National Results-based Governance Act

Bellie TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES First Regular Session 25 JUL 14 A11:42 SENATE RECEIVED BY S. No. - Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING NATIONAL RESULTS-BASED GOVERNANCE, STRENGTHENING MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND UTILIZATION SYSTEMS ACROSS ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT EXPLANATORY NOTE Every budget season, government agencies are asked the most fundamental question: "How did your program improve the lives of the Filipino people?" It is a simple question, but it cuts to the very core of public service. Filipinos deserve to know not just what was done, but what changed because it was done. Yet time and again, we hear the same kind of answers: how many families were reached, how many kilometers of road were paved, how many beneficiaries were enrolled. These are not unimportant, but they do not tell us the full story. They tell us what was delivered —not whether it worked. Did the free Wi-Fi in schools actually lead to better learning outcomes for students? Did the livelihood trainings offered by agencies translate into real, sustained income for families? Did the additional clinics built in rural areas result in lower maternal deaths or improved treatment access for the sick?

We rarely get these answers—-because they are rarely asked at the start, rarely measured in the middle, and rarely discussed at the end. The truth is that the government often implements without a system to ask: Are we making lives better? Are we solving the problem we set out to address? Without credible evidence, the accomplishments we report are but echoes of effort, not proof of change This gap between intention and transformation is where many government programs falter-not due to a lack of effort, but because of a lack of systems that track, measure, and apply lessons from experience. And despite our national culture's aversion to systems and rules, a universal truth remains: good systems build behaviors, behaviors shape mindsets, mindsets create institutions, and institutions sustain progress. Needless to state, without results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization, we are steering the ship without a compass. Despite decades of government spending, the absence of a systematic, integrated, and results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework continues to hamper the State's ability to answer these questions credibly, consistently, and transparently. Performance reports often rely on outputs-not outcomes or impacts. Evaluation is either not conducted, not independent, or not used. Even when good studies are produced, findings often go unutilized in decision-making. Public funds are released and spent without a clear feedback loop to assess effectiveness or guide improvements. This bill seeks to institutionalize a whole of government results-based governance through the National Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB- MEUP) to close this gap. By enhancing the three post-implementation pillars of governance monitoring, evaluation, and utilization-the bill ensures that government interventions are tracked meaningfully, evaluated rigorously, and used effectively to inform policy, redesign programs, and guide future investments. The bill also aligns this monitoring and evaluation framework with the national development planning architecture established under Republic Act No. 12145 or the "Economy, Planning, and Development Act" ensuring coherence across all levels and branches of government. It mandates the creation of Independent Monitoring,

Evaluation, and Utilization Divisions (IMEDs), sets minimum standards and protocols for evaluations, and ensures that findings are not only produced, but acted upon. This measure builds upon foundational Executive and Administrative Orders, circulars, and joint policies that have progressively institutionalized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in government, including: • Executive Order No. 376, s. 1989, which established the Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) to promote participatory monitoring at regional and local levels; • Administrative Order No. 25, s. 2011, which created the Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS) as a unified monitoring and reporting mechanism for the Executive Branch; • DBM-issued guidelines on the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework (OPIF), which introduced results-based budgeting through sectoral performance indicators; and • NEDA-DBM Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC), July 15, 2015, which adopted the National Evaluation Policy Framework (NEPF) to institutionalize evaluations in support of evidence-based policy and good governance; Ultimately, this measure seeks to build a culture of learning, accountability, and results orientation across the public sector. It moves government beyond compliance- based reporting and into the realm of evidence-based governance where success is not measured by how much we spend or how many we reach, but by how much we truly improve people's lives. At the end of the day, as public servants, we must find the courage to ask ourselves-with honesty and humility: Did we truly help? Did we truly uplift? And what can we do better? In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this bill is earnestly sought. LOREN LEGARDA

fire of e TWENTIETH CONGRESS OF THE ) REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) First Regular Session 25 JUL 14 A11 :42 SENATE RECEIVED E S. No. - Introduced by Senator Loren Legarda AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING NATIONAL RESULTS-BASED GOVERNANCE, STRENGTHENING MONITORING, EVALUATION, AND UTILIZATION SYSTEMS ACROSS ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. — This Act shall be known as the "National Results-Based

Governance Act."

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to

institutionalize a National Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB- MEUP) to strengthen public sector performance, transparency, and accountability. The State shall enhance the critical yet underutilized, often neglected, pillars of monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across the entire program management cycle to 8 ensure that government interventions are monitored consistently, evaluated rigorously, 9 and utilized effectively. The State shall enhance the critical yet underutilized, often neglected, pillars of monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across the entire program management cycle to ensure that government interventions are monitored consistently, evaluated rigorously, and utilized effectively, and that government programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) are streamlined, redundant efforts reduced, and resources directed toward interventions that deliver meaningful results.

