RPMES Operational Guidelines (Ao May 18, 2017)
RPMES Operational Guidelines (Ao May 18, 2017)
RPMES Operational Guidelines (Ao May 18, 2017)
EVALUATION SYSTEM
Operational Guidelines
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................i
Foreword........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ii
Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................iii
List of Appendices.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................iv
Section 1: General.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Rationale.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1 The Achievement of Development Results.........................................................................................................................................1
1.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation.......................................................................................................................................................................2
1.1.3 Results Framework......................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.1.4 Institutional Context....................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.2 RPMES Objectives.....................................................................................................................................................................................................3
1.3 Institutional Arrangements................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 National Level.................................................................................................................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Sub-national Level........................................................................................................................................................................................5
1.3.3 Project Implementers..................................................................................................................................................................................6
1.3.3.1 National Level..................................................................................................................................................................................7
1.3.3.2 Sub-national Level.........................................................................................................................................................................7
1.3.3.3 Non-Government Organization as Authorized Monitors..............................................................................................7
1.3.4 National and Regional Project Monitoring Committee Membership.....................................................................................7
1.3.5 Establishment of Sub-Regional Project Monitoring Committees.............................................................................................8
1.3.5.1 Membership......................................................................................................................................................................................8
1.3.5.2 Creation..............................................................................................................................................................................................8
1.3.6 Participation of Civil Society Organizations and other Stakeholders.....................................................................................8
1.4 Systems Framework................................................................................................................................................................................................8
Section 2: Scope and Coverage of Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................................10
2.1 Monitoring...................................................................................................................................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Regular Monitoring......................................................................................................................................................................................10
2.1.2 Ad Hoc Monitoring........................................................................................................................................................................................10
2.2 Evaluation....................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Section 3: Reports.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
3.1 Types of Report..........................................................................................................................................................................................................12
3.2 Frequency and Reporting Timelines..............................................................................................................................................................14
3.3 Report Dissemination............................................................................................................................................................................................14
Section 4: Process Flow..........................................................................................................................................................................................................16
4.1 General...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
4.2 National and Regional Levels.............................................................................................................................................................................16
4.2.1 National Level.................................................................................................................................................................................................16
4.2.2 Regional Level.................................................................................................................................................................................................17
Appendices...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
After successive legal issuances, the Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES)
has become the primary institutional mechanism for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of programs
and projects. The RPMES has been instrumental in facilitating project implementation, undertaking prob-
lem-solving sessions, and enhancing M&E capacities of various stakeholders. It also provided useful, timely
information and feedback to policymakers, planners, and managers—particularly on improving future de-
sign of development interventions.
In the achievement of the national development agenda, the government has placed greater empha-
sis on the achievement of higher-order results or outcomes and impact through the delivery of lower-order
results or outputs.
This enhanced focus on results has amplified the need to conduct M&E, beyond the traditional ap-
proach of determining project efficiency and effectiveness, towards determining the achievement of social
and economic development objectives contributing to the national development goals.
In this light, the RPMES underwent a review of its processes and protocols to better respond to the
broader results agenda. With more than two decades of operational and institutional experience, these set
of revised guidelines collectively represent our blueprint to appropriately respond to challenges and op-
portunities in M&E.
We hope that this revised document will continue to serve as a guide to our various M&E commit-
tees at the national and sub-national levels, as we continue to undertake meaningful M&E at the various
levels of government.
Margarita R. Songco
Deputy Director-General
National Economic and Development Authority
and Chairperson
National Project Monitoring Committee
In line with the government’s policies on decentralization and administrative delegation, the Regional
Development Councils (RDCs) were reorganized and strengthened through Executive Order (EO) No. 308, wherein
the RDCs’ task is to coordinate project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, among others. Moreover,
Memorandum Order (MO) No. 175 was issued on May 25, 1988 creating the Project Monitoring Committees (PMCs)
at the regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels, to monitor local government projects funded from national and
local government funds.
In support of these policies and to facilitate project implementation, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) at the
regional and sub-regional levels, the Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES) was established
through EO 376 dated November 2, 1989. The system provides a scheme for monitoring and evaluating projects at
the national, regional, provincial, and city/ municipal levels, with the extensive and active participation of various
government agencies, local government units (LGUs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) at all levels.
Through RPMES, generation of information on the overall status of project implementation at each level and the
problems that impede implementation will be facilitated. As a result, actions can be undertaken at the level nearest
the project sites, at the earliest time possible.
This manual has been developed primarily for the PMCs at all levels (regional, provincial, and city/municipal)
responsible for the M&E of programs/projects under their jurisdiction. It provides the basic framework for monitoring
and evaluating projects at all levels, such as: the general process flow, responsibilities of units involved, input and
output forms, and procedures for filling up the forms. With the passage of Republic Act (RA) No. 7160, otherwise
known as the Local Government Code of 1991, monitoring of projects has devolved to the LGUs. However, there is still
a need to coordinate project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at the regional and national levels.
Decision parameters are also included to address specific/common implementation problems. Expansion of
the system to include additional data inputs and output reports will depend upon the various development councils
at the regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels. The reports suggested in the manual are the minimum required
to provide basic information that will consolidate information on the implementation status of development projects.
This is necessary to evaluate performance and resolve implementation problems at all levels.
The updating of the Manual of Operations is necessary to make it consistent with the evolving monitoring
functions of the local governments, and with various reform initiatives of the Philippine Government. The National
Project Monitoring Committee (NPMC), which was established pursuant to EO 93, was mandated to update and make
revisions on the manual as necessary. This operational guideline is the first attempt of the NPMC to enhance the
RPMES Manual of Operations.
1.1.1 Achievement of Development Results
The transition of development results from outputs to outcomes, specifically between completion
of output and achievement of impact, is then a change in developmental condition.1
United Nations Development Program (UNDP). 2002. Results Based Management: Concepts and Methodology. Available at
1
IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS
Inp ts
Inputs A ti ities
Activities O tp ts
Outputs O t omes
Outcomes Impa t
Impact
Tasks and
Financial, Products and Intermediate Long-term
actions
human, and services effects on improvement
undertaken
material produced clients (short- or in society
to transform
resources medium-term
inputs to
outputs
What outcomes do
What should be Why should we do
How should this be implemented? we expect from this
produced? this?
investment
Monitoring and evaluation are complementary activities with distinct functions. Shown in the
succeeding figure are several definitions of the M&E by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC), including the legal mandates of National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), and
implementing agencies on the conduct of M&E.
Source: OECD-DAC
The results framework shows the link between the outputs of programs and projects to the
achievement of major final outputs, organizational outcome, sector outcome and of societal goals. At each
level in the results chain, various documents and M&E reports are being produced.
M&E information is important in tracking the progress in the achievement of results (outputs,
outcomes, and impact)
To mainstream the M&E culture in the government, various mechanisms were introduced at
various levels. Following are milestones leading to the development of the RPMES including its Manual of
Operations.
The introduction of these subsequent issuances further tightened the results orientation in the government:
The RPMES primarily aims to facilitate program and project implementation, and devolve project
facilitation, problem-solving, monitoring, and evaluation to the regional, provincial, city and municipal
levels.
