall allocate at least three percent (3%) of their
13 
annuai budgets for the implementation of the RBNEP. Such funds shali be used for:
14 
a) evaluation capacity development;
15 
b) ongoing salaries, recruitment and training to ensure an adequate suppiy of
16 
internal personnel competent in evaluation;
17 
c) operations and maintenance; and,
18 
d) externai evaluation professional service fees.
19 
Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The NEC shail formuiate the
20 
impiementing rules and regulations (IRR) of this Act. The IRR shail specify the target
21 
outputs, short-term and medium-term outcomes, long-term impacts and other intended
22 
results of this policy. The IRR shali provide for the conduct of formative and summative
23 
evaluations of the NEP for two (2) and five (5) years, respectively, after Its initial
24 
implementation.
25 
Sec. 17. Amendment - The findings and recommendations of the formative and
26 
summative evaluations, in addition to the feedback of various stakeholders including
27 
but not limited to the NEC and its Secretariat, neutral evaluation units of entities
28 
covered by the NER and private sector and civil society organizations including
12


1 
international donor agencies shall guide proposed amendments of the NEP including
2 
the basic guidelines for NEP's Implementation formulated by the NEC.
3 
Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or
4 
other issuances or parts thereof Inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby
5 
repealed or modified accordingly.
6 
Sec. 19. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared
7 
unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act or any provision not affected thereby shall
8 
remain in force and effect.
9 
Sec. 20. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following
10 
the completion of its publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
11 
general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved,
13