ARTA Evaluation Report - STYLE EDITED - 04282020

ASSESSMENT OF THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT (2007
ARTA):
EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND RELEVANCE, TOWARDS THE EXPANDED
ARTA/EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ACT IMPLEMENTATION
EVALUATION REPORT
Governance Specialist, Lead Investigator Czarina Medina-Guce

Associate Evaluator (Quantitative) Kidjie Saguin
Associate Evaluator (Case Studies) Kathleen Jovellanos
Data Science Support Thinking Machines: Ryan Yu and Kevin Go
This evaluation is supported by the partnership of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Philippines under the Strategic Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) Project. [May 31, 2019 version]
2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assessment of the Anti-Red Tape Act (2007 ARTA):

Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Relevance, Towards the Expanded ARTA/Ease
of Doing Business Act Implementation
Executive Summary
By Czarina Medina-Guce (Governance Specialist/Lead Evaluator), with: Kidjie Saguin (Associate

Evaluator: Quantitative Analysis), Kathleen Jovellanos (Associate Evaluator: Qualitative
Analysis/Case Studies), and Thinking Machines Data Science
This evaluation is supported by the partnership of the National Economic and Development Authority
(NEDA) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Philippines under the
Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Project.
Introduction
In 2018, Republic Act 11032 or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act
(EODB Act) was passed, which expands Republic Act 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (2007 ARTA).
The law seeks to “promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and property as
well as to establish effective practices aimed at efficient turnaround of the delivery of government
services and the prevention of graft and corruption in government (Section 2, Declaration of Policy)”. The
EODB Act takes off from the achievements of the 2007 ARTA as implemented by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) through its ARTA Integrated Program, and further incorporates the lessons and
momentum from the Ease of Doing Business initiatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, the
National Competitiveness Council, and their partners.
The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) takes keen interest in the implementation of
this law as it monitors and contributes to the achievement of the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022.
In this medium-term plan is Chapter 5: People-Centered, Clean, and Efficient Governance. This section
includes the indicator, “Government agencies with frontline service offices passing the Report Card
Survey (RCS) increased,” so far declared at an 88.5% baseline in 2016,and targeting above 90% results
from 2017 onwards. Moreover, strict enforcement and monitoring of the 2007 ARTA is also identified as
one of the strategies under the subsector outcome, “Corruption reduced”.
Under the EODB Act, the ARTA Authority will be implementing the RCS in collaboration with the CSC,
with the interest of monitoring and evaluating not only the frontline services, which had been the focus of
the 2007 ARTA, but also the expanded outcome areas within the EODB Act scope. It is against this
backdrop that NEDA partnered with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for the
Strategic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) project for a third-party evaluation that fleshes out the 2007
ARTA and its relationship with frontline services, and provides inputs to the rollout of the EODB Act.

Applying an integrative mixed-methods evaluation approach, the study draws insights from (a) a
Quantitative Analysis of the RCS and Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB) datasets, (b) a Data Science
Methodology analysis also from the RCS and CCB data, (c) eight case studies on selected national
government agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations, and local government units, and
(d) supplementary interviews with implementing and oversight national government agencies. The
various evaluation tracks, integrated in the evaluation report, focused on a set of questions addressing
efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of the 2007 ARTA for the EODB Act
implementation.
Evaluation Results
Efficiency: Focusing on the 2007 ARTA’s effect on government processes, there is substantiated evidence
supporting how its implementation (through the Integrated Program of the CSC) has been able to
influence efficiency levels of frontline government services, as evidenced by client satisfaction. Factors
contributing to this success areas are leadership and management prioritization, agency-level initiatives,
and technology investments – all of which are seen to be mutually reinforcing each other. The relative
successes of these initiatives, however, are still impeded when volume, density, and levels of complexity
of transactions are high in frontline government offices. Any deviation from the prescribed processes,
such as paying for hidden costs, tend to lower client satisfaction.
Meanwhile, for process improvements, the positive influence of agency-level initiatives on the 2007
ARTA implementation poses a challenge on monitoring and evaluation, since the law’s standards are
subsumed under agency program-level outputs and outcomes (including Doing Business-related
programs in line with the EODB initiatives prior to the law). On field implementation, frontline
government managers and employees noted that they do not receive RCS results on their level. While
CSC provides the agencies copies of their respective RCS results, such information that could improve
frontline service implementation by the offices and employees do not trickle down. Additional insights
may be learned on efficiency interventions from the ISO accreditation and certification process, as
preliminary analysis shows positive relationship between ISO certification and client satisfaction.
Effectiveness: While there is overall improvement in efficiency of frontline services, not all the 2007 ARTA
program implementation components contribute to effectiveness outcomes. Those with evidence
supporting effectiveness contribute to the frontline experience of quick response time and positive
transaction outcomes, such as agency-level initiatives and leadership and management prioritization as
earlier noted. However, an unintended consequence of the drive to meet the 2007 ARTA standards is the
stretch on the time and welfare of frontline government employees, as offices exhaust the limits of their
manpower. Adding to the stretch are what employees describe as aggression from clients threatening to
report them via the hotlines, and compromised time for lunch breaks. The frontline government
employees hope that their own satisfaction, motivation, and welfare can be better accounted for in future
2007 ARTA/EODB Act implementation.
Meanwhile, evidence is weak and unsubstantiated on the effects of the 2007 ARTA implementation on
the integrity and anti-corruption outcomes that the law aspires to achieve. RCS data show that the Anti-
Fixing Campaign is found to have no correlation to client satisfaction. While technology investments
(such as computerization of transactions) have been employed partly as an anti-fixing strategy, both big-
time and small-time fixers remain prevalent in many frontline offices, with fixers themselves sharing how