The RPMES was established to facilitate project implementation, devolve project facilitation, problem solving and
M&E to the regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels with the extensive participation of various agencies,
LGUs and NGOs. The RPMES covers all development projects—inclusive of Official Development Assistance
(ODA) projects, undertaken by national government agencies, LGUs, state universities and colleges (SUCs) and
government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) at the regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels.
The National Project Monitoring Committee (NPMC), which consists of undersecretary NPMC
level members, coordinates and oversees the implementation of RPMES. NPMC is NEDA, DBM,
comprised of the NEDA, DBM, Department of the Interior and Local Government DILG, OP-PMS
(DILG), the Office of the President-Presidential Management Staff (OP-PMS). The (NEDA –MES as Secretariat)
NEDA-Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (NEDA-MES) serves as Secretariat of NPMC.
The Regional of the Project Monitoring Committee (RPMC) consists of director RPMC
level members of NEDA, DBM, DILG, and OP-PMS. It also includes a private sector NEDA, DBM, DILG,
representative (PSR) or an NGO. The respective NEDA Regional Office (NRO) serves OP-PMS, PSR/NGO
as Chair and Secretariat of the RPMC. (NROs as Chair/Secretariat)
The System is structured wherein lower level PMCs monitor, consolidate and validate MPMC/CPMC
project status for submission to higher level PMCs. While problem-solving sessions DILG, PSR/NGO,
are being conducted for each level, problems and issues which are not resolved at Selected members of LDC
their level are elevated to the next PMC level.
a. provide a system for the integration, coordination, and linkage of all monitoring and evaluation activities in the
region;
b. provide up-to-date and relevant information on the overall status of project implementation at each level for
timely program/project adjustments, planning, and budget allocation;
c. identify problems/issues which impede project implementation for remedial actions at the regional and sub-
regional levels and to elevate unresolved issues and problems at the appropriate offices and institutions at the
national level for resolution and final action;
d. institutionalize problem-solving session as a mechanism to address issues and concerns related to the
implementation of programs and projects;
e. provide information on lessons learned in project implementation for planning, budgeting, and implementation
of future similar projects;
f. assess and ascertain whether development programs and projects implemented are delivering results in support
of regional development goals and plans as well as national development thrusts and priorities; and,
g. provide a venue for greater participation of civil society organizations (CSOs) in public sector management.
This section highlights the major responsibilities of the various units/organizations involved in implementation of the
M&E system at the national and sub-national levels.
The principal institutions at the national level are the NEDA, DBM, DILG, and OP-PMS, with the
following responsibilities:
Entity Responsibility
• provide overall direction and coordination of RPMES activities;
• provide feedback to RPMCs on actions pertaining to issues raised to the
NEDA Cabinet or the President; and,
• conduct capacity development activities with other NPMC members on the
operationalization of the RPMES.
• provide budget-related information (e.g., funds releases, allotments,
obligations, and expenditures, among others) to PMCs as may be needed;
DBM • report on the budget performance of implementing agencies and its
development programs and projects; and,
• ensure the provision of budget for M&E activities.
• assist NEDA and other members of the NPMC in the conduct of training for
the operationalization of RPMES;
DILG • ensure institutionalization of PMCs at the sub-national level with the issuance
of appropriate directives; and,
• report status of RPMES operationalization at the sub-regional level.
• follow-up withcabinet members/agency heads actions or recommendations
to expedite project implementation;
• apprise the President and concerned Cabinet Secretaries on issues and
OP-PMS
problems that require action; and,
• ensure that priority development programs and projects of the Office of the
President are included in the M&E agenda of RPMES.
Entity Responsibility
• provide overall direction and coordination of RPMC activities;
• provide feedback to sub-regional PMCs on actions made on issues raised to
NEDA
the Cabinet or the President; and,
(Regional Offices)
• conduct capacity development activities with RPMC members for the
operationalization of the RPMES.
• provide budget-related information (e.g., funds releases, allotments,
obligations, and expenditures, among others) to sub-regional PMCs as may
DBM be needed;
(Regional Offices) • report on the budget performance of development programs and projects of
implementing agencies; and,
• ensure budget provision for M&E activities
• assist NROs and RPMC members in the conduct of training for the
operationalization of RPMES;
DILG
• ensure institutionalization of PMCs at the sub-regional level with the issuance
(Regional Offices)
of directives; and,
• report status of RPMES operationalization at the sub-regional level.
• assist in facilitating critical programs and projects that need utmost
OP-PMS attention; and,
(Regional Field Units) • ensure that priority programs and projects of the President are regularly
monitored for efficient implementation.
In addition to the responsibilities of oversight agencies, the following are the responsibilities of
project implementers (regular government agencies, non-financial GOCCs, SUCs, and LGUs) at various
levels:
Furnish the NPMC Secretariat copies of the agency WFPs, through the NEDA-MES
not later than two weeks after approval by DBM.
• Assist the PMC or development council to monitor and evaluate projects by identifying
implementation problems or outstanding performance through project exception
reports.
• Ensure effective and efficient implementation of projects through vigilant monitoring.
• Act as government partners to ensure transparency in project implementation.
The NPMC and RPMCs shall be composed of the following, as per EO 376:
National PMC:
Regional PMCs:
To better deliver/perform their functions, these PMCs may invite additional stakeholders (CSOs,
private sector academe, among others) as non-voting members and/or observers to their respective
committees.
1.3.5.1 Membership
The local chief executive shall appoint the chairperson from among the LDC
nominees or the members of the PMC. The respective planning and development offices
of the LGUs concerned shall serve as secretariat to the local PMCs.
1.3.5.2 Creation
In line with efforts for greater transparency, accountability and good governance, the PMCs shall include
CSOs and other development stakeholders in their M&E processes.
As a general rule, prior to the conduct of M&E activities, the roles and responsibilities of various
stakeholders should be well-defined.
The underlying principle of the M&E system framework is its usefulness in enhancing the efficiency of project
implementation at various levels. Hence, the M&E system at any level is primarily to expedite project implementation
and determine whether the objectives of the projects are accomplished. This is provided that next higher level
development council with reports on the status of project implementation is only a secondary function.
The schematic diagram on the following page describes the overall framework for monitoring projects at each
level under the RPMES. The diagram traces the reporting, feedback and referral flows within and among the various
levels of M&E—national, regional, provincial/city, and municipal levels.
For each level, the linkages are traced among the project implementers as the basic source of project information,
the Project Monitoring Committees as coordinators and monitors, authorized NGOs as project monitors, and the
development councils at various levels as decision-makers and problem-solving bodies.