Results shall be measured credibly, and evidence shall be used to inform policy 2 decisions, improve program design and implementation, and ensure the strategic 3 allocation and use of public resources. The policy shall be aligned with Republic Act No. 4 12145 or the Economy, Planning, and Development Act, designating the Department of 5 Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) as the primary coordinating agency for 6 national planning, investment programming, and evaluation. The State further recognizes the institutional need for a central oversight body to 8 ensure inter-branch alignment and system-wide accountability in the implementation of 9 results-based monitoring and evaluation. For this purpose, a National Monitoring, 10 Evaluation, and Utilization Council is established to exercise policy coordination, standards formulation, and supervision, with the DEPDev as its principal implementing arm and technical lead.

Sec. 3. Policy Objectives. —The Act aims to institutionalize a results-based

framework for improving public sector performance by enhancing the post- implementation pillars of the program management cycle: monitoring, evaluation, and utilization. It shall pursue the following objectives: a) Strengthen the development and institutionalization of an integrated, government-wide monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and plan under the leadership of the DEPDev, enabling the proactive identification of relevant data and indicators, ensuring their timely and regular collection, and supporting credible evaluation and reporting aligned with national development goals and performance standards; b) Ensure that government interventions, including policies, strategies, programs, activities, and projects, are regularly monitored and evaluated in terms of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, and that such evaluations are used to streamline programs, activities, and projects (PAPs), reduce redundancy, and enhance overall resource effectiveness; c) Guarantee the timely provision and transparent communication of monitoring data and independent, useful evaluation findings to decision-

makers, planners, and stakeholders to support results-based planning, budgeting, and oversight; d) Institutionalize the systematic utilization, dissemination, and feedback of monitoring and evaluation results to drive continuous program improvement and guide the strategic realignment of public expenditures and interventions; e) Institutionalize the allocation of adequate and integrated financing for monitoring, evaluation, and utilization as an essential component of government interventions. All government entities shall ensure that sufficient M&E budgets are incorporated into planning and budgeting processes, including personnel, services, operational, and capital outlays; f) Promote transparency and accountability in the use of public resources by ensuring that government entities are held responsible for achieving development results; g) Foster a culture of learning and adaptive management across all branches and levels of government by mainstreaming evidence-informed policymaking and continuous performance improvement; and h) Ensure harmonization of monitoring, evaluation, and utilization practices with national planning, investment programming, and development coordination mandates, in accordance with Republic Act No. 12145. The DEPDev shall serve as the primary agency responsible for overseeing coherence between evaluation systems and national development priorities.

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - The terms used in this Act shall be defined as

follows: a) Evaluation refers to the systematic and impartial assessment of the design, implementation, and results of government interventions to determine their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, and impact. Evaluation provides credible and useful evidence that informs decision- making and improves future policy and programming. It shall be

distinguished from monitoring, audit, or individual performance assessment; b) Monitoring refers to the continuous and systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and using data on key performance indicators to track the implementation and progress of government interventions. It enables timely detection of issues, supports adaptive management, and provides critical inputs for evaluation. Monitoring shall include the proactive and purposeful identification of relevant data, indicators, and measurement methods at the planning stage ensuring that what is tracked aligns with intended results and anticipated risks. It shall guard against collecting irrelevant information and shall prevent the omission of essential data by requiring early, deliberate definition of what constitutes meaningful evidence for progress and performance; c) Utilization refers to the systematic application of monitoring and evaluation findings, lessons learned, and recommendations to inform policy reforms, improve program and project design, optimize resource allocation, and enhance organizational performance. Utilization ensures that evidence is acted upon for meaningful results. It shall be clearly distinguished from budget utilization, which refers to the disbursement and obligation of financial resources; in contrast, this concept of utilization pertains to the use of knowledge and evidence generated from performance assessments; d) Results refer to the changes in conditions or behaviors brought about by government interventions. These include outputs or immediate deliverables, outcomes or short to medium-term effects, and impacts long- term societal changes, whether intended or unintended, positive or negative; e) Outputs refer to the specific goods, services, or deliverables produced as a direct result of implementing policies, strategies, programs, or projects.

These are typically under the direct control of the implementing agency and are measured by quantity, quality, and timeliness; f Outcomes refer to the short and medium-term benefits or changes experienced by target individuals, groups, systems, or organizations as a result of outputs. These are more closely linked to strategic goals than outputs; g) Impacts refer to the long-term, broad sectoral and societal changes resulting from government interventions. Impacts include sustained improvements in well-being, equity, or system-wide performance; h) Government Interventions refer to the laws, policies, strategies, programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) undertaken by departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities of the government, including those supported by local and foreign funding; i) PAPs (Programs, Activities, and Projects) refer to the core components of government budgeting and implementation structures. Programs are coordinated activities designed to achieve specific objectives; activities are operations undertaken within programs; projects are time-bound undertakings to deliver distinct outputs and outcomes; j) Results-Based Management refers to a performance management approach focused on achieving measurable results. It includes planning, monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on performance indicators, and aligns with tools such as the Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF), Logical Framework (Logframe), and Results Matrix (RM); k) Organizational Performance Indicators Framework (OPIF) refers to a results-based budgeting framework that links agency outputs to organizational and sector outcomes using key indicators of quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost; 1) Results Framework refers to a planning and management tool that defines the cause-effect relationship among inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes,