they have appropriated their strategies for conducting business despite the 2007 ARTA provisions. Data
is available on administrative cases filed and resolved against erring government employees, as well as
potentially important data on fixing from the RCS datasets. However, all these data have not been
consolidated and processed to generate insights to improve policy and program interventions. Inter-
agency collaboration and prioritization for implementation is also a gap that is yet to be sufficiently
addressed.
Continuing with Effectiveness assessment dimensions, the evaluation identified the need to provide
purposive, rationalized capacity-building interventions for frontline government employees, specific to
the knowledges and skills they need to learn to improve on the services they deliver. This is in response
to feedback received that 2007 ARTA-related trainings (mostly orientations on the RCS) have been too
general or too thinly dispersed, limiting the relevance and usability of the interventions to government
employees.
Furthermore, the evaluation also underscores the need to review the guidelines and indicators measuring
the Citizen Charters (CCs), since the value of availability of information through CCs are compromised
by the client perceptions of CCs being overwhelming, unreadable, and in effect, unhelpful. Preference of
clients is still to interact with persons (e.g., PACD, guard-on-duty), to provide them the specific
information they need. Hence the indicators for evaluating CCs in the RCS need to be reviewed to
emphasize usability to clients, and appropriate support to innovations in presenting CCs are identified.
On the process, guidance may be given to agencies how to make the development of CCs more inclusive
of government employees and citizens alike.
Relevance: Strictly on a question of extent, all the components of the 2007 ARTA are relevant to the
implementation of the EODB Act, since it was framed as an expansion of the 2007 ARTA, and the ARTA
Integrated Program has been the only direct and attributed programming of the law. Within the scope of
the 2007 ARTA implementation, there is benefit on taking off from the components that resulted to
efficiency in frontline transactions. However, critical attention is needed to strategize policy and
programs to address the integrity and anti-corruption components of the 2007 ARTA towards EODB Act
implementation. Moreover, it is important to note that the relationship between these two laws is beyond
the expansion of the 2007 ARTA because many documented agency-level and LGU programs have been
subsuming law compliance under Doing Business efforts. The EODB Act also covers significant provisions
that cater to ease of business transactions in the local frontline offices. These interrelationships among
frontline efficiency, doing business, integrity and anti-corruption, their translation to a Theory of Change,
and a corresponding results framework are important to be addressed collaboratively among oversight
and implementing agencies moving forward.
Sustainability: The various evaluation tracks provide layered approaches into answering an improved
implementation of the 2007 ARTA in light of the EODB Act. On short-term change management,
communicating the transition plans and support to be given to frontline government offices and
employees is seen to be important in light of growing concerns on the more stringent standards under
EODB Act. In terms of a strategic and evaluative framework for this law, the importance of articulating a
Theory of Change and a results framework is again emphasized. These can be expressed in a Governance
Roadmap that provides logic to the priorities of EODB Act implementation, and the improvements it
seeks to achieve towards higher-level outcomes throughout the years.

Technical recommendations on revising the RCS indicators and implementation are provided, as well as
support follow-through protocols on the CCB. For both RCS and CCB, more disciplined and robust data
gathering protocols must be in place, especially when it comes to nuancing indicators to reflect
complexity of transactions and range of services per office or agency, and upholding consistency of scope
and coverage through years of data gathering. Should the limitation in resources to implement RCS
across more agencies and offices stand in light of the EODB Act implementation, the RCS may instead
focus on a handful of agencies, offices, and/or transactions that it can monitor and evaluate, to reflect
priorities of change areas in the proposed Governance Roadmap and results framework.
Meanwhile, improving the manner of implementing higher-level outcomes on integrity and anti-
corruption, the EODB Act implementation will benefit from expanding its efforts by working with
existing and even broader integrity advocacies with government and civil society organizations. The
innovations that fixers have undertaken to prevail despite the 2007 ARTA should be studied for
appropriate responses. For instance, suggestions to include costs that clients are willing to pay (expedite
fees) for efficiency into the main transaction cost. It is also noted that the No Contact Policy under the
EODB Act may produce an unintended boost to the fixing market since clients prefer to have a personal
interaction to ask for precise information about their transactions.
Meanwhile, for further studies, this evaluation recommends that analysis be further made on:
(a) the different components of the RCS database, such as those specific to the anti-fixing campaign
and the PACD, given issues identified on pursuing integrity and assuring a “personal”
interaction option for the EODB Act, respectively;
(b) a nuanced take on the RCS results per NGA, GOCC, and especially on the LGUs, given the
significant provisions of the EODB Act for local implementation.
A monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) research agenda is also necessary to support evidence-
informed policymaking for the EODB Act implementation. This necessitates instituting a MEL system
and capacities within the ARTA Authority, with the CSC, for the RCS and other surveys or data
gathering strategies, including a team of qualified researchers for regular and disciplined insight-mining
into the available and developing datasets, and a knowledge management system to store all raw
datasets and relevant information through many years.

CONTENTS
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables and Figures...............................................................................................................................................8
List of Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................9
Evaluation Team: Profiles.............................................................................................................................................11
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................12
2 Evaluation Questions.................................................................................................................................................13
3 Policy Overview.........................................................................................................................................................14
3.1 Overview of ARTA.............................................................................................................................................14
3.2 CSC’s Integrated ARTA Program......................................................................................................................15
3.3 Overview of the EODB Act................................................................................................................................18
3.4 Implications to the Analytical Approach............................................................................................................20
4 Evaluation Approach and Methodology....................................................................................................................22
4.1 Evaluation Matrix...............................................................................................................................................22
4.2 Data Collection and Analysis..............................................................................................................................22
4.3 Methodological Limitations................................................................................................................................25
5 Evaluation Results.....................................................................................................................................................27
5.1 Efficiency............................................................................................................................................................27
5.2 Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................................................33
5.3 Relevance............................................................................................................................................................44
5.4 Sustainability.......................................................................................................................................................46
6 Concluding Notes.......................................................................................................................................................50
6.1 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................................................................50
6.2 Summary of Recommendations..........................................................................................................................52
7 Works Cited...............................................................................................................................................................55
Annex A. Evaluation Matrix – Integrated.....................................................................................................................57
Annex B. Interview and Focus Group Discussion Guides...........................................................................................66
Annex C. Recommendations from the Various Evaluation Tracks..............................................................................72
Annex D. Executive Summaries of Supplementary Reports........................................................................................78
Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of ARTA Compliance on Client Satisfaction.................................................78
Data Science Methodology Supporting the Assessment of ARTA..........................................................................79
Case Study (NGA 1): Land Registration Authority..................................................................................................80
Case Study (NGA 2): Bureau of Internal Revenue...................................................................................................81
Case Study (GOCC 1): Philippine Health Insurance Corporation............................................................................82
Case Study (GOCC 2): Social Security System.......................................................................................................83

Case Study (LGU 1): Tagum City............................................................................................................................85
Case Study (LGU 2): Arayat, Pampanga..................................................................................................................86
Case Study (LGU 3): Cainta, Rizal...........................................................................................................................87
Case Study (LGU 4): Quezon City...........................................................................................................................88