NEDA BOARD
INFORMATION/APPROPRIATE
ACTION/DECISION
NEDA/
DBM/
PMS – OP/ NATIONAL PROJECT MONITORING
DILG COMMITTEE
CONSOLIDATION OF ACO/REG’L
REPORTS/SUBMISSION OF
RECOMMENDATION/MTPIP
ACO MONITORING PROJECT IMPLEMENTOR
-prepare WFP
-prepare agency reports
QUARTERLY
QUARTERLY
NGOs/
Concerned
Citizens
PROVINCIAL/CITY
MONTHLY
MONTHLY NGOs/
Concerned
Citizens
MUNICIPAL
MONTHLY MONTHLY
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT MUNICIPAL PROJECT PROJECT IMPLEMENTOR
COUNCIL MONITORING COMMITTEE (Implementing
discuss project implementation monitor/ consolidate/ validate Agencies/GOCCs, NGOs and
issues/ problem-solving municipal progress reports LGUs)
NGOs/
Concerned
Citizens
2.1 Monitoring
Programs and projects to be monitored regularly include program, project, and activities in the
Priority Investment Plan (ODA, locally-funded, and private-public partnerships) and those in the priority
list of the President.
The PMCs may likewise include progress monitoring of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP)
and Regional Development Plans (RDPs).
Monitoring
Scope
Coverage Frequency Type of Information
PDP Indicators committed in Annual Achievement of results
RDPs the Results Matrices or (impact and outcomes)
Regional Results Matrices
PIP ODA-funded projects Quarterly Physical and financial
accomplishments
Locally-funded projects Quarterly Physical and financial
accomplishments
PPP projects Quarterly Physical and financial
accomplishments
President’s Priority Various projects Quarterly Physical and financial
Programs and Initiatives accomplishments;
Achievement of results
(impacts and outcomes)
Other public goods and Various projects Quarterly Physical and financial
services outside the (e.g., electricity, accomplishments
above cited categories. disaster-related)
For prioritization purposes, the concerned PMC may provide their own criteria in determining
projects that will be prioritized for monitoring. For example, the alert mechanism developed by NEDA-
MES may be used as reference to determine problematic projects that should be monitored.
Where warranted, additional monitoring activities outside of the regular scope may be undertaken
by the PMCs. These may include efforts related to disaster rehabilitation and reconstruction and other
possible emerging concerns.
The detailed monitoring procedures and guidelines on conducting problem solving sessions are
discussed in Appendices A and B, respectively.
As part of its M&E functions, the PMCs may conduct evaluation of priority programs and projects. The following
are the types of evaluation2 that may be carried out by PMCs:
For ex-post evaluation activities, PMCs may refer to the NEDA Ex-Post Evaluation Manual.
Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, OECD 2002
2
To facilitate M&E activities, there are two types of forms to be prepared: input forms shall be accomplished
by implementing agencies, NGOs, and concerned citizens and to be submitted to PMCs while output forms are the
consolidated monitoring forms prepared by the PMCs to be submitted to development councils and higher level PMCs.
Other reports and forms may be developed as necessary. To assist various PMCs, guidelines for the filling up of
forms with the corresponding description and template (minimum information required) shall be disseminated. The
NPMC shall regularly review the relevance of the forms and the efficiency of accomplishing the forms.
The report templates, including the minimum information required for each report can be found in Appendix D.
PMCs are tasked to disseminate information on the status of project implementation in their respective areas
of coverage. Output reports from PMCs should be disseminated to implementing agencies and lower level PMCs for
information and/or feedback. The table below summarizes the RPMES reports/forms to be prepared, including other
recipients of the reports for information, reference, and appropriate action.
All reports from sub-regional PMCs should be submitted to higher level PMCs. RPMCs may provide copies of RPMES
reports to their respective sub-regional PMCs if needed.
The monitoring and evaluation process starts with the planning, programming, and scheduling of activities to be
undertaken by the respective PMCs for the year. The following documents will be prepared:
The following outlines the specific processes in the conduct of monitoring and evaluation at the national and
regional levels.
• The National Government Agencies shall submit to the NPMC relevant documents, including but
not limited to WFP, M&E Plan and M&E Work Program.
• The NPMC Secretariat will disseminate information on projects to be monitored by the regional,
provincial, city and municipal PMCs to the different RDCs. The RPMCs shall be responsible for
disseminating information on projects to be monitored to the provincial, city and municipal levels.
• NPMC Secretariat will assess agency reports and conduct project visits for selected projects as
may be identified based on established criteria.
• The NPMC Secretariat may include in the NPMC agenda issues and concerns not resolved at the
regional level.
• The NPMC will evaluate problems, provide/formulate recommendations and submit these to the
office of the President/Cabinet for appropriate action or may initiate problem-solving sessions
with the Cabinet and the President.
• The RPMC, upon receipt of information on projects to be monitored, will classify projects which
may be monitored, either through desk monitoring or actual validation/ocular inspection, at the
provincial, city, and municipal levels.
3 WFP and initial project reports submitted by the Regional Offices of implementing agencies;
3 reports provided by DBM Regional Offices, such as list of projects with funding from the
GAA and/or the Infrastructure Program; and
3 work programs for locally-funded projects submitted by the Local Chief Executives.
• The RPMC will prepare the WFP to cover the activities of the regional PMCs which shall be
endorsed by the RDC Chairman to the DBM Regional Office, as basis for the allocation of funds for
the operating requirements at the regional level PMCs.
• The RPMC Secretariat will prepare the M&E plan to be undertaken by the regional, provincial,
city, and municipal PMCs which shall include, among others, the list of projects and schedule of
implementation, based on the submission of implementing agencies.
• The RPMC Secretariat will provide the NGOs with the Regional M&E Plan, and the sub-regional
PMCs and Chief Executives with information on projects to be monitored at their level.
• The RPMC will prepare its M&E work program for the calendar year.
• The project implementers will undertake projects and prepare and submit status reports of project
implementation to the RPMC.
• NGOs (RPMC members or other independent NGOs/POs and concerned citizens) will submit
project exception reports to the RPMC, copy furnished the implementers.
• RPMC will assess NGO and agency reports and conduct project visits for selected projects as may
be identified based on established criteria.
• RPMC will process reports of various implementing agencies, provincial PMCs and provide RDC a
consolidated report on status of project implementation.
• RPMC will evaluate problems and provide/formulate recommendations during its regular monthly
or special meetings, and submit problems/issues requiring intervention to RDC, without prejudice
to the resolution of problems/issues at the local level or lowest level possible.
• RDC will assess reports and take proper action (problem-solving, referral to other agencies/
council/bodies).
• RPMC will forward status report on project implementation to the NPMC Secretariat and other
higher level bodies.
2. From the list of projects to be monitored and/or evaluated for the current year, the PMC should be able to schedule regular
project field visits/inspections for a particular reporting period. This schedule of project visits will now be included in the
M&E work program which the PMC will fund and visit in a particular period. Detailed programs of work on those projects
to be visited must be secured prior to the actual visit.
3. Conduct initial appraisal of programs and projects to be monitored based on information obtained from the M&E plan and
the initial project reports submitted by project implementers. If the project is undertaken by contract, secure if possible,
Performance Bond and Notice to Proceed. If undertaken by administration, check whether the required “Authority to
Undertake Project by Administration” has been issued.
4. Coordinate/establish linkage with project implementers to ensure timely submission of reports, accuracy of project
evaluation and secure their cooperation and active participation throughout the monitoring process. Such coordination/
linkage should include, among others, a briefing on the timing and scope of monitoring activities, courtesy call to local
officials, and provision for a feedback mechanism on problems and issues encountered during project implementation.
