'e
TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE 
)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
)
First Regular Session 
)
25 AUG-6 PI 37
SENATE
S. No. 1030
Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
AN ACT
INSTITUTIONALIZING A RESULTS-BASED NATIONAL EVALUATION POLICY
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Equally important in the process of legislating and executing national policies 
is an examination of their effectiveness and an honest assessment whether their 
intended results are achieved or not. Such an evaluation identifies gaps in the 
implementation, and allows decision makers to learn and correct weaknesses in the 
interventions. It also ensures that government resources are allocated wisely and 
optimized by directing funds and other assets on strategies that actually work and 
on programs which are periodically refined and enhanced to address social ills.
Over the years, there are laudable efforts to pursue an evaluation agenda. An 
example of which is the Joint Memorandum Circular issued by the Department of 
Budget and Management (DBM) and the National Economic and Development 
Authority (NEDA) which acknowledged the need for an evaluation policy framework 
that would govern the practice of evaluation in the public sector.
The NEDA-DBM JMC No. 2015-01, which covers all projects and programs 
implemented by the agencies of the government, including the state universities and 
colleges, government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial


institutions, has three-fold objectives: 1) support for evidence-based decisions; 2) 
ensure program improvement; and 3) ensure accountability.
In addition, DBM also issued National Budget Circular No. 565 in 2016 on the 
adoption of a Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Policy (RBMER). 
The policy framework aims to "strengthen, streamline and standardize the RBMER 
system evidenced by a timely, useful, accurate and credible reporting of 
performance information in order to support policy and program improvement, 
expenditure management, and local and national decision making".
This measure seeks to institutionalize via legislation a National Evaluation 
Policy (NEP) to promote evidence-based decision making in government, thereby 
promoting good governance, effective public resources management and 
transparency. It also seeks to ensure that the crafting and implementing of policies 
are aligned towards our long-term goals and aspirations as a nation, and in line with 
our commitments to international conventions.
In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this legislation is sought.
INGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA


TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
First Regular Session
S. No.
)
SENATE
1030
of
25 AUG -6 P1 38
RliCEIVV'j
Introduced by Senator Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada
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 Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Resuits-Based
2 
National Evaluation Policy (RBNEP) Act".
3 
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared a policy of the State to
4 
ensure the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, and impact of laws,
5 
policies, strategies, and programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) of the government
6 
through the regular conduct and use of credible evaluations of its interventions to
7 
achieve its inclusive development and poverty reduction goals.
8 
Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. - The RBNEP intends to achieve the following
9 
objectives:
10 
a) Facilitate the institutionalization of an integrated evaluation system of
11 
the government;
12 
b) Ensure the timely provision to government decision makers of credible
13 
and useful evaluations in support of results-based 
formulation,
14 
planning, budgeting, implementation, and oversight of government
15 
interventions;
16 
c) Ensure the systematic utilization of evaluation findings and
17 
recommendations for the continuous improvement of government
18 
interventions and optimum allocation of resources;


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) Promote greater transparency and accountability for results of 
government departments, agencies and other instrumentalities; and,
e) Monitor the progress and assist in the achievement of long-term vision 
and aspirations of the nation as embodied in the AmBisyon Natin 2040 
and the Philippine Development Plans (PDP), and in the meeting of the 
targets set by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Sec. 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, rigorous 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


1 
after target individuals, groups, systems, or organizations have
2 
experienced the outputs and outcomes of government interventions.
3 
Sec. 5. Coverage. -The RBNEP shall apply to the following:
4 
a) All departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the national
5 
government, including state universities and colleges (SUCs),
6 
constitutional commissions, and government-owned and/or controlled
7 
corporations (GOCCs); and legislative and judicial branches of the
8 
government;
9 
b) All government interventions formulated and implemented by the
10 
above entities including those funded by Official Development
11 
Assistance (ODA) and those contracted to and executed by local
12 
government units (LGUs), private sector and civil society organizations.
13 
Sec. 6. Guiding Principies for Evaiuation. - The credibility, quality, and
14 
usefulness of evaluation shall be ensured through adherence to the following
15 
principles:
16 
a) Utiiity-lx\ commissioning or conducting an evaluation, there shall be a
17 
clear intention to use the evaluation findings and recommendations for
18 
results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and
19 
oversight of government interventions. The design and timing of
20 
evaluations shall address the information needs of government
21 
decision-makers.
22 
b) Appiying evaiuation criteria - Evaluations shall assess and report on
23 
the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact and
24 
sustainability of government interventions in accordance with
25 
internationally accepted evaluation criteria. The use of these criteria
26 
shall be responsive to the needs of decision-makers, and to the
27 
purpose and context of evaluation. The following factors shall be
28 
assessed and measured:
29 
i. 
Alignment and consistency with national 
priorities and
30 
policies.
31 
ii. 
Responsiveness to stakeholder needs.
32 
iii. 
Complementation with other programs and projects.