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
1 Evaluation Questions
2 RCS Coverage from 2010 to 2017
3 Agencies with the Highest Number of ARTA-related Complaints
4 Case Study Subjects and Rationale for Selection
5 Consolidated Initial List of Agency Programs Related to Anti-Corruption
Figures
1 Top Five ARTA-related Complaints from 2013 to 2017, in Percentage of Total Reports Per Year
2 Salient Features of the EODB Law
3 ARTA Outcomes
4 Mixed Methods Employed for Integrated Analysis
5 EODB scope with ARTA Evaluation Result Annotations

LIST OF ACRONYMS
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ARMM Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
2007 ARTA Anti-Red Tape Act
BIR Bureau of Internal Revenue
CAR Cordillera Administrative Region
COA Commission on Audit
CC Citizen Charter
CCB Contact Center ng Bayan
CMCI Cities and Municipalities Competitiveness Index
CSC Civil Service Commission
CSC-SE Citizen’s Satisfaction Center Seal of Excellence
CSS Client Satisfaction Survey
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DBM Department of Budget and Management
DFA Department of Foreign Affairs
DICT Department of Information and Communications Technology
DILG Department of Interior and Local Government
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
DTI-CB Department of Trade and Industry - Competitiveness Bureau
eBPLS Electronic Business Processing and Licensing System
EODB Ease of Doing Business
EODB Act Ease of Doing Business Act
FGD Focus group discussion
GOCC Government-owned and controlled corporations
IRR Implementing rules and regulations
KII Key informant interviews
LBP Land Bank of the Philippines
LGU Local government unit
LRA Land Registration Authority
LTO Land Transportation Office
LWD Local Water District
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning
NCC National Competitiveness Council
NCR National Capital Region
NGA National government agency
NNBP No Noon Break Policy
NSO National Statistics Office
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OGP Open Government Partnership
OMB Office of the Ombudsman
OP Office of the President
OSS One Stop Shop

PACD Public Assistance and Complaint Desk
PHIC / PhilHealth Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
PNP Philippine National Police
PPA Philippine Ports Authority
PSA Philippine Statistics Authority
PWD Persons with Disability
RCS Report Card Survey
SDEP Service Delivery Excellence Program
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SMS Short Messaging System
SSS Social Security System
SUCs State Universities and Colleges
UNCAC United Nations Convention on Anti-Corruption

EVALUATION TEAM: PROFILES
Governance Specialist, Lead Investigator

Czarina Medina-Guce ([email protected]) works on public policy, governance, and development
issues, particularly on areas such as subnational governance, transparency, accountability, citizen
participation, and anti-corruption, and impact and outcomes assessments. Currently, she works as faculty
in the Development Studies Program of the Ateneo de Manila University, and Senior Advisor for the
Leadership and Exchange Programs (LeadEx) of The Asia Foundation (San Francisco, USA), and consults
for government and development organizations. She completed executive courses on public policy and
leadership from Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and is taking
up her PhD in Sociology in the University of the Philippines-Diliman. She has written articles for
international and local academic journals, and has co-written and co-edited several publications. She is an
alumna of the Asia Foundation Development Fellows in 2014, and was member of The Asia Foundation's
Board of Trustees (San Francisco USA) from 2017 to 2019.
Associate Evaluator (Quantitative)

Kidjie Saguin ([email protected]) is a PhD Candidate at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public
Policy, National University of Singapore. Broadly, he is interested in comparative public policy, social
policy and governance. His research is primarily concerned with understanding the factors and processes
that underlie the ability of governments to undertake large-scale reforms in emerging economies.
Associate Evaluator (Case Studies)

Kathleen Jovellanos ([email protected]) has extensive expertise and practical experience in
governance and capacity development, which have been honed by more than 13 years of project and
program implementation and management, with special interest in public-private partnership. She was
deeply involved in a number of local and foreign funded development projects of various government
agencies which includes the PPP Center of the Philippines, Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Trade
and Industry, among others.
Data Science Support

Thinking Machines is a data science consultancy with operations in Singapore, Manila (PH), and San
Francisco (US). Founded by Stanford engineering graduates who've worked on data products at some of
the best tech companies in Silicon Valley, Thinking Machines is committed to delivering quality work for
its clients and its community.
Ryan Yu is currently a Data Strategist at Thinking Machines Data Science, where he helps organizations
become data-driven by building machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions and developing
clients’ data capabilities. He finished B.S. in Management Engineering from Ateneo de Manila University,
and was previously a Senior Business Analyst at McKinsey & Co.
Kevin Go is currently a Data Analyst at Thinking Machines Data Science, where he uses various
statistical, machine learning, and data visualization methods to help clients draw useful insights from
data. He has a M.S. in Marine Biology and Ecology degree from James Cook University in Australia. He
previously worked as a researcher at the University of the Philippines Marine Science Institute and the
Institute of Biology.

1 INTRODUCTION
Republic Act 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act (2007 ARTA) was passed in 2007 to “improve efficiency in the
delivery of government service to the public by reducing bureaucratic red tape, preventing graft and
corruption, and providing penalties therefor.” The law seeks to promote “integrity, accountability, proper
management of public affairs and public property, as well as establishing effective practices aimed at the
prevention of graft and corruption in government” (Section 2, 2007 ARTA). The law covers all
government agencies with frontline service delivery functions (agencies that have direct interaction with
the public), including national government agencies (NGAs), government-owned and controlled
corporations (GOCCs), and local government units (LGUs).
For the years that followed, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), as mandated by the law and its
implementing rules and regulations, led the implementation of the 2007 ARTA through its Integrated
ARTA Program. This is composed of the Report Card Survey (RCS), Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB),
Service Delivery Excellence Program (SDEP) and Citizen’s Satisfaction Center Seal of Excellence (CSC-
SE).
The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) takes keen interest in the implementation of
this law as it monitors and contributes to the achievement of the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022.
Included in this medium-term plan is Chapter 5: People-Centered, Clean, and Efficient Governance. This
section covers the indicator, “Government agencies with frontline service offices passing the Report Card
Survey increased,” so far declared at an 88.5% baseline in 2016, and targeting above 90% results from
2017 onwards. Moreover, strict enforcement and monitoring of the 2007 ARTA is also identified as one of
the strategies under the subsector outcome, “Corruption reduced”.1
The evaluation is also conducted with the intent to help inform the implementation of Republic Act 11032
or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act (henceforth, EODB Act). 2 The
EODB Act, enacted in 2018, effectively modifies and expands the 2007 ARTA.
This evaluation report is structured as follows: Section 2 discusses the evaluation questions and scope of
the research. Section 3 provides for the overview of the 2007 ARTA and the Integrated ARTA Program as
implemented by the CSC, and the overview of EODB Act. The implications of evaluating in between the
implementation of the two policies are also discussed. Section 4 discusses the evaluation approach and
methodology used. Section 5 presents the results and findings of the evaluation. Lastly, Section 6
summarizes the findings and lays out the recommendations.
The report includes executive summaries of the Quantitative Analysis, Data Science Analysis, and eight
case studies.3 Part of the submission to NEDA and UNDP are recommendations for the communication
of the report with an analysis of potentially interested stakeholders.
1
Process note [May 31, 2019]: Last sentence is added as input from NEDA.
2
As of writing, the EODB Act draft implementing rules and regulations (IRR) have been submitted to the Office of the President by the
concerned agencies, with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) serving as an ad hoc secretariat. Recommendations on proceeding for the
EODB implementation are still being considered by the concerned agencies for possible uptake with the Anti-Red Tape Authority when it is
officially formed and functional.
3
The full reports are submitted by the Research Associates and Thinking Machines to NEDA and UNDP.