5. Analyze project/activity accomplishment reports and project exception reports submitted by project implementers, and
NGOs or people’s organizations, respectively.
6. Conduct regular ocular inspection at project sites on those projects which have been programmed to be visited as well as
those projects where verification or validation of reports is needed due to the magnitude of the delay. This activity will
involve the following:
a. conduct interviews with project engineer, laborers, barangay officials, and reputable residents of the locality to validate
status of projects, reported problems/findings and to verify whether the project is being implemented in accordance
with approved conditions, plans and specifications;
b. compare reported accomplishments against approved project schedules to determine whether the project is behind or
ahead of schedule. Examine accomplishment chart/report or S-curve to detect slippage (difference between targeted/
programmed accomplishment and actual accomplishment). If the slippage is positive, the project is ahead of schedule;
if negative, it is behind schedule. Ascertain whether the delay in project implementation is justifiable or not. Some
causes of delay are: (i) lack of materials; (ii) liquidity problems of contractor; (iii) delayed release of funds; (iv) force
majeure (natural calamities); (v) right-of-way problems; and (vi) peace and order condition.
c. investigate any deviation from the approved conditions, plans and specifications. Some causes of deviation are:
(i) modification/substitution of materials; (ii) increase in the original quantities of any or all items of work; (iii)
reclassification of an existing item to another as provided for in the original contract; (iv) decrease in the quantity of
work due to under-runs or deletion of portions or sections of the project and; (v) non-adherence of contractor to the
defined conditions in the contract (e.g., maximum hiring of workers from the project site);
d. determine whether deviations are authorized or not, that is, they are covered by a Change Order, Extra Work Order, or
Suspension Order,
e. assess quality of work whether it is in accordance with established engineering standards, quality control standards,
or within the level of acceptability. Reference may be made to the results of the Materials/Quality Control Testing
conducted by authorized personnel and;
f. obtain feedback from laborers, local officials, and concerned citizens to verify reported anomalies/irregularities.
8. Upon completion of the project, conduct an evaluation of selected projects to determine that the same is completed as per
plans and specifications and if targets were achieved. Verify completion report, final inspection reports and certificate
of acceptance/turn-over if in order. Make an assessment of the lessons and insights drawn in the course of project
implementation and make this available to project planners.
Appendix B
Problem Solving Mechanisms
To operationalize the primary objectives of RPMES, regular problem-solving sessions should be conducted to obtain maximum benefit
from the information made available by the M&E activity.
The following procedure should apply in the project facilitation activity at the regional, provincial, city and municipal levels:
a. PMC to discuss the project implementation issue/problem and submit recommendations to Development Council or
its ExeCom depending on the urgency of the problem;
b. Development Council or its ExeCom will include a problem-solving item in its agenda to discuss and resolve the
problems/issues with the implementing agency during its meetings. All implementers of subject projects will be
invited to attend this meeting; and
c. Development Council or ExeCom will refer unresolved problems to higher bodies (next level Development Council).
Monitoring of the implementation of the remedial measures will be conducted by respective PMCs.
% (
Percent Accomplishment = Actual Physical Accomplishment
Target Physical Accomplishment
X 100 (
1. Determine the weight per component/activity by dividing the cost of each component/activity by the total project cost.
The sum of the weights of all components must be equal to 1.
Component ( Actual
Target
( X 100 = Accomplishment (%)
Weighted
Component Weight X Accomplishment (%) = Accomplishment
(%)
PC1 0.50 X 80 = 40.00
PC2 0.29 X 102 = 29.58
PC3 0.21 X 82 = 17.22
The same procedure can be applied in computing for the overall weighted physical performance of a sector, an agency,
and an area/location/region/province.
B. Financial Performance
Funds released
Funding Support = X 100
% Programmed amount
* The computation of a Project overall financial performance is not the same with Project overall weighted physical
accomplishment (summing up the weighted performances of all components of the project). Computation of each
component’s financial performance may be done to determine each component performance. It is not accurate to sum
up the performances of all components to come up with the project overall financial performance.
* To compute the Project’s financial performance is to compare the “Totals” of all target and actual amounts within a
reporting period.
Note: For ODA-funded projects, if data are available, absorptive capacity indicators may likewise be
reported:
1. Disbursement Rate – actual disbursement against target disbursements reckoned for the reporting
quarter.
2. Availment Rate – actual availment (or cumulative disbursements) reckoned from the start of the
project up to the reporting period against the scheduled availment.
3. Disbursement Ratio – actual disbursement against the total available balance for the year.
Overall Financially
Correlated Performance=
%
( Percent Physical Accomplishment
Funds utilization
( X 100
or
(For Component 1)
( 80.0%
100.0%
( X 100 = 80.0%
( 86.80%
89.00%
( X 100 = 97.50%
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
(a) Name of Project
(b) Location
(c) Sector / Subsector Total Project
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
(d) Funding Source Target
(e) Mode of Implementation
(f) Project Schedule
1.
2.
3.
FS - Financial Schedule % - Overall Physical Target in Percent OI - Output Indicator EG - Employment Generated
Implementing Agency:__________________________________________
1. Project Title
Month/Day/Year
Month/Day/Year
Region/Province/City
/Municipality
2. Project Title
Month/Day/Year
Month/Day/Year
Region/Province/City
/Municipality
3. Project Title
Month/Day/Year
Month/Day/Year
Region/Province/City
/Municipality
Note: This form was enhanced based on the existing RPMES form and Annual ODA Portfolio Review form. Adopted in 2015
Form No. RPMES Form 2
Form Title Physical and Financial Accomplishment Report
Purpose This report will be used to document status of on-going program/projects—both ODA and locally-
funded—that are being implemented by the agency, GOCC, or LGU. It shall contain the following
information:
a. Physical — actual progress of programs/projects against the target/scheduled accomplishments,
including information on employment generated, initial observable results, problems encountered and
measures taken/to be taken in order to address such issues; and
b. Financial — actual expenditures made by the project against releases (funds utilization) or actual
expenditures made against the total program amount for the project (funding support). Financial report
shall also account for any reason behind low disbursements, if applicable.
Responsibility Implementing Agency
Definition of Entries
Implementing Agency Name of Agency/GOCC/LGU that implements the project
Name of Project Title of project as found in the approved program of work, loan or grant agreement
Date Started Month, day, year when the project started
Target Date of Completion Month, day, year when the project is expected to be completed
Location Include revised completion date, if applicable
Funding Source Barangay/Municipality/City/Province/Region where project is implemented
Financial Status
Allocation
As of Reporting Period Cumulative amount approved from start of the project up to the end of reporting period, in PHPmillion
For the Month Amount approved for the reporting period, in PHPmillion
Releases
As of Reporting Period Cumulative amount of releases for the implementation of the project, in PHPmillion
For the Month Actual releases for the reporting period, in PHP million
Obligations Liabilities legally incurred and committed to be paid by the agency either immediately or in the future to
the sub-borrowers
As of Reporting Period Cumulative obligations incurred from the start of the project up to the end of reporting period, in PHP
million
For the Month Obligations incurred by the project for the reporting period, in PHP million
Disbursements Settlement of government obligations and/or accounts payable by cash; movement of cash from the
Bureau of Treasuryor from an authorized disbursing officer to the final recipient; term “disbursements” is
synonymous with liquidation/settlement/payment of an obligation; in PHP million
As of Reporting Period Cumulative actual amount expended/utilized by the project from the start of the project up to the end of
reporting period, in PHP million
For the Month Actual amount expended/utilized by the project for the reporting period, in PHP million
Physical Status
Output Indicator Refers to project activities/milestones where accomplishment is to be measured
Target to Date Work scheduled to be accomplished from start of project implementation up to the reporting period
Target for the Month Work scheduled to be accomplished for the month
Actual to Date Actual work accomplished from start of implementation up to the reporting period
Actual for the Month Actual work accomplished for the month
Employment Generated Employment generated by the project from start of the project to reporting period expressed in number
of persons disaggregated by sex
Remarks Additional information on the project, such as problems encountered that impede project implementation,
remedial measures taken, initial observable results, etc.