and impacts. It clarifies performance indicators, assumptions, and data sources for M&E; m) Results Framework refers to a strategic tool that aligns programmatic and organizational results with higher-level development outcomes, showing how inputs and outputs contribute to the achievement of national and sectoral goals; n) Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) refers to a decentralized mechanism established under EO 376 (1989) for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of development projects at national, regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels. It promotes participatory project oversight involving government agencies, LGUs, and civil society organizations; o) Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB-MEUP) refers to the national policy framework institutionalized by this Act that mandates the systematic integration of monitoring, evaluation, and utilization (M&E/U) functions into the public sector management cycle. It seeks to strengthen government performance, accountability, and transparency by ensuring that interventions are monitored consistently, evaluated rigorously, and results are used meaningfully to inform policy, planning, and budgeting decisions across all levels and branches of government; p) National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Strategy (NMEUS) refers to the national operational and technical framework that guides the implementation of the RB-MEUP. It sets the principles, standards, protocols, and methodologies for results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across government entities. The NMEUS ensures alignment and interoperability with national planning and budgeting systems and provides the reference for agency-level monitoring and evaluation systems and practices;

q) National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Agenda (NMEUA) refers to the official, government-wide, medium-term agenda that identifies the priority policies, programs, activities, and projects (PAPs) to be subjected to results-based monitoring and evaluation. It is formulated by the Council, in consultation with DEPDev and other stakeholders, and aligns with the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and other national strategies. The NMEUA provides strategic focus for the application of M&E resources and informs the development of agency- specific M&E agendas; r) Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Division (IMED) refers to a permanent organizational unit established within a government department, agency, or instrumentality responsible for leading and coordinating institutional monitoring, evaluation, and utilization (M&E/U) functions. An IMED operates with functional independence from program implementers and is staffed with full-time personnel mandated to conduct results-based assessments of agency-wide interventions, consistent with national standards and planning frameworks; and s) Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Unit (IMEU) refers to a dedicated, project-specific, or time-bound unit established within a government agency, department, or program implementing office to perform monitoring, evaluation, and utilization functions for high-value programs, special projects, or flagship interventions. An IMEU may also be created as a sub-unit under the IMED when additional staffing or technical specialization is needed for complex or voluminous activities. IMEUs operate under the same principles of independence, objectivity, and methodological rigor but may be limited in scope and duration.

Sec. 5. Coverage. - Subject to the provision of Section 12 on the phased

implementation, this Act shall apply to: (a) All departments, agencies, state universities and colleges (SUCS), government-owned and/or controlled corporations (GOCCS), government

financial institutions (GFIs), constitutional commissions, and other instrumentalities of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the National Government, consistent with the national planning and evaluation frameworks under Republic Act No. 12145; and (b) All public policies, strategies, programs, projects, activities, and other development interventions formulated and implemented by the above entities, including those funded by local or foreign sources-such as Official Development Assistance (ODA), subject to the rules and conditions governing such assistance-and those contracted to or implemented through local government units (LGUs), the private sector, or civil society organizations.

Sec. 6. Guiding Principles. - The credibility, quality, and usefulness of results-

based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization shall be ensured through adherence to the following principles: a) Results Orientation. Institutionalize monitoring, evaluation, and utilization as tools to achieve measurable results such as outputs, outcomes, and impacts that align with national priorities. M&E shall focus on improving actual performance, not merely satisfying procedural requirements; b) Proactive and Purposeful Data Use. Ensure that M&E systems are designed from the planning stage to identify relevant indicators and data needs early. Data collection must be strategic, purposeful, and clearly aligned with defined objectives to support timely and relevant evidence; c) Integration into the Management Cycle. Embed monitoring, evaluation, and utilization across the full cycle of public sector management, including planning, budgeting, implementation, and post-implementation stages. This promotes continuous learning, improvement, and accountability; d) Adequate and Integrated Financing. Institutionalize the allocation of sufficient resources for M&E as a standard element of program and project implementation. Government entities shall incorporate appropriate budgets