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
iv. 
Programmatic alternatives.
V. 
Objectiveness achievement.
vi. 
Unintended results.
vii. 
Efficient delivery of outputs.
viii. 
Operations alternatives.
ix. 
Timeliness.
X. Continuation of intended results.
xi. 
Capacities needed to sustain the benefits over time.
xii. 
Ultimate significance and transformative effects of the 
intervention.
c) Observing evaluation standards. - Evaluation shall be consistent with 
internationally accepted evaluation norms, standards and best 
practices, including the 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 
evaluations. 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,


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
conduct, communicate and use evaluations. Subject matter experts, 
professionals with technical and multi-disciplinary proficiency, and 
individuals with relevant knowledge and experience may be consulted 
and sought for their insights and recommendations.
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) Human rights and gender equaiity. - Evaluations should protect, 
promote, and uphold the universally-recognized values and principles 
of human rights, and address issues involving gender, inequalities, 
underrepresented groups and marginalized sector. Each evaluation 
goal, methodology, finding, and recommendation should embrace and 
reinforce the "no one left behind" principle.
h) 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.


1 
i) Accountability. - Entities responsible for the commissioning, managing
2 
and conducting evaluations shall ensure that evaluations are credible,
3 
quality, useful and timely. Key findings and recommendations of
4 
completed evaluations shall be communicated clearly by the same
5 
entities to government decision-makers and other stakeholders. The
6 
covered entities of the RBNEP shall incorporate the use of evaluations
7 
in results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, implementation, and
8 
oversight of government interventions.
9 
Sec. 7. Establishment of a National Evaluation Council. - A National
10 
Evaluation Council (NEC) is hereby established to oversee the implementation of the
11 
RBNEP.
12 
Sec. 8. Composition of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall have
13 
the following seven (7) voting members:
14 
a) Secretary of the National Economic and Development Authority
15 
(NEDA), or his/her authorized representative, as Chairperson. The
16 
representative of the NEDA Secretary shall be an Undersecretary in
17 
charge of monitoring and evaluation in NEDA;
18 
b) Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or
19 
his/her authorized representative, as Co-Chairperson. The
20 
representative of the DBM Secretary shall at least be an Assistant
21 
Secretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation in the DBM;
22 
c) Secretary of the Philippine Senate or his/her representative who shall
23 
at least be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research
24 
and/or evaluation in the Senate;
25 
d) Secretary General of the House of Representatives or his/her duly
26 
authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in
27 
charge of policy, planning, research and/or evaluation in the House of
28 
Representatives;
29 
e) Court Administrator of the Supreme Court or his/her authorized
30 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of
31 
policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation;


1 
f) Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA) or his/her authorized
2 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of
3 
policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and,
4 
g) Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government
5 
(DILG) or his/her authorized representative. The representative of the
6 
DILG Secretary shall at least be an Assistant Secretary in charge of
7 
monitoring and evaluation in the DILG.
8 
The NEC shall meet at least once every quarter or as often as necessary. To
9 
ensure that the NEC is guided by inputs of evaluation experts, the following shall
10 
attend the NEC meetings as non-voting members:
11 
a) The head of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) or
12 
his/her duly authorized representative who shall 
at least be a career
13 
Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring
14 
and evaluation;
15 
b) The head of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or his/her duly
16 
authorized representative who shall at least be a career Director in
17 
charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and
18 
evaluation;
19 
c) Head of the Presidential Management Staff or his/her authorized
20 
representative who shall at least be a career Director in charge of
21 
policy, planning and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and
22 
d) Representative from the voluntary organizations for professional
23 
evaluation (VOPES).
24 
Sec. 9. Functions of the National Evaluation Council. - The NEC shall perform
25 
the following functions to operationalize the RBNEP:
26 
a) Provide overall policy direction on the implementation of the RBNEP;
27 
b) Approve the basic guidelines for the conduct of evaluation;
28 
c) Review and approve the National Evaluation Strategy (NES) and ensure
29 
its implementation;
30 
d) Review, approve and ensure the implementation of the costed
31 
evaluation agenda of covered entities;