Report Deadline 15th day of the succeeding month
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person authorized to submit the report, including the date
ofsubmission, and report should be noted by the Head of the Agency
1 2 3
Findings Possible Reasons/Causes Recommendations
Implementing Agency:_______________________________
Note: This is a new form which was adopted from the Annual ODA Portfolio Review. Adopted in 2015.
Indicators which will measure/indicate in concrete, observable and objectively verifiable terms, to what
extent the expected results have been achieved; should have Quality, Quantity, Area and Beneficiaries
dimensions
Observed Results Maybe either proxy or logical framework indicators; proxy indicators may lead as “stand in” for the
logical framework indicators (as indicated in the project‟s logical framework (ICC PE Form 6) whenever
the latter is still not available/appreciable but nevertheless may provide early evidence that project results
will be or will not be achieved
Report Deadline 1st Quarter (to correspond with the Socioeconomic Report)
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person authorized to submit the report, including the date
ofsubmission; report should be noted by the Head of the Agency
PMC:______________________________________________
“Project 1
Fund Source
mm/dd/yy - mm/dd/yy”
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
“Project 2
Fund Source
mm/dd/yy - mm/dd/yy”
Component 1
Component 2
Component 3
Note: This form was enhanced based on the existing RPMES form and Annual ODA Portfolio Review form. Adopted in 2015.
Form No. RPMES Form 5
Form Title Summary of Physical and Financial Accomplishment including Project Results
Purpose Output report of the PMC on financial and physical status of project implementation by area (in the
region, province /city or municipality), sector, and agency. It will contain the project title, funding source,
project schedules (original or revised), financial and physical performance, problems encountered in
implementation and employment generated by the project in man-days. This output shall likewise
discuss initial observable results derived from the implementation of the project. The procedures for
computing financial and physical accomplishment are detailed in Appendix C—Procedure for Measuring
Performance.
Responsibility PMC
Definition of Entries
PMC Concerned PMC
Name of Project and its Title of project as found in the approved program of work, loan or grant agreement; identify different
Component(s) components to determine the overall weighted physical accomplishment of the project
Funding Source Indicate source of fund for the project (e.g., ODA loan or grant, GAA, calamity fund, etc.)
Project Schedule Month, day, year when the project is expected to start and to be completed
Output Indicator Refers to project activities/milestones where accomplishment is to be measured
Financial Status
Allocation
As of Reporting Period Cumulative amount approved from start of the project up to the end of reporting period, in PHP million
Obligations Liabilities legally incurred and committed to be paid by the agency either immediately or in the future to
the sub-borrowers
As of Reporting Period Cumulative obligations incurred from the start of the project up to the end of reporting period, in PHP
million
Releases
As of Reporting Period Cumulative amount of releases for the implementation of the project, in PHP million
Disbursements Settlement of government obligations and/or accounts payable by cash; movement of cash from the
Bureau of Treasury or from an authorized disbursing officer to the final recipient; term “disbursemenr” is
also synonymous with liquidation/settlement/payment of an obligation, in PHP
As of Reporting Period Cumulative actual amount expended/utilized by the project from the start of the project up to the end of
reporting period, in PHP
Funding Support (%) Actual releases against Allocation
Funds Utilization (%) Actual disbursements or expenditures against releases
Physical Status
Target to Date Work scheduled to be accomplished from start of project implementation up to the reporting period
Accomplishment to Date Actual work accomplished from start of implementation up to the reporting period
Slippage Difference between actual accomplishment to date and target accomplishment as of reporting period;
result may be positive (which means the project is ahead of schedule), negative (behind-schedule), or
zero (on-schedule)
Performance Actual accomplishment to date divided by Target accomplishment as of reporting period
Employment Generated Employment generated by the project from start of the project to reporting period expressed in number
of persons disaggregated by sex
Remarks Additional information on the project, such as problems encountered that impede project implementation,
remedial measures taken, initial observable results, etc.
Report Deadline 1 month after the reporting quarter
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person authorized to submit the report, including the date of
submission; said report should be noted by the Head of the Agency
Name of Project / Program Implementing Funds Physical Status (%) Source of Action Taken /
Location Issues
Components Agency Utilization Target Actual Slippage Information Recommendation
Note. This is a new form based on the existing RPMES forms. Adopted in 2015.
Form No. RPMES Form 7
Form Title Project Inspection Report
Purpose This report shall provide the highlights of the project inspection, validation of the actual accomplishments
provided in progress reports, and discussion of relevant issues encountered during the inspection
Responsibility PMC
Minimum Information Required
Name of Project Title of project as found in the approved program of work, loan or grant agreement.
Cost Total project cost of the project, in PHP million
Location Barangay/Municipality/City/Province/Region where project is implemented
Implementing Agency Name of Agency/GOCC/LGU that implement the project
Date of Project Inspection Month, day, year when the project inspection was conducted
Major Findings Major observations during the project inspection, including latest physical status of the project (Ahead,
On, or Behind Schedule)
Issues Operational constraints/concerns observed during project implementation
Actions Taken/ Remedial measures taken/being recommended to improve work progress or to commend outstanding
Recommendation performance; include updates on agency actions; provide information if issues were elevated to NPMC,
the requested actions, and the corresponding response from the NPMC
Report Deadline 1 month after the reporting quarter
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person who prepared the report and the date the report was
prepared
Note. This is a new form based on the existing RPMES forms. Adopted in 2015.
Form No. RPMES Form 8
Form Title Problem-Solving Session/Facilitation Meeting Conducted
Purpose This output report shall detail the important agreements reached during problem-solving session or
facilitation meeting
Responsibility PMC
Minimum Information Required
Name of Project Title of project as found in the approved program of work, loan or grant agreement; provide details of
issues that need to be addressed
Location Barangay/Municipality/City/Province/Region where project is implemented
Implementing Agency Name of Agency/GOCC/LGU that implements the project
Date of Problem Month, day, year when the problem-solving session was conducted
Solving Session
Concerned Agencies Agencies who participated in the problem-solving session
Agreements Reached Highlights of the agreements during the problem-solving session
Next Steps Specific actions to be carried out by concerned agencies as agreed during the problem-solving session
Report Deadline 1 month after the reporting quarter
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person who prepared the report and the date the report was
prepared
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: This is a new form based on the content of RPMES Accomplishment Reports. Adopted in 2015.