for personnel, services, and operational and capital expenditures to ensure high-quality and sustainable M&E efforts; e) Utility and Use. Design M&E activities with the intent to inform decisions, improve policy and program design, and guide resource allocation. Results must be used meaningfully and should never be treated as mere compliance outputs; f) Independence and Impartiality. Safeguard the credibility of evaluations by ensuring independence from implementing units. Third-party evaluators shall be commissioned through objective and transparent processes when necessary; g) Competence and Professionalism. Ensure that all M&E work is carried out by qualified professionals who possess the necessary technical skills and follow international standards and ethical practices; h) Ethics and Inclusivity. Uphold respect for human dignity, cultural and gender sensitivity, and stakeholder protection in all M&E processes; i) Environmental Consciousness. Assess environmental impacts during planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Align M&E practices with sustainability goals and climate resilience objectives; j) Transparency and Accessibility. Make M&E processes and findings accessible to stakeholders and the public, subject to applicable confidentiality laws. Reports must clearly explain methods, assumptions, limitations, and intended uses; k) Accountability for Use. Require agencies to respond formally to M&E findings within a reasonable period, indicating whether they accept the findings in full, accept them in part with justification, or reject them with supporting evidence. Accepted recommendations must be integrated into future planning and implementation; Alignment with International Standards. Ensure that the Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy aligns with internationally recognized standards and principles, including those of the Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development - Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) and the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG), among other relevant global bodies that promote high-quality, credible, and results-based evaluation systems; and m) High-value projects refer to government programs, activities, or projects (PAPs) that meet at least one of the following criteria: 1) Large financial allocation, typically exceeding a threshold amount to be determined by the Council (e.g., P1,000,000,000.00 as an initial standard pending formal threshold setting); 2) National or sectoral strategic significance, such as those identified as flagship programs or priority investments in the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) or Public Investment Program (PIP); 3) High public visibility, complexity, or risk, including projects with substantial socio-environmental impact, multi-agency coordination, or potential implementation challenges; 4) Projects requiring approval by the Economic Development Council under RA 12145 (DEPDev Act); or 5) Foreign-assisted or co-financed programs with stringent performance or results-based reporting requirements (e.g., ODA-funded projects).

Sec. 7. Monitoring Criteria. - To ensure the consistency, relevance, and utility of

monitoring activities under this Act, all government entities shall, at a minimum, track and report performance using the following criteria: (a) Timeliness - The extent to which data is collected and reported at appropriate intervals to support real-time decision-making; (b) Accuracy - The degree to which monitored data reliably reflects actual performance or conditions; (c) Completeness - The coverage of indicators and data points necessary to fully assess the progress of interventions; (d) Consistency - The application of uniform data definitions, methods, and formats across time and reporting units;

(e) Responsiveness - The extent to which monitoring systems detect deviations, risks, or emerging issues and trigger appropriate management actions; and (f) Other criteria as may be identified by the Council. These criteria shall be aligned with the Results Framework or other results-based planning tools established for the intervention.

Sec. 8. Evaluation Criteria - To ensure the credibility, usefulness, and integrity

of all evaluations conducted under this Act, the application of evaluation criteria shall be mandatory, transparent, and based on recognized international standards. Evaluations of national government policies, strategies, programs, activities, and projects shall, at a minimum, assess and report on the following five (5) core criteria: (a) Relevance. The extent to which the intervention addresses identified needs and remains aligned with current priorities; (b) Effectiveness. The degree to which the intended objectives or outcomes have been achieved; (c) Efficiency. How well resources, including time and funds, have been used to achieve the results; (d) Coherence. The extent to which the intervention is compatible with and reinforces, or avoids duplication or contradiction with, other policies, programs, and institutional frameworks-both internal and external to the government; (e) Impact. The broader, long-term effects of the intervention on communities, systems, or sectors; (f) Sustainability. The likelihood that benefits will continue after the intervention end; and (g) Other criteria as may be identified by the Council. These criteria shall be applied in a clear, consistent, and transparent manner, and shall be grounded in the results framework, results chain, or equivalent results-based planning structure established by the implementing agency.

Sec. 9. Establishment of the National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization

2 Council. - A National Monitoring, Evaluation and Utilization Council (Council) is hereby 3 established to oversee the implementation of the Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, 4 and Utilization Policy (RB-MEUP). The Council shall provide policy direction, promote 5 coordination across government branches, and ensure alignment with national 6 development goals and standards for results-based monitoring and evaluation.

Sec. 10. Composition of the National Monitoring, Evaluation and Utilization Council

8 (Council). - The Council shall be composed of the following seven (7) voting members: (1) The Secretary of the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev), or his/her duly authorized representative, as Chairperson. The representative shall be an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation; (2) The Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), or his/her duly authorized representative, as Co-Chairperson. The representative shall be at least an Undersecretary in charge of monitoring and evaluation; (3) The Secretary of the Philippine Senate, or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research, and/or evaluation; (4) The Secretary General of the House of Representatives, or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, research, and/or evaluation; (5) The Court Administrator of the Supreme Court, or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; (6) The Chairperson of the Commission on Audit (COA), or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; and

(7) The Head of the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation. The Council shall convene at least once every year or as often as necessary. To 5 ensure the Council is guided by technical expertise, the following shall serve as non- 6 voting members and attend Council meetings in an advisory capacity: (a) The President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; (b) The National Statistician and Civil Registrar General of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director in charge of policy, planning, and/or performance monitoring and evaluation; (c) The President of the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), or his/her duly authorized representative, who shall be a career Director responsible for governance and capacity development, particularly in monitoring and evaluation systems and institutional performance management; (d) The Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission in charge of the Civil Service Institute (CSC-CSI), or his/her duly authorized representative; (e) The Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), or his/her duly authorized representative; (f) The Undersecretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in charge of local government capability development, or his/her duly authorized representative; and (g) A representative from the academic and professional sector, as may be appointed by the Chairperson.