2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This study develops an implicit theory of change between the objectives of the 2007 ARTA and its
relationship with frontline services, and derives recommendations for consideration in the
implementation of EODB Act. The study draws lessons from the 2007 ARTA implementation over the last
eight years, particularly, analyzing trends emerging from its implementation, identifying the elements
and practices that helped improve the efficiency of frontline services and constrained the effectiveness of
anti-red tape interventions, as well as to identify areas of unintended consequences. Furthermore, the
study provides recommendations for designing a framework and methodology for the future conduct of
impact evaluations on the implementation of EODB Act.4
Anchoring on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) framework criteria, this evaluation answers the following questions:
Table 1. Evaluation Questions (Ref: Project Terms of Reference)

DAC Criteria Questions
[a] How has the 2007 ARTA been implemented by NGAs and local government
Efficiency
units?
[b] What are costs and benefits associated with the 2007 ARTA implementation?
[c] What can the RCS/commendation/complaints database of CSC reveal about the
2007 ARTA implementation?
[d] How do agencies monitor their compliance to the standards in their Citizens
Charters (CCs) and revise the standards when necessary?
[a] How has the implementation of the 2007 ARTA policies improved frontline
Effectiveness
services?
[b] What are the elements which helped achieve the goals of the 2007 ARTA, and
what are the constraining factors?
[c] Has the improvement in frontline services of key national and local agencies
translated in improved perceptions on business-friendliness, government
effectiveness and corruption? Why or why not?
[d] What factors influence various stakeholders in the implementation of the 2007
ARTA? How do they collaborate?
[e] What are the good practices from the most improved agencies?
[f] What kind of support can be extended to agencies in difficult situations or to
agencies failing in the RCS?
[g] What are the facilitating factors and barriers to the public’s utilization of the
Citizen’s Charter?
Relevance [a] To what extent are the various components of the 2007 ARTA relevant to the
implementation of the EODB Act?
[a] Based on the findings, how can the 2007 ARTA be better implemented in light of
Sustainability
EODB Act?
[b] Are there areas that need further improvement to sustain/maximize the benefits
already achieved by implementing the 2007 ARTA?
[c] How should a future impact evaluation study for the EODB Act be designed?
[d] What methodologies and tools can be applied to measure NGAs’
implementation of the standards in their CCs?
[e] How can data collected by CSC be used to analyze the causal impact on the 2007
ARTA outcomes, i.e., reducing corruption and improving ease of doing business?
4
From the Project Terms of Reference

3 POLICY OVERVIEW
This section provides an overview of the 2007 ARTA and its program translation through the CSC’s
Integrated ARTA Program. This will be followed by an overview of the EODB Act, highlighting the
changes from the original 2007 ARTA, especially in terms of outcomes the policies desire to contribute to.
This section ends with an explanation of the implications of the analysis of the two policies to the
evaluation approach and lens employed.
3.1 OVERVIEW OF ARTA
The 2007 ARTA’s Section 2, Declaration of Policy states:
“It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper
management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective
practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this
end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and
employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency
with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a
program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and
expedite transactions in government.”
Fundamentally, the policy positions as a governance improvement initiative that considers efficient
frontline government service delivery as a means to achieve integrity and accountability in government
and reduce corruption.
The 2007 ARTA’s governance provisions can be summarized in five points. First, the law provides a set of
universal service standards that all clients can expect from all frontline services of the government (e.g.,
simple transactions should be completed within five days while more complex ones should be given 10
days). Second, it mandates the implementation of various process improvement initiatives like process
reengineering and signature reduction. These initiatives were legally mandated to ensure the reduction of
excessive and unnecessary rules and regulations in these frontline services. Third, the law puts the
publication of a Citizen’s Charter (CC) as its centerpiece provision (Mendoza, 2011). The 2007 ARTA
defines a CC as an official document, a service standard, or a pledge, that communicates information
about the government services in simple terms. Such information includes step-by-step procedures,
turnaround time for service completion, documentary requirements, among others. It acts as the primary
transparency mechanism of the 2007 ARTA. Fourth, agencies are also expected to establish their own
complaints and redress system. This is a feedback mechanism that allows clients to complain about
services rendered below par. Fifth, the law puts criminal liability to operational “fixers” 5 and to those
working in collusion with them, some of whom may be public servants. As a means of promoting
compliance with the 2007 ARTA provisions, deviations from the published charters were made subject to
criminal proceedings.
5
There is no official definition of “fixing” or “fixers” in the 2007 ARTA, which has been pointed out by other reviews of the law’s
implementation (Aceron, et.al., 2015). The EODB Act, however, defines “fixers” as “any individual whether or not officially involved in the
operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates
speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration (EODB Act, Section 4(e)).”