Form No. RPMES Form 9
Form Title Trainings/Workshops
Purpose This output report shall detail important information gathered from trainings/workshops conducted
Responsibility RPMC
Minimum Information Required
Date Specific Issues discussed during problem-solving session
Title of Training/ Title of the Training/Workshop being attended
Workshop
Objectives of Training/ Outcome of the Training/Workshop
Workshop
Lead Office/Unit Name of the Office/Unit heading the training/workshop
Participating offices/ Names of offices/agencies/organizations participating in the training/workshop
Agencies/ Organizations
Total No. Of Male Number of male participants in the training/workshop
Participants
Total No. Of Female Number of female participants in the training/workshop
Participants
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person who prepared the report and the date the report was
prepared
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: This is a new form based on the content of RPMES Accomplishment Reports. Adopted in 2015.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: This is a new form based on agreements in the 2nd Quarter CY 2016 NPMC cum RPMES Forum held on June 10, 2016
Form No. RPMES Form 11
Form Title Key Lessons Learned from Issues Resolved at the RPMC Level
Purpose This output form shall provide a summary of lessons learned from project
facilitation activities that resulted from project monitoring.
Responsibility RPMC
Definition of Entries
Program/Project Title The official title as indicated in official project documents (e.g. loan/grant
agreement for ODA, contracts, budget documents, etc.)
Project Location Where the project is located
Proponent/Implementing Agency Which government agency is implementing the project
Nature and Details of Problem/Issue Concise account of the problem/issue, what caused it and how the
problem/issue has affected the efficiency and effectiveness of the project
implementation
The following are proposed categories of problems/issues that impede project implementation:
1. Government/Funding Institution Approvals and Difficulties in obtaining government or funding institution approvals
Other Preconditions or required clearances (e.g., issuance of special power of attorney,
environmental compliance certificate)
2. Design, Scope, Technical Faulty/inadequate design resulting in facilities which are substandard,
unsafe, or incapable of delivering the output as programmed (e.g., credit
facilities due to uncompetitive relending rates)
3. Procurement Delays in procurement and pre-procurement activities (e.g., failure in
bidding, collapse in negotiations, etc.)
4. Site Condition/Availability Issues on securing permits and clearances (e.g. local permits and
environmental clearances); right-of-way acquisition; resettlement;
unavailability of site; unanticipated geological conditions; environmental
contamination/liabilities; and archaeological and cultural heritage
discoveries
5. Budget and Funds Flow Delayed fund releases; adverse movement of interest or exchange rates
6. Inputs and Cost Inputs are unavailable in required quantities or of inadequate quality;
inputs cost more than anticipated, which may be due to price escalation
or the effect of inflation
Issues Details and Updates on RPMC Requested Actions from NPMC and
Date Forwarded to the NPMC
Actions on the Issue Corresponding Actions Taken
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: Note: This is a new form based on the content of RPMES Accomplishment Reports. Adopted in 2015
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
51
Form No. NPMC Form 2
Form Title Project Inspections/Field Visits
Purpose This output report shall detail important information gathered from field visits.
Responsibility NPMC
Minimum Information Required
Project Title/IA/Location Name of the project, Name of the Implementing Agency, Barangay/Municipality/City/Province/Region
where project is implemented
Cost/Fund Source Cost of the Project, Source of funding of the project
Dates of Field Inspection Month, day, year of the inspection
Major Findings Major observations during the project inspection, including latest physical status of the project (Ahead,
On, or Behind Schedule)
Recommendations Suggestions to improve work progress or to commend outstanding performance
Updates on Remedial measures taken by the agency
Agency actions
RPMC Actions Actions done by the RPMC
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person who prepared the report and the date the report was
prepared
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: Note: This is a new form based on the content of RPMES Accomplishment Reports. Adopted in 2015
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
55
Form No. NPMC Form 4
Form Title Trainings/Workshops
Purpose This output report shall detail important information gathered from trainings/workshops conducted.
Responsibility NPMC
Minimum Information Required
Date Specific Issues discussed during problem-solving session
Title of Training/ Title of the Training/Workshop being attended
Workshop
Objectives of Training/ Outcome of the Training/Workshop
Workshop
Lead Office/Unit Name of the Office/Unit heading the training/workshop
Participating offices/ Names of offices/agencies/organizations participating in the training/workshop
Agencies/ Organizations
Total No. Of Male Number of male participants in the training/workshop
Participants
Total No. Of Female Number of female participants in the training/workshop
Participants
At the end of the report, indicate the name, designation, and office of the person who prepared the report and the date the report was
prepared
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Note: This is a new form based on the content of RPMES Accomplishment Reports. Adopted in 2015.
*See dropdown menu or the accompanying guidelines for the proposed categories.
**Also indicate at which stage of project development the lesson is learned or applied (i.e., project planning, preparation, pre-implementation, implementation/construction,
monitoring and evaluation, or other)
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
Date: Date:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________
59
Form No. NPMC Form 6
Form Title Key Lessons Learned from Issues Resolved at the RPMC Level
Purpose This output form shall provide a summary of lessons learned from project facilitation activities that
resulted from project monitoring.
Responsibility NPMC
Definition of Entries
Program/Project Title The official title as indicated in official project documents (e.g. loan/grant agreement for ODA, contracts,
budget documents, etc.)
Project Location Where the project is located
Proponent / Which government agency is implementing the project
Implementing Agency
Nature and Details of Concise account of the problem/issue, what caused it and how the problem/issue has affected the efficiency
Problem/Issue and effectiveness of the project implementation
The following are proposed categories of problems/issues that impede project implementation:
15. Government/ Difficulties in obtaining government or funding institution approvals or required clearances (e.g., issuance
Funding Institution of special power of attorney, environmental compliance certificate)
Approvals and Other
Preconditions
16. Design, Scope, Faulty/inadequate design resulting in facilities which are substandard, unsafe, or incapable of delivering the
Technical output as programmed (e.g., credit facilities due to uncompetitive relending rates)
17. Procurement Delays in procurement and pre-procurement activities (e.g., failure in bidding, collapse in negotiations, etc.)
18. Site Condition/ Issues on securing permits and clearances (e.g. local permits and environmental clearances); right-of-
Availability way acquisition; resettlement; unavailability of site; unanticipated geological conditions; environmental
contamination/liabilities; and archaeological and cultural heritage discoveries
19. Budget and Funds Delayed fund releases; adverse movement of interest or exchange rates
Flow
20. Inputs and Cost Inputs are unavailable in required quantities or of inadequate quality; inputs cost more than anticipated,
which may be due to price escalation or the effect of inflation
21. Contract Failure of contractor/consultant to provide contracted services to specifications; financial demands on the
Management/ contractor/consultant exceed its financial capacity; management issues of implementing a contract (i.e.