Sec. 11. Functions of the Council - The Council shall serve as the central policy

coordination and standard-setting body for the implementation of the RB-MEUP, without

1 prejudice to the primary planning and evaluation mandates of the DEPDev under Republic 2 Act No. 12145. It shall perform the following functions: (a) Provide strategic policy direction and technical oversight over the implementation of the RB-MEUP across the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and ensure alignment with the development planning and evaluation priorities set by the DEPDev; (b) Review and endorse the NMEUS prepared by the Secretariat to ensure coherence with national development goals, including the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and Results- Based Performance Management System (RBPMS); (c) Establish and promulgate standards, protocols, and methodologies for results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization applicable across sectors and agencies, consistent with internationally recognized practices and the guidance issued by DEPDev; (d) Ensure the formal and timely response to certified M&E findings within a reasonable timeframe, indicating acceptance, partial acceptance with justification, or reasoned rejection, and to integrate accepted recommendations into their plans and budgets consistent with planning instructions issued by DEPDev; (e) Promote the use and application of M&E findings in legislative oversight, judicial policy review, and executive policy adjustments, including facilitation of inter-branch policy dialogues and sectoral roundtables to support evidence-informed governance; (f) Institutionalize and support the development of internal monitoring, evaluation, and utilization units (IMEUs) within government agencies, and establish guidelines for their staffing, structure, and functional independence; (g) Recognize and promote best practices in monitoring, evaluation, and utilization, including the issuance of performance commendations and citations for exemplary M&E practices at the agency or sectoral level;

(h) Promote inter-agency and inter-branch learning exchanges, communities of practice, and other collaborative mechanisms for advancing M&E standards and innovation; (i) Recommend to DEPDev proposals for refinement of the medium-term National Evaluation Agenda or priority topics for strategic evaluation and cross-cutting policy studies;and 0) Ensure that all Council decisions, recommendations, and evaluation summaries are publicly accessible in accordance with transparency and access-to-information laws, subject to applicable confidentiality safeguards. The Council shall exercise these functions in support of, and in full recognition of, 11 the DEPDev's lead role in national planning, evaluation, and data systems integration. The Council shall not duplicate planning or evaluation functions already reserved to DEPDev under Republic Act No. 12145. The Council shall meet at least once every quarter, or as often as necessary, and 15 may constitute technical working groups or advisory panels to fulfill its mandates 16 effectively.

Sec. 12. Council Secretariat and Its Functions. - The DEPDev shall serve as the

18 Council Secretariat, with its Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (MES) acting as the dedicated 19 support unit for this function. Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the Secretariat shall be formally organized. Subject to the approval of the Council and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations on staffing and organizational structure, such offices, services, and divisions as may be necessary to support the functions of the Secretariat may be created. The Secretariat shall perform the following functions: (a) Provide technical and administrative support to the Council, including convening meetings, preparing documentation, and coordinating technical committees; (b) Consolidate agency-submitted evaluation reports, monitoring data, and utilization feedback into a synthesized report for Council review, and

facilitate coordination with DEPDev's national evaluation agenda and reporting systems; (c) (Track agency compliance with monitoring and evaluation requirements and submission deadlines, and coordinate follow-through with DEPDev's performance tracking mechanisms; (d) Operate and maintain the centralized online repository of M&E reports and knowledge products in coordination with DEPDev's official knowledge and data systems; (e) Facilitate and monitor agency compliance with the requirement to respond to M&E findings within the prescribed timeframe. This includes maintaining records of agency responses, validating the implementation of accepted recommendations into agency plans and budgets, and coordinating with DEPDev to align such integration with official planning instructions; (f) Certify the quality and methodological soundness of agency-level evaluation reports and ensure the timely uploading of M&E findings to a centralized M&E knowledge management portal; (g) Coordinate dissemination of evaluation findings, including submission of final reports to Congress and relevant oversight bodies, and ensure timely public access subject to applicable laws; (h) Oversee the implementation of national capacity-building programs for M&E by identifying agency needs, coordinating logistics and partnerships, supporting reporting requirements, and conducting M&E capacity development initiatives across government, in collaboration with relevant institutions such as the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), and accredited professional associations; (i) Provide recommendations to the Council regarding agency-level performance in utilization of evaluation results, including proposed incentives or compliance measures;

0) Prepare an Annual RB-MEUP Synthesis Report for submission to Congress and the President, drawing on national evaluation agenda outputs, certified agency reports, and utilization tracking data; and (k) Perform such other functions as may be directed by the Council consistent with this Act and the mandates of DEPDev under RA 12145. All activities of the Secretariat shall be undertaken in close coordination with and under the technical guidance of DEPDev, in a manner that reinforces, and does not 8 duplicate, the existing evaluation and planning system under RA 12145.