Owing to priorities allocated to specific provisions of the law, the implementation of the 2007 ARTA
focused on the efficiency of frontline government service delivery. The CSC performed the primary role
in operationalizing the 2007 ARTA implementation.
3.2 CSC’S INTEGRATED ARTA PROGRAM 6
To operationalize implementation of the 2007 ARTA, CSC launched the Integrated ARTA Program in
2010. The program has the following components7:
 Report Card Survey (RCS), “a client feedback survey used to check government service offices’
compliance with the provisions of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007. It provides a quantitative
measure of user perceptions on the quality, efficiency, and adequacy of public services. (CSC,
2014a)”
 Contact Center ng Bayan (CCB), “a feedback mechanism designated as the government’s main
helpdesk where citizens can request for information and assistance on government frontline
service procedures, and report commendations, appreciation, complaints, and feedback. (CSC,
2014b)”
 Service Delivery Excellence Program (SDEP), which is given to service offices obtaining a
“Failed” rating from RCS and includes “conduct of service improvement workshops and
facilitation for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the service office’s strategies,
structure, staff, and systems. (CSC, 2014c)”
 Citizen’s Satisfaction Center Seal of Excellence (CSC-SE), “an award given to government service
offices that have demonstrated exemplary frontline service delivery by meeting both conditions:
(a) obtained an “Excellent” rating in the RCS, and (b) has no valid and unresolved 2007 ARTA-
related complaint based on the Contact Center ng Bayan data. (CSC, 2014d)”
The RCS has been implemented since 2010 and covered 5,904 service offices (2010-2017). From these,
1,056 service offices received an excellent rating and the CSC-SE award, while 280 service offices
underwent the SDEP from 2013 to 2016. Meanwhile, from the results of the RCS, CSC awards the CSC-SE,
which from 2010 to 2016 was received by 304 offices. The top three agencies receiving the award were
PHIC (67 awards), Government Service Insurance System (53), and Land Bank of the Philippines (24). By
sector, the award has been received by GOCCs at 66%, NGAs, 28%; and LGUs, 6%.
As available resources do not permit all agencies to be assessed using the RCS design, the CSC adopts a
sampling framework to select agencies based on different priority themes each year. This approach
generates point estimates that can and have been analyzed in this evaluation report. However, it does not
permit the establishment of a specific baseline that could be used to determine progress over time.
Meanwhile, as per the RCS team of the CSC in a series of consultations with the evaluation team, the RCS
design itself underwent several iterations through the years, but in so doing was unable to account for
comparability of the emergent datasets, particularly in the changes for 2015 and 2017.
6
Information from this section comes from the presentation of CSC Public Assistance and Information Office Director Maria Luisa Salonga-
Agamata to the project ERG in 2018.
7
Process note [May 31 version]: The descriptions of the components are placed in response to a comment from NEDA.

Table 2 documents the coverage of the RCS from 2010 to 2017. CSC documents having had interviewed
170,292 persons.
Table 2. RCS Coverage from 2010 to 2017

Year Description
2010 50 pilot services in 16 regions under the CSC
2011 497 high density/high impact service offices
2012 594 high density that are dealing with commerce transactions
2013 929 high density that are dealing with commerce transactions
2014 1,023 service offices from the most complained agencies
2015 1,114 most complained agencies with 51 Land Bank of the Philippines selected branches
2016 1,109 “ARTA goes Local” (LGU, barangays, LWDs, and SUCs); 100 Landbank of the
Philippines (LBP) selected branches
2017 540 service offices engaged in Ease of Doing Business
The broader utility of the RCS is demonstrated by its expanded application being included as a
requirement for the Performance-Based Bonus. Through this, the CSC attributes the ARTA program’s
influence on the monitoring and evaluation of agency performance. Studies conducted by the CSC’s
international and local partners8 have also pointed out the influence of the Integrated ARTA Program in
areas such as physical and facility improvements, increased awareness of public accountability and
diminished under-the-table transactions, and changes in employee behavior.9
The Integrated ARTA Program established centralized contact points for public communication and
citizen feedback through a complaint and redress mechanism. It also enabled the processing of data into
information for response of the reported agencies. From September 2012 to December 2017, the CSC
received 377,820 reports through the following CCB platforms: phone (51.21% of total), SMS (46.67%),
email (2.02%), and Facebook (0.09%)10. Upon receiving the report, the CCB refers the matter to the
concerned agency. The concerned agency then takes action, and the CCB relays the feedback to clients.
Table 3 and Figure 1 provide further information on the agencies that received the highest number of
complaints from 2013 to 2017, and the types of feedback received.
8
Enumerated in the CSC presentation deck are: (A) Studies conducted for the 2007 ARTA: (1) NCPAG: Impact study on the manual of
participatory formulation of the Citizen’s Charter, (2) UNDP: Impact study on the RCS implementation, (3) USAID i3: Enhancing the ARTA
RCS; and (B) Inter-agency collaborations: BOI Investments promotion network, DTI Project Repeal, and DOF Interagency business process
interoperability.
9
These findings are indicated in the notes section of Agamata’s presentation.
10
Process note [May 31 version]: NEDA made a note if there are resolution rates available for a historical analysis. As per the reports CSC
provided, there are no resolution rates indicated. The data on CCB results are instead included in the Data Science and Quantitative Results,
within their respective scope of analysis.

Table 3. Agencies with the Highest Number of 2007 ARTA-related Complaints (Agamata, 2018)
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

(Total = 1818) (Total = 1745) (Total = 3749) (Total = 11549) (Total = 19629)
Slow process Slow process Slow process Slow process Slow process
(43.40%) (31.75%) (28.97%) (53.34%) (56.89%)
No Noon Break Discourtesy No Noon Break Unclear procedures

Discourtesy (7.82%)
(13.70%) (14.96%) (13.68%) (8.35%)
Failure to attend to
Discourtesy No Noon Break Discourtesy Unattended hotline
clients during office
(13.26%) (12.44%) (13.39%) number (8.20%)
hours (5.92%)
Failure to attend to Failure to attend to

Fixing activities Unclear procedures
clients during office clients during office Discourtesy (5.70%)
(8.14%) (5.75%)
hours (7.76%) hours (10.11%)
Failure to attend to
Fixing activities Fixing activities No Noon Break Failure to act on
clients during office
(7.59%) (7.36%) (4.85%) request (5.38%)
hours (7.51%)
Figure 1. Top five 2007 ARTA-related complaints from 2013 to 2017, in percentage of total
reports per year11 (Agamata, 2018)
In a press release, the CSC also reported:
11
Process Note [May 31, 2019]: The figure is a more concise version responding to input from NEDA.