1 
e) Provide oversight on the conduct of evaluation by covered entities and
2 
their management response to evaluation recommendations;
3 
f) Issue the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs of
4 
covered entities; and,
5 
g) Approve and implement a program to strengthen the evaluation
6 
capacity of lEUs and government decision-makers.
7 
Sec. 10. NEC Secretariat and its Functions. - The NEC Secretariat shall be
8 
established within the NEDA. The existing staffing complement of the NEDA shall be
9 
augmented and professionalized to undertake the functions of the NEC Secretariat.
10 
The NEC Secretariat shall:
11 
a) Formulate and recommend basic guidelines for the conduct of
12 
evaluation;
13 
b) Prepare the National Evaluation Strategy;
14 
c) Review and make recommendations on the costed evaluation agenda
15 
of covered entities;
16 
d) Monitor the implementation of entities' evaluation agenda and their
17 
management response to evaluation recommendation in support of the
18 
oversight function of the NEC;
19 
e) Formulate the basic guidelines on the formation and operation of lEUs
20 
of entities covered;
21 
f) Provide quality assurance of evaluations conducted by covered entities;
22 
g) Facilitate the dissemination to decision-makers of key findings, lessons
23 
learned, and recommendations from completed evaluations;
24 
h) Maintain a public website containing the evaluation plans and reports
25 
of covered entities;
26 
i) Develop a program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of covered
27 
entities and government decision makers;
28 
j) Provide recommendations and guidelines to the higher educational
29 
institutions (FIEIs) and the academic sector on the development of
30 
courses, curriculum and degrees related to evaluation and monitoring;
31 
k) Prepare and submit to the DBM the annual funding requirement of the
32 
program to strengthen the evaluation capacity of the government; and


1 
I) Carry out other directives of the NEC, as necessary.
2 
Sec. 11. National Evaluation Strategy. - The National Evaluation Strategy
3 
(NES) shall identify the priority areas for evaluation in line with the Philippine
4 
Development Plan. It shall guide the formulation of evaluation agenda of the
5 
covered entities.
6 
Sec. 12. Organization of Independent Evaluation Units (lEUs) of Covered
7 
Entities. - Each covered entity shall organize an lEU that shall report directly to the
8 
head of the entity. The head of the entity shall ensure that the lEU can perform its
9 
evaluation functions independently and objectively.
10 
Sec. 13. Functions of the lEUs. - The lEUs shall:
11 
a) Coordinate the formulation and approval of the costed evaluation
12 
agenda of the covered entity;
13 
b) Manage or conduct evaluations identified in the costed evaluation
14 
agenda;
15 
c) Submit evaluation plans and final evaluation reports to the entity's
16 
head and to the NEC Secretariat in accordance with prescribed
17 
guidelines;
18 
d) Disseminate the key findings and recommendations of completed
19 
evaluations to the head of the entity, decision-makers and other
20 
stakeholders;
21 
e) Facilitate the formulation of the management response to key findings
22 
and recommendations from the completed evaluations;
23 
f) Monitor the entity's progress in implementing the management
24 
response;
25 
g) Establish quality assurance and participatory mechanisms for
26 
evaluation; and,
27 
h) Provide inputs to results-based formulation, planning, budgeting, and
28 
implementation within the entity.
29 
Sec. 14. Formulation of the Costed Evaluation Agenda. - Each covered entity
30 
shall formulate a six-year costed evaluation agenda aligned with the NES. The head
31 
of entity shall submit the costed evaluation agenda to the NEC.


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
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. He or she shall submit to the NEC the management response to 
evaluation recommendations, and ensure its implementation.
Sec. 16. Transparency and Dissemination of Evaluation Findings. - Evaluation 
findings and recommendations, along with the methodologies and frameworks 
employed in the conduct of the evaluation, shall be published in the official website 
of the concerned government instrumentality and shall be made available to the 
general public.
Sec. 17. 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).
Sec. 18. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - 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 sixty 
(60) days upon the approval of this Act.
Sec. 19. Amendment - This Act shall be evaluated three (3) years after its 
initial implementation. The results of such evaluation shall guide the proposed 
amendments of this Act and its IRR.
Sec. 20. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared invalid 
or unconstitutional, the remaining provision not affected thereby shall continue to be 
in full force and effect.
Sec. 21. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders or regulations or part 
thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 22. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following the 
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a national newspaper of 
general circulation.
Approved,
10