Sec. 13. National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Strategy (NMEUS). - The

10 NMEUS shall serve as the overarching operational and technical framework for the implementation of the Results-Based Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy (RB- MEUP). It shall guide all branches, departments, and instrumentalities of government in developing and institutionalizing monitoring, evaluation, and utilization systems that are coherent, interoperable, and aligned with national development priorities. The NMEUS shall: a) Identify priority sectors, themes, and programs for monitoring and evaluation, based on their strategic relevance to the Philippine Development Plan (PDP), Public Investment Program (PIP), and other national frameworks issued by the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev); b) Define principles, methodologies, protocols, and minimum standards for results-based monitoring, credible evaluation, and evidence-based utilization, consistent with international practices and national planning guidance; c) Provide the framework and parameters for the formulation of the National Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Agenda (NMEUA), and serve as a reference for agency-level M&E agendas; d) Establish linkages between monitoring and evaluation systems and the broader planning, budgeting, and performance management processes, to support integrated public sector management;

e) Outline mechanisms to ensure that M&E findings are used to inform the design, reprioritization, expansion, or discontinuation of government interventions and guide public resource allocation; 1) Specify procedures for quality assurance, stakeholder engagement, and the transparent public dissemination of M&E reports and findings, in accordance with access-to-information laws; and g) Ensure full interoperability and alignment with existing data and knowledge management systems, statistical frameworks, and evaluation protocols developed and overseen by DEPDev pursuant to Republic Act No. 12145. The NMEUS shall be prepared by the Secretariat and submitted to the Council for review and approval. It shall be reviewed and updated at least every six (6) years, synchronized with the PDP cycle, or as may be deemed necessary by the Council.

Sec. 14. Phased Implementation. - The implementation of this NMEUS shall be

14 carried out in phases to ensure institutional readiness, build technical capacity, and allow 15 for the progressive adoption of results-based monitoring, evaluation, and utilization systems across the government. Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, the Council shall issue a Phased Implementation Plan, which include, but not be limited to, the following components: (a) Phase I: Priority Agencies and Programs. Within two (2) years from the effectivity of this Act, implementation shall begin with selected national government agencies, instrumentalities, and special projects identified by the Council. Selection shall be based on criteria such as high-value programs, significant budgetary allocations, and strategic alignment with national development objectives; (b) Phase II: National Expansion. Within three (3) years from the commencement of Phase I, implementation shall be expanded to cover all departments, agencies, government-owned or -controlled corporations (GOCCS), and state universities and colleges (SUCs) under the Executive

Branch, as well as entities in the Legislative and Judicial branches, constitutional commissions, and other independent bodies; (c) Phase III: Local Government Units and Autonomous Regions. Within five (5) years from the effectivity of this Act, the implementation shall extend to local government units (LGUs) and autonomous regional governments, ensuring full integration of the Act's provisions across all levels of government; (d) Capacity Development and Resource Support. Each phase shall be supported by appropriate capacity-building programs, organizational development assistance, and resource mobilization to ensure agency readiness and sustained compliance with monitoring, evaluation, and utilization requirements; and (e) Annual Progress Reporting. The Council shall submit an annual report to Congress and the President on the status of implementation, agency compliance, key milestones, and any recommended adjustments to the Phased Implementation Plan. All implementing activities under this Section shall observe the standards, priorities, and interoperability requirements established in the NMEUS and shall be coordinated with DEPDev to ensure alignment with national planning, programming, and evaluation systems. For major capital outlays and other high-value projects requiring approval by the Economic Development (ED) Council under Republic Act No. 12145, as well as for government flagship programs identified by the Council, the implementing agency shall establish a dedicated Special Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Units (Special IMEU). These units shall be responsible for project-specific monitoring, evaluation, and utilization functions in accordance with Section 13 of this Act and shall remain operational throughout the entire project lifecycle.

Sec. 15. Special Capacity-Building Unit. — A Special Capacity-Building Unit (SCBU)

29 shall be established under the Secretariat to provide sustained technical and institutional 30 development support for the implementation of this Act. The SCBU shall be composed of

1 representatives and technical experts from the DEPDev, the DAP, the CSC-CSI, DILG, 2 CHED, State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and other accredited academic institutions. The SCBU shall perform the following functions: (a) Develop and implement a competency framework for monitoring, evaluation, and utilization (M&E/U), and design corresponding training programs, certification modules, and mentoring activities for government personnel engaged in M&E/U functions, ensuring alignment with the established competency standards; (b) Provide customized capacity-building packages to support the operationalization of IMEDs, particularly in agencies with low technical readiness; (c) Assist LGUs in developing local M&E competencies, systems, and tools aligned with national standards; (d) Support the development of a pool of accredited M&E professionals within government; (e) Regularly assess capacity-building outcomes and update training curricula to reflect emerging practices and evaluation standards; and (f) Ensure that M& competencies are incorporated into the Qualification Standards for relevant plantilla positions. Required trainings and certifications under the framework shall form part of the minimum eligibility criteria for hiring, appointment, or promotion to M&E-designated roles. The SCBU shall issue rules and standards for the accreditation of training institutions and facilities that will provide monitoring, evaluation, and utilization capacity- building programs under this Act. The SCBU shall coordinate with DBM, CSC, and CHED to ensure institutional support and long-term sustainability of M&E capacity development in government. The SCBU, in coordination with the DEPDev, DBM, and Department of Finance (DOF), shall formulate guidelines to facilitate access to Official Development Assistance 29 (ODA) and other external financing mechanisms for capacity building, technology

1 acquisition, and innovation support related to monitoring, evaluation, and utilization 2 systems.