Administration weak monitoring and quality controls); and coverage of joint venture projects where government partner is
also jointly accountable
22. Project Monitoring Difficulties in recruitment and turnover of staff affecting program/project implementation; low technical
Office/ Manpower capacity/capability of the project monitoring office to manage/implement the program/project
Capacity/Capability
23. Institutional Support For program/project that relies on complementary Government/LGU, NGO, CSO support: support is
withdrawn, varied, or deemed inadequate
24. Legal and Policy Change imposed, which adversely affect or altogether cancels the program/project implementation, due to
Issuances statutory regulations; changes in law policies which has adverse consequences on program/project
25. Sustainability, Formal operations and maintenance strategies are not formulated; organizational changes/inadequacies
Operations and
Maintenance
26. Force Majeure Inability to meet delivery of output caused by force majeure events (e.g., earthquake, major typhoons, etc.)
27. Peace and Order Inability to meet service delivery due to the peace and order situation in project sites/areas arising from acts
Situation of harassment, extortion and destruction of equipment/facilities by lawless elements, among others
28. Others Issues which do not fall under any category cited above
WHEREAS, in pursuit of the government’s decentralization policy, efforts are directed to make institutions more effective and responsive
to the needs and conditions of local communities by bringing decision making and action at the local level;
WHEREAS, decentralization shall be effected meaningfully in all aspects of the plan implementation;
WHEREAS, it is imperative to synchronize planning, programming and budgeting and to complement the devolution efforts
already ongoing in the institutional processes for development planning and policy formulation, programming, and budgeting, with
decentralization efforts in plan and project monitoring and evaluation;
WHEREAS, as a consequence of said policies on decentralization and administrative delegation, Executive Order (EO) No. 308, as
amended, mandates the Regional Development Councils (RDCs) to monitor, evaluate, and formulate recommendations on the
implementation of development plans and programs in the regions;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to institutionalize a comprehensive and decentralized project monitoring and evaluation system
with the kind of timeliness that is necessary in order to take a quick action on problems encountered in the implementation of projects
at the lowest level;
WHEREAS, this has been initially effected through the creation of Project Monitoring Committees in the provincial and municipal levels
under Memorandum Order No. 175, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution,
do hereby order the establishment and adoption of the Regional Project Monitoring and Evaluation System (RPMES).
SECTION 1. Objectives. The RPMES primarily aims to expedite project implementation and devolve project facilitation, problem-
solving, monitoring and evaluation to the regions and sub-regional levels, particularly to the provincial and municipal
levels. More specifically, the RPMES aims to achieve the following objectives:
a. To provide up-to-date information on the overall status of project implementation for planning and budget
allocation, to include employment generation of the various programs/project expressed in man-days;
b. To identify problems/issues which impede project implementation for remedial actions at the regional and sub-
regional levels and to elevate unresolved issues and problems at these levels to the Cabinet or the President for
resolution and final action;
d. To assess and ascertain whether projects implemented are supportive of regional development goals and plans as
well as national development thrusts and priorities;
e. To provide information on lessons learned in project implementation for planning and implementation of future
similar project;
f. To provide a venue for greater participation of non-government organizations (NGOs) in the development
planning process.
At the national level, the monitoring and evaluation of the economic and physical performance of government
corporations shall, likewise, be undertaken by the Government Corporate Monitoring and Coordinating Committee
(GCMCC) to validate capital expenditure programming by the corporations under it.
At the regional level, the projects to be monitored may include projects contained in the Regional Development
Investment Program (RDIP), other foreign-assisted or nationally-funded projects implemented and managed at the
regional level and the regional components of nationwide projects.
At the provincial, city and municipal levels, the scope of monitoring shall include projects implemented and managed
at these levels with the NALGU funds released directly to the province/city/municipality, foreign and nationally-
funded projects, and other funded from locally-generated resources.
SECTION 3. Organization. The RPMES shall be implemented by the development councils at the various levels (RDC, PDC, CDC
and MDC). A Regional Project monitoring Committee (RPMC) shall be established under the RDC in addition
to the Project Monitoring Committees (PMCs) created through Memorandum Order No. 175, as amended. At
the national level, RPMES was implemented initially through the Cabinet Action Committee on Implementation
Assistance (CACIA) with the NEDA Secretariat to serve as the Secretariat. At the national level, the participation of
the Government Corporate Monitoring and Coordinating Committee (GCMCC) is hereby affected to monitor and
evaluate corporate financial and physical performance of the government corporations under it.
The Presidential Management Staff (PMS), independent of the RPMC, shall focus on monitoring the President’s
commitments in the various regions.
The extensive participation of non- government organizations (NGOs) as project monitors shall be advocated at
all levels. NGO membership in the provincial, city and municipal levels shall include, but shall not be limited to,
representatives from either civic and/or religious groups.
At the regional level, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Regional Director shall be the
Chairman of the Regional Project Monitoring Committee (RPMC) with the Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) Regional Director as Co-Chairman. The Committee shall have representatives from the Department of Local
Government (DLG) and non-government/religious organizations as members. The NEDA Regional Office shall
serve as the Secretariat of the Regional PMC.
The PMCs created through Memorandum Order No. 175, as amended, to implement the RPMES at the sub-regional
levels (province and municipality) will each be composed of representatives from the DLG, NGOs and the Parent-
Teacher Association (PTA) President or PTA Federation representative. There shall likewise be established City Project
Monitoring Committees with the same functions and membership, as applicable to the city. The Provincial/ City/
Municipal Budget Officer will be the Chairman of the Committee with the Provincial/City/Municipal Development
Coordinator as Co-Chairman. Secretariat support to the sub-regional PMCs will be provided by the Provincial/City/
Municipal Planning and Development Office.
The operationalization of the PMCs at the various levels shall be ensured by the DBM and NEDA in coordination
with the DLG.
The Project Monitoring Committees may in their discretion, consult the Commission on Audit representatives
assigned to their respective areas of jurisdiction on matters falling under the functional responsibility of the
Commission on Audit.
a. Jointly with NEDA, provide over-all direction and coordination of RPMES activities;
d. Operationalize the creation of Project Monitoring Committees at the Regional, Provincial, City and Municipal
levels.
a. Provide feedback to Regional PMCs on actions made on issues raised to the Cabinet or the President;
c. Conduct training for the operationalization of the RPMES, together with DBM.
a. Include in the agenda of the monthly CORD-RDC Chairmen meeting with the President or other appropriate
venue, issues/problems raised through RPMES that require the action of the Cabinet/President;
b. Follow-up with the Cabinet member/ agency heads actions on recommendations to expedite project
implementation; and
c. Provide feedback to concerned CORD/ RDC Chairman on problem/issues raised for discussion.
a. Monitor compliance with President’s commitments in the various regions, independently of the RPMC.
a. Monitor and evaluate financial and physical performance of government corporations under it.
a. Submit list of projects for implementation during the year to the monitoring committees using suggested initial
report forms;
b. Submit periodic reports to the monitoring committee on the status of project implementation based on suggested
reporting form;
c. Provide authorized monitors access to more detailed information on project implementation (e.g. work program):
d. Submit to the next higher level of the line agency reports on status of project implementation; and
a. Assist the PMC or development council in monitoring and evaluation of projects by identifying implementation
problems or outstanding performance through project exception reports;
b. Collect and process reports of implementors and NGO monitors on the status of project implementation for the
development council and next higher level project monitoring committee;
c. Pinpoint problems, verify, information and recommend remedial measures to be submitted for analysis and
action of the development council;
d. Provide feedback on the remedial actions of the development council and follow-up their implementation;
e. Prepare and disseminate periodic (monthly or quarterly) project monitoring reports on the status of project
implementation; and
f. Elevate the higher level bodies problems/issues which are not resolved at their level.