“Through its linkage to the Performance-Based Incentive System, the ARTA has been
considerably integrated in government processes. Compliance to citizens’ charters has
increased by 5 percentage points in three years (94% in 2012 vs. 99% in 2015). Results
from the RCS are also encouraging as the percentage of offices receiving an “excellent”
rating tripled (4% in 2011 vs. 13% in 2016) and those receiving a “failed” grade halved
(27% in 2011 vs. 11% in 2016) for the past five years. In terms of citizen’s participation to
the evaluation process, the CCB has also grown steadily reaching over 63,281 reported
complaints in 2015 (from only 2,685 in 2010).”12
3.3 OVERVIEW OF THE EODB ACT
In 2018, Republic Act 11032 or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act was
signed, which substantially amended the 2007 ARTA. EODB Act’s Section 2 Declaration of Policy states:
“It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper
management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective
practices, aimed at efficient turnaround of the delivery of government services and the
prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall
maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall
take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the
manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the
adoption of simplified requirements and procedures that will reduce red tape and
expedite business and nonbusiness related transactions in government” (emphasis
added).
The highlighted parts point out to this law’s differences from the 2007 ARTA’s Declaration of Policy. The
EODB Act expounds on government efficiency by setting standards on efficiency of turnaround of service
delivery on all transactions of government. The 2007 ARTA focuses on frontline services, defined as “the
process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any
privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal or extension of the
enumerated applications and/or requests, which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the
agency or office concerned (Section 4(c), 2007 ARTA)”. But the EODB Act expands the scope of frontline
services, and seeks to expedite business and non-business-related transactions, with non-business
transactions defined as “all other government transactions not falling under” Section 4(c) of the 2007
ARTA (Section 4(h), EODB Act). The EODB Act also prescribes the backend infrastructure and
administrative systems that support a more efficient transaction environment – databases and knowledge
systems, interconnectivity, shorter processing time, no-contract and automatic approvals in case of failure
to comply, and a sharper “two strike” policy with administrative and criminal liabilities for non-
compliant government employees. The salient features of the EODB Act are summarized in the primer of
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), shown in Figure 2.
12
Process Note [May 31, 2019]: NEDA provided reference for the report from a press release for the RCS and internal data for Contact Center,
with data from the Development Academy of the Philippines and CSC.

Figure 2. The DTI Primer names salient features of the EODB Act13
It is also worth noting that the EODB Act is a product of a long-standing policy advocacy from the private
sector, in line with the Doing Business14 evaluations that are conducted by the World Bank on an
international scope. Business groups, together with DTI, the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG), and other national government agencies, have passed various guidelines,
scorecards, and circulars reducing the requirements needed by businesses to register and renew licenses
and permits, and building electronic systems that synchronize records of government agencies.
In these initiatives, efficient business processing and licensing is linked to improving the business climate
for start-ups, revenue creation, foster economic growth, create more jobs, and attract investors, and
become more competitive for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economic integration.
In the DTI - Competitiveness Bureau (CB) EODB briefer15, the Frequently Asked Questions section states:
“How can businesses benefit [from the EODB law]?... The business permitting process
will be faster, easier, and more convenient… According to the Doing Business Report of
2018, good rules create an environment where new entrants with drive and good ideas
13
EODB Act Primer may be accessed in the DTI website: https://www.dti.gov.ph/businesses/ease-of-doing-business#ra-11032-ease-of-doing-
business-and-efficient-government-service-delivery-act-of-2018
14
More information on the international Doing Business initiative can be accessed via: http://www.doingbusiness.org/
15
The EODBA Briefer is accessible via the link noted in the previous footnote.

can get started in business and where good firms can invest, expand, and create new
jobs.”
This means that while the EODB Act is subsumed under the 2007 ARTA as an expansion or an
amendment, in the understanding of national, subnational (and even international) stakeholders, the
EODB Act as an advocacy and program implemented through many years in the Philippines is more than
just about efficiency in government transactions. The EODB Act targets higher-level economic
competitiveness and revenue-generation outcomes that are not necessarily within the immediate
outcomes scope of the 2007 ARTA. These outcomes are not declared in the law but will be referred to in
this study’s results. The stakeholders assume these economic-related outcomes because such has been the
context of the EODB Act conversations in the past years.
3.4 IMPLICATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH
The overview of the 2007 ARTA and the EODB Act underscores that the 2007 ARTA targets higher-level
outcomes of integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property, and
prevention of graft and corruption in government. Such principles are all stipulated in its Declaration of
Policy. This largely informs the analytical approach employed by this evaluation, as illustrated in Figure
3, a reconstruction of the 2007 ARTA outcomes. 16 The reconstruction is informed by the Theory of
Change, which articulates long-term goals and outcomes and identifies the conditions (expressed as
measurable assumptions and/or interventions) that are should unfold for the goals to be achieved
(Taplin & Clark, 2012). The“pathway” connecting the interventions to the outcomes allow deepened,
nuanced understanding of the variables that enabled or hindered goal-attainment. This is also an
acknowledgement that the higher-level outcomes are difficult to measure because there are many other
government policies that target the same outcomes, which affect self-reported achievements to be
attributed to 2007 ARTA alone.17
Moreover, anchoring on the 2007 ARTA outcomes allows the evaluation to transition to the expanded
outcomes and strategies identified in the EODB Act, which are addressed in greater detail in the analysis
under the section titled Sustainability (Section 5.4).
16
The Evaluation Team introduced and discussed the evaluation approach with NEDA and UNDP. It is reflected in the Inception Report and
approved in the ERG.
17
Process note [May 31, 2019]: This nuance is included as per NEDA’s input.

Figure 3. The Evaluation Team’s reconstruction of the 2007 ARTA Outcomes.

4 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The evaluation methodology is based on a multi-dimensional approach, employing mixed methods in
data gathering and analysis to answer the Evaluation Questions. This section discusses the evaluation
matrix, data collection and analysis employed, and methodological limitations of the evaluation.
4.1 EVALUATION MATRIX
The evaluation is structured around the Evaluation Matrix guided by the Evaluation Questions following
the DAC criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability (Table 1), as expanded by the
Evaluation Team (Section 3.4) in discussion and agreement with NEDA and UNDP during the inception
phase of the project. The detailed Evaluation Matrix, attached in Annex A, fleshes out how the different
analysis components (Quantitative Analysis on Client Satisfaction, Data Science Methodology, and Case
Studies) addressed the evaluation questions.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This evaluation employs an integrative mixed method approach in data collection and analysis. Figure 4
illustrates the components of the data collection and the integration used. Salient features of the mixed
methods approach are as follows:
 The Quantitative Analysis and the Data Science Methodology 18 both utilized the datasets
provided by the CSC, and analyzed the relationship of the 2007 ARTA compliance to client
satisfaction. The Quantitative Analysis employed statistical models to test relationships, while the
Data Science Methodology track, conducted by Thinking Machines, used data mining techniques
to probe nuances on the RCS and CCB datasets. The results of the two analyses are highly
complementary of each other’s findings.19
18
Process note: The Data Science Methodology was first designed to be an analysis independent of the quantitative and qualitative tracks of this
evaluation, as reflected in the project terms of reference. However, the progress of integrated analysis surfaced that, (a) the results of the
Quantitative Analysis and the Data Science studies reinforced each other, and (b) the overall findings benefit from incorporating the Data Science
results into the discussion. Furthermore, initial UNDP Quality Assurance feedback highlighted the advantages of embedding the results of the
Data Science study in the overall report. Hence, the integrated analysis is updated to respond to all these considerations.
19
Executive Summaries of both reports can be found in Annex D.