Sec. 16. Organization of Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization

4 Divisions (IMEDs). - Subject to the phased implementation provided under Section 14 of 5 this Act, all covered departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the national 6 government shall establish an Independent Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization 7 Divisions (IMED) within their respective organizations. These units shall be responsible & for leading and coordinating the agency's monitoring, evaluation, and utilization 9 functions, and shall operate with functional independence to ensure objectivity, integrity, 10 and credibility of outputs. IMEDs shall be sufficiently staffed, capacitated, and resourced to effectively monitor, evaluate, and facilitate the use of findings from programs, activities, and projects of agencies. Personnel assigned to the IMED shall be distinct from individual or unit performance assessors responsible for employee performance evaluations and shall 15 instead focus on institutional, sectoral, and programmatic results. IMEDs shall report directly to the head of the department, agency, or 17 instrumentality, and function independently from units involved in the design or implementation of programs and projects. The head of agency shall: (a) Ensure the operationalization of the IMED through appropriate staffing, resource allocation, and organizational support; (b) Provide the IMED with full access to performance and financial data, implementation reports, and relevant stakeholders necessary to carry out independent monitoring and evaluation functions; (c) Uphold the functional autonomy of the IMED in planning, conducting, and reporting evaluation activities and in formulating recommendations based on evidence; (d) Institutionalize internal procedures for the formal review of IMED findings and ensure that accepted recommendations are integrated into subsequent planning and budgeting cycles, in accordance with planning instructions issued by the DEPDev; and

(e) Designate or establish a Senior-Level M&E Advisory Committee to provide technical support, ensure methodological quality, and guide the strategic direction of the IMED's work. Subject to the phased implementation, agencies that do not currently maintain an 5 M&E unit shall submit to the DBM a proposal for the creation of plantilla positions and necessary organizational units to operationalize the IMED. Such proposals shall align with 7 the technical standards and sectoral priorities set by the Council, and shall be informed 8 by the phased implementation strategy agency agendas. IMEDs and Special IMEDs in accordance with Section 17 shall operate 10 independently from agency planning divisions but shall maintain structured coordination 11 with them to ensure that monitoring and evaluation findings are formally considered in the design, revision, and prioritization of programs, activities, and projects (PAPs). Planning divisions shall incorporate accepted recommendations from IMEDs into the formulation of agency plans, budget proposals, and performance targets, in accordance with planning instructions issued by DEPDev. This coordination shall be governed by internal protocols that preserve the IMED's independence while ensuring effective feedback loops into the planning and programming cycle.

Sec. 17. Special IMEDs for High-Value Projects and Expanded Staffing for High-

Volume Agencies. - Upon full integration of the Executive Branch into the Results-Based 20 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Utilization Policy, all government agencies implementing programs, activities, or projects (PAPs) whose total appropriations exceed a threshold amount to be determined by the Council, shall establish a dedicated Special IMEDs or smaller units (IMEUs) dedicated for the said PAPs. These divisions or units shall carry out project-specific M&E functions throughout the lifecycle of the covered interventions, in accordance with this Act and the standards set under the national strategy and the agency agendas. Pending formal threshold setting by the Council, high-value projects shall initially refer to PAPs exceeding One Billion Pesos (P 1,000,000,000.00) in total cost or having strategic national significance.

Agencies whose mandates involve highly complex, technical, or voluminous 2 functions-such that a single IMED is demonstrably insufficient to deliver meaningful 3 monitoring, evaluation, and utilization-may, upon justification, submit a request to the DBM for additional staffing, organizational augmentation, or the creation of additional 5 internal IMEUs, in accordance with government organizational and staffing standards.

Sec. 18. Implementation by the Legislative and Judicial Branches and

7 Constitutional Commissions. - The Legislative and Judicial branches, as well as the 8 Constitutional Commissions, shall retain full institutional independence in designing and implementing their respective monitoring, evaluation, and utilization agendas. These bodies shall coordinate with the Council, to the extent consistent with their respective mandates and constitutional autonomy, to ensure coherence with the NMEUS and alignment with national development priorities and applicable standards. Such coordination shall be consultative in nature and shall respect the independent operational, 14 budgetary, and policy-making authority of these institutions. For this purpose, these bodies may apply results-based monitoring and evaluation 16 to their internal programs, legislative instruments, judicial and quasi-judicial reforms, institutional performance initiatives, and other strategic interventions aligned with their mandates. Post-legislative assessments, evaluation of laws with sunset clauses, and 19 judicial reform outcomes may be prioritized for inclusion in their respective M&E agendas. Their respective IMEDs or Special IMEUs shall be supported through their own appropriations, and may voluntarily adopt methodologies, protocols, and reporting mechanisms developed under this Act.

Sec. 19. Role of Local Government Units. -To strengthen alignment between

national and local development priorities, LGUs shall: (a) Integrate RB-MEUP principles into their local planning, programming, budgeting, and performance monitoring systems; (b) Designate or establish a Local M&E Unit or focal person to coordinate with national agencies and regional DEPDev offices;

(c) Receive technical assistance from DEPDev, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and the SCBU to strengthen local M&E capacity; and (d) Ensure dedicated budget allocations for monitoring, evaluation, and utilization activities, proportionate to the scale of LGU programs and aligned with national standards and DEPDev guidelines. Rules and regulations for the implementation of the RB-MEUP at the local level shall be issued by the Council in coordination with the DILG.