b. Assess problems encountered in project implementation and provide remedial action possible at their levels or
refer problems/issues to appropriate units or development council;
c. Evaluate the implementation of projects and derive lessons for future planning and project implementation;
d. Provide policy direction in planning and budget allocation based on the overall status of project implementation;
e. Report on the status of project implementation to appropriate bodies President, Cabinet, Congress, etc.) for
information or action; and
f. Inform PMCs of action taken on problems referred to appropriate units (i.e., Cabinet, OP).
a. Coordinate with the DBM in creating and operationalizing the PMCs at the municipal, city and provincial levels;
b. Ensure expanded scope of monitoring and evaluation (provided by MO 175, as amended) to include other
development projects specified under this Executive Order; and
c. Assist the DBM and NEDA in the conduct of training for the RPMES.
The reports herein required shall include as part of its reporting formats employment generation of the various
programs/ projects expressed in man-days.
SECTION 5. Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Secretary of Budget and Management jointly with the Director-General of
NEDA shall promulgate the rules and regulations to effectively implement the provisions of this Executive Order.
SECTION. 6. RPMES Manual of Operations. A Manual of Operations to implement the RPMES shall be formulated jointly by the
DBM, NEDA, DLG and other concerned agencies for the effective and efficient implementation of the same for the
guidance of all.
Trainings/Workshops on the use of the RPMES Manual of Operations shall be conducted within the next six months.
SECTION 8. Rescission Clause. All orders issuances, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with this Executive Order
are hereby revoked or modified accordingly. However, this Executive Order should complement Memorandum
Order No. 175, as amended, which provides for, among others, the creation of Project Monitoring Committees.
DONE in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 2nd day of November, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-nine.
By the President:
(Sgd.) CATALINO MACARAIG, JR.
Executive Secretary
WHEREAS, there is a need to further delineate and streamline the specific roles and responsibilities of and operating procedures to be
observed by the Project Monitoring Committees at the regional, provincial and municipal levels in view of the implementation of the
Local Government Code of 1991;
WHEREAS, there is a need to expand the membership of Project Monitoring Committees in the national, regional, provincial, city and
municipal levels to promote greater non-governmental organization (NGO) participation in and transparency of government programs;
and
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a Project Monitoring Committee at the national level to address and coordinate various RPMES
matters, to act on implementation issues and problems and to orchestrate RPMES activities and concerns in the regions.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do
hereby order:
Section 1. The third and fourth paragraphs of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 376 (hereinafter referred to as “Order”) are
hereby amended to read as follows:
“At the regional level, the projects to be monitored shall include all foreign assisted projects (loan or grant funded),
inter-provincial projects, area development projects, nationally-funded projects, and other projects considered critical
by the Office of the President and the Regional Development Councils/Planning Boards, which are implemented in
the region.
“At the provincial, city and municipal levels, the scope of monitoring shall include all foreign and nationally-funded
projects, including development projects funded from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) share of LGUs or
supported by funds released directly to the province/city/municipality, and projects funded from locally-generated
resources, which are implemented within their respective areas.”
“Sec. 3. Organization. The RPMES shall be implemented by the development counsels/planning boards at the various
levels (RDC, PDC, CDC and MDC). A Regional Project Monitoring Committee (RPMC) shall be established under
the RDC in addition to the Project Monitoring Committees (PMCs) created through Memorandum Order No.
175, as amended, and/or the Local Government Code of 1991. At the national level, a National Project Monitoring
Committee (NPMC) shall be established to oversee implementation of the RPMES, with NEDA serving as its
Secretariat.
“The Presidential Management Staff (PMS) shall, corollary to the efforts of the RPMCs, focus on monitoring the
President’s commitments in the various regions.
“The extensive participation of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and People’s Organizations (POs) as
project monitors shall be advocated at all levels, NGO/PO membership in the provincial, city and municipal levels
shall include, but not be limited to representatives from civic and/or religious groups.
“At the national level, designated officials from the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),
Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), and
“At the regional level, the NEDA and DBM Regional Directors shall act as Chairman and Co-Chairman, respectively,
of the RPMC. The other members of the RPMC shall be the DILG, PMS/OP and three (3) NGO/OP representatives,
at least one (1) of whom shall be drawn from the NGO representatives in the Regional Development Council (RDC).
The NEDA Regional Office shall serve as the Secretariat of the RPMC.
“The PMCs created at the provincial, city, and municipal levels will have, as mandatory members, the DILG official
assigned in the locality and two (2) NGO/OP representatives. The other four members of the PMC shall be appointed
by the Local Chief Executive from among five nominees of the Local Development Council. The Chairman shall be
appointed by the Local Chief Executive from among the PMC members. The respective planning and development
offices of the local government units. (LGUs) concerned shall serve as Secretariat to the Local PMCS.”
Section 3. The subtitle “Development Councils (RDC, PDC, CDC, MDC)” under Sec. 4 of said Order, is hereby reworded to
read “Development Councils/Planning Boards (RDC, PDC, CDC, MDC).”
“Section 7. Funding. Funds needed to implement the RPMES, particularly the initial operations of the NPMC shall
be made available from sources to be recommended by the DBM, with the approval of the President. Subsequent
funding requirements of the RPMES at the national level shall be provided in the General Appropriations Act by the
DBM. The funds for RPMES operations at the national level shall be administered by the NEDA Secretariat.
“The funding requirements of the RPMES at the regional, city and municipal levels, which shall include the granting
of financial incentives to NGO monitors as well as training, capability-building and other administrative costs, shall
be provided in the General Appropriations Act under the Regional Development Fund. The funds for RPMES at these
levels shall be administered by the RDCs concerned. As the RPMC may deem essential, portions of the Regional
Development Fund for monitoring and evaluation may be allotted to a local PMC to augment its budget.”
Section 5. The responsibilities of the Office of the Cabinet Secretary as provided under Sec. 4 of said Order is hereby transferred
to and shall be assumed by the Presidential Management Staff (PMS).
Section 6. The National Project Monitoring Committee (NPMC) is hereby authorized, from time to time, to update and make
revisions to the Manual of Operations implementing the RPMES.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 1st day of June, in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Three.
By the President:
(Sgd.) ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel
• Evaluation Feedback for Effective Learning and Accountability. OECD-DAC Network on Development Evaluation, 2001
• Evaluation Systems and Use, a Working Tool for Peer Reviews and Assessments. OECD-DAC Network on Development
Evaluation, 2006
• Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. UNDP, 2009
• Monitoring and Evaluating Social Programs in Developing Countries. World Bank, 1994
• OECD-DAC Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. OECD-DAC, 2002-2008
• OECD-DAC Guidance for Managing Joint Evaluations. OECD-DAC Network on Development Evaluation, 2006