Relationship between ARTA compliance Relationship to ARTA effectiveness of
and client satisfaction customer satisfaction, agency profiles,
Exploratory work on ISO Accreditation, and other performance indicators
and Hidden Costs
Quantitative Data Science

Analysis Methdology
KIIs and FGDs

Qualitative
with Oversight
Analysis
Insight-mining on the Evaluation Agencies In-depth analysis of NGAs, GOCCs, and
Questions based on interfaces of the LGUs on ARTA implementation (8 case
agencies with ARTA outcomes and studies)
implementation
Figure 4. Framework of the mixed methods approach used in the integrated analysis.
 The Quantitative Analysis provides additional insight-mining into (a) “hidden costs” – costs
either not disclosed by agencies, or illegal charges made by fixers or others – as a variable that
affects the 2007 ARTA compliance and client satisfaction20 and (b) ISO Accreditation as a concrete
agency-level initiative that addresses efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and may
complement the 2007 ARTA provisions.21
 The Qualitative Analysis component of the methods was conducted through the development of
case studies. The agencies and offices covered by the eight case studies 22 were selected based on
per agency and per LGU runs of the RCS data.23 Table 4 summarizes the resulting selection
20
Hidden costs emerged in the Quantitative Analysis as a variable that negatively affected client satisfaction. In discussion of preliminary drafts,
NEDA and UNDP expressed interest if a further deep-dive into the hidden costs variable can provide insights into prevalence of corruption over
and above costs that are merely not specified in CCs. The exploratory work was conducted in response to this research interest. The discussion on
hidden costs may be found in Section 8 of the Quantitative Analysis Full Report.
21
Both the Quantitative Analysis and Data Science analysis showed that agencies with known internal programs for efficiency and effectiveness
of service delivery faired high in terms of client satisfaction. This is affirmed by the case studies developed on agencies that scored highly in the
RCS. Meanwhile, the interview with the Department of Budget and Management allowed the evaluation team access to a dataset of agencies that
have undergone ISO Accreditation in the recent years. Therefore, the insight-mining on ISO Accreditation and client satisfaction is added into the
Quantitative Analysis as a form of exploration of such agency-level initiative and its contributions to answering the Evaluation Questions. The
ISO Accreditation discussion may be found in Section 9 of the Quantitative Analysis Full Report.
22
In the original project TOR, only six case studies were specified to be developed. However, in the project inception phase, NEDA and ERG
members indicated interest to have comparative perspectives per type of agency (NGA, GOCC). Thus, two case studies were added to reflect
NGAs and GOCCs with both high and low scores in the RCS.
23
Process note: The selection of the LGUs also took into account the rankings of RCS-covered LGUs in the Cities and Municipalities
Competitiveness Index (CMCI), which is a composite scoring system that measures and ranks cities and municipalities based on four areas:

criteria for each case study subject. The case studies were developed concurrently 24 with the
quantitative analysis tracks and the integration analysis covered in this report. Data gathering
through field visits, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) were
conducted from September 2018 to February 2019. The KIIs and FGDs employ separate but
mirroring questions to the supervisors and managers of the selected LGUs and NGAs, frontline
government service employees, clients, Public Assistance and Complaint Desk personnel,
Contact Center ng Bayan personnel, and Civil Service Commission employees who are in charge
with handling the 2007 ARTA. Fixers were also asked separate questions. The key informant
interview (KII) and focus group discussion (FGD) guides attached to this report as Annex B are
leaner versions of the approved tools in the project inception phase.
 Additional KIIs and FGDs were conducted with government agencies and partners that have
interfaces with dimensions of the 2007 ARTA implementation and/or its higher-level outcomes.
Conducted from September 2018 to January 2019, the KIIs and FGDs covered CSC Legal and RCS
teams, DTI, Department of Budget and Management (DBM), DILG, and GWatch (an independent
group that conducted a prior study on the RCS implementation). 25
These tracks are supported by a review of related literature. This evaluation leverages existing studies for
insights addressing this evaluation’s key inquiry areas: elements and practices that supported or
constrained efficiency and effectiveness of the 2007 ARTA implementation, unintended consequences,
framework improvements – all within the frame of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability
(Ramos, 2011; Saguin, 2013; Aceron, et.al., 2015; Gainer, 2015; Perante-Calina, n.d.). An exhaustive
literature review of all evaluations conducted on the 2007 ARTA was not possible since full text versions
of reports have not been made publicly available. The review prioritized studies conducted or published
in the past five years (2013 to 2018) to approximate the conditions covered by the RCS data accounted in
the quantitative analysis, and those that covered specific sites in the Philippines such as local agency
offices or LGUs (Ramos; Avila, 2014; Salpid-Masucol, 2014, Ortiz and Gumapac, n.d.), since these reports
augment the case studies covered in this current evaluation.
The process of the integrated analysis required that coding, pattern matching, and triangulation
approaches were done concurrently with the progress of data collection tracks. This was also imperative
because of the overlapping timetables for the development and completion of each data gathering track.
Such integration process translated to the Qualitative Associate Evaluator, submitting to the Lead
Investigator field notes and relevant documents per case study for the latter’s coding and analysis, even
while the structured case studies are being developed. The process is similar with the quantitative
economic dynamism, government efficiency, infrastructure, and resiliency. More information on the program and the index can be found at
http://cmcindex.org.ph/. The CMCI was included in the selection as a way to rapidly assess if there are nuances and relationships that can be
identified on the performance of LGUs on ARTA compliance vis-à-vis their performance in the CMCI datasets. This selection method was
presented to NEDA and the ERG during project inception and was approved.
24
For further reference on the integrated mixed methods analysis design employed, refer to: Brannen, J. Mixing methods: the entry of qualitative
and quantitative approaches in the research process (2005). International Journal of Social Research methodology, 8:3. 173-184; and, Fielding, N.
(2010) Mixed methods in the real world. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 13,2, 127-138, and, Hollstein, B. (2014). “Mixed
methods social networks research: An introduction.” In S. Dominguez & B. Hollstein (Eds.), Mixed methods social networks research: Design
and applications, (pp. 3-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25
Requests for interviews with the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Information and Communications Technology were sent and
followed-up. However, the Lead Investigator was unable to be granted interview schedules within the data gathering period. The Office of the
Ombudsman, however, shared relevant documents (via email) on integrity and anti-corruption that were substantial in the development of the
analysis and recommendations of this study.