Sec. 20. Public Participation and Stakeholder Engagement. —The RB-MEUP shall

promote transparency and inclusivity by: (a) Institutionalizing mechanisms for citizen feedback, stakeholder consultations, and participatory evaluation in relevant government interventions; (b) Ensuring that marginalized groups, civil society organizations, and sectoral representatives have access to evaluation findings and may contribute inputs; and (c) Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms for complaints or feedback on project implementation or evaluation processes; Encouraging the participation of civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions in the design, conduct, and validation of monitoring and evaluation activities, subject to guidelines that ensure transparency, accountability, and methodological integrity.

Sec. 21. Enforcement, Sanctions, and Incentives. —To ensure effective

implementation: (a) Heads of agencies shall be held accountable for inaction or failure to comply with the provisions of this Act, including undue delays, failure to establish IMEDs, or neglect or deliberate inaction in formally responding to certified M&E findings and recommendations; (b) The Council may recommend administrative sanctions in accordance with civil service laws or existing governance frameworks;

(c) Agencies with exemplary compliance and innovation in M&E may be eligible for performance-based incentives or commendations to be developed jointly by DEPDev and DBM.

Sec. 22. Role of the Commission on Audit (COA) - As part of its regular audit

processes, the COA shall assess the extent to which government agencies utilize M&E 6 findings and recommendations certified under this Act. Specifically, COA shall: (a) Examine and report on how agencies respond to M&E recommendations- whether fully accepted, partially accepted with justification, or formally rejected with explanation-and evaluate the extent of integration into planning, budgeting, and implementation; (b) Incorporate results-based approaches in performance and compliance audits to assess efficiency, effectiveness, and value-for-money in the adoption or non-adoption of evaluation findings; (c) Share audit-based insights to support improved evidence use across agencies, without prejudice to its constitutional independence and audit discretion; and (d) Coordinate with DEPDev and the Council, where appropriate, to align performance audit frameworks with national M&E systems, provided such coordination does not impair the Commission's autonomy. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or interfere with the constitutional mandate and authority of the Commission on Audit under Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution.

Sec. 23. Publication of Government Evaluation Studies. —All evaluation reports,

studies, and knowledge products that have been reviewed by the Secretariat and approved by the Council shall be published through a centralized online portal administered by the DEPDev. This portal shall be accessible to the public, subject to applicable laws on confidentiality and data protection.

Sec. 24. Appropriations. —To ensure the honest and effective implementation of

the RB-MEUP, and subject to the phased implementation of this Act, all departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Executive branch, the Legislative and Judicial

1 branches, the Constitutional Commissions, and local government units shall allocate no 2 less than three percent (3%) of their annual budgets specifically for monitoring, 3 evaluation, and utilization activities. This allocation shall be treated as a distinct budget line and shall be used exclusively for the following purposes: (a) Evaluation Capacity Development - Including training programs, technical workshops, certification courses, and peer learning to build internal capacity across all levels of the agency; (b) Personnel and Staffing - Covering the recruitment, compensation, and continuous upskilling of qualified personnel dedicated to monitoring, evaluation, and results utilization functions; (c) Monitoring Operations - Supporting the conduct of regular and special monitoring activities such as field and site visits, data collection, data validation, interviews, means of verification, client satisfaction checks, citizen scorecards, and other participatory monitoring tools; (d) Evaluation Tools and Methodologies - Including design and implementation of surveys, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, impact assessments, process evaluations, and outcome tracking; (e) System Development and Maintenance - Covering the operation and enhancement of M&E information systems, databases, knowledge repositories, dashboards, and digital platforms for performance tracking and reporting; (f) Engagement of External Experts - Payment of professional fees and procurement of services for independent evaluations, technical audits, or third-party assessments to ensure objectivity and methodological rigor; (g) Special Evaluation Projects - Funding of high-priority or cross-cutting evaluation initiatives identified by the agency or the Council, including experimental studies, evaluation research, or collaborative efforts with academic and research institutions; and

(h) Other monitoring, evaluation, or utilization expenditures justified by the agency and approved by the Council, consistent with the purposes of this Act. An initial amount of Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be appropriated to the DEPDev to support the establishment and operations of the Secretariat, the 6 formulation of the NMEUS, technical capacity-building, systems development, and other 7 foundational activities under this Act. The DBM shall issue the necessary guidelines to ensure compliance with this provision and monitor the appropriate use of allocated funds, provided, that the DBM may approve a lower allocation for agencies or LGUs with limited fiscal capacity, upon justified request.

Sec. 25. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared

unconstitutional or invalid, the other provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and effect.

Sec. 26. Repealing Clause. - All laws, executive orders, rules, regulations, and

16 other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

Sec. 27. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its

19 publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Approved,