analysis tracks, wherein the Quantitative Associate Evaluator and the Data Science consultants share
drafts of their reports to the Lead Investigator for insight-mining and integration.
Table 4. Case Study Subjects and Rationale for Selection26

Case Study Focus Selection Criteria
NGA 1: Land Registration  Ranked high in RCS results
Authority (LRA)
 Good feedback from CSC on agency initiatives
NGA 2: Bureau of Internal  Ranked low in RCS results
Revenue (BIR)
 Received significant number of complaints
GOCC 1: Philippine Health  Ranked high in RCS results
Insurance Corporation (PHIC or
 Good feedback from CSC on agency initiatives
PhilHealth)
GOCC 2: Social Security System  Ranked low in RCS results
(SSS)
 Received significant number of complaints
LGU 1: Tagum City Ranked high in both RCS and CMCI results (ranked 2nd in RCS
with a score of 86.4, and 9th in CMCI with a score of 44.19); City
LGU 2: Arayat Pampanga High RCS score of 85.56 with a very low CMCI score of 6.8; First
class municipality
LGU 3: Cainta Rizal Low RCS with 46.8 score, but garnering the top spot in the CMCI
ranking with a 43.3 score; First class municipality
LGU 4: Quezon City Special conditions case as a highly urbanized city, with very high
number of transactions, received a number of program
interventions for BPLS from government and international
partners, have implemented a number of innovations, but remain
to be challenged on frontline service delivery
4.3 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
The study relied on available data from the CSC for the quantitative analysis. While the availability of
data is much appreciated, the Evaluation Team confronted the following challenges, particularly on the
RCS: (a) CSC has no records of the raw RCS datasets prior to 2014; (b) the design and variables included
in the datasets are not uniform and comparable across the years; and,(c) the agencies and offices covered
across the years have been thematically-decided, limiting the possibility of trending and longitudinal
analysis and the accounting of the population of “all frontline government agencies” as covered by the
2007 ARTA. These challenges were addressed by making the Quantitative Analysis focused on the 2015
and 2016 datasets because these were the with comparable data structure. 27 Meanwhile, the Data Science
analysis cleaned the RCS and CCB datasets to address comparability issues identified from the iterations
through the years.28
26
The selection criteria and focus NGAs, GOCCs, and LGUs were presented to NEDA and the ERG and were duly approved during project
inception.
27
Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 5 “Data and Methods”
28
Refer to Data Science Methodology Full Report, Section on “Methodology: Framework Overview” Table 1, and Section “Results of Analyses”

5 EVALUATION RESULTS
This section presents an integrative analysis structured according to the DAC criteria and Evaluation
Questions.
5.1 EFFICIENCY
[5.1a] How has the 2007 ARTA been implemented by NGAs and local government units?
On overall efficiency of the 2007 ARTA implementation, both Quantitative and Data Science analyses
show evidence to support that frontline services have improved across the years. Mean RCS scores rose
steadily from 2010 to 2015, but dropped in 2016 and 2017, either because of deteriorating performance or
the change in the RCS methodology deployed.29
Second, on a comparative take on NGAs and LGUs, the Data Science reconstruction of the RCS datasets
showed trends across years, sectors, agencies, and regions. Across sectors, organizations with more
regional or national scope such as NGAs and GOCCs tend to perform better than localized units such as
LGUs and SUCs. Across agencies, finance-related agencies received higher RCS scores, while local-level
agencies received lower scores. Across regions, Regions 2 and 3 outperformed NCR. Across
municipalities, in general, the higher the municipality income classification, the higher the RCS score.
Breaking scores down across agencies per region, PhilHealth tended to bring mean scores up, scoring
highest across all regions except Region 5. Meanwhile, municipality scores are typically below average,
except in Regions 5, ARMM, and CAR.30
Meanwhile, for specific narratives of NGAs and LGUs, the case studies provide a wealth of insights.
Further elucidation on thematic findings is presented in succeeding sections.
[5.1b] What are costs and benefits associated with the 2007 ARTA implementation?
As an input-to-output efficiency question, the costs and benefits associated with 2007 ARTA
implementation can be addressed according to the level of investment 31 an agency allocates on
establishing an efficient frontline service delivery. However, the case studies show that the relationship
between technology investments and efficient frontline service delivery is also related to agency-level
initiatives and leadership and management’s prioritization of improving efficiency. Both Quantitative
29
Refer to Data Science Full Report Section on “Understanding each unit’s external performance drivers” for details.
30
Refer to Data Science Full Report Section on “Understanding each unit’s external performance drivers” for the discussion and supporting data
visualizations.
31
The most pronounced technology investment is computerization of systems, which are evident in the cases of LRA, BIR, SSS, and PhilHealth.

and Data Science Analyses establish a relationship between the implementing agency and client
satisfaction32, reinforcing the insight that the 2007 ARTA standards remain only as standards without the
uptake and action from government agencies. This is strengthened by the case study narratives, for
instance:
 PhilHealth, a high scoring RCS agency, is a good reference for how agency-level programs and
investments, and management prioritization reap the benefit from improved frontline service
delivery. PhilHealth, through the years, institutionalized various electronic systems and portals
for membership, collection reporting, claims, payment schemes, and health care professionals. As
a result, client satisfaction with PhilHealth is higher than most agencies covered by the RCS and
has received awards and recognition for its programs, though it continues to receive complaints
on slow processing time attributed to long waiting time over and above the processing time.
 The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), while ranking low in the RCS, shows improvement
through the years because of the policies and programs installed by Commissioner Kim Henares
under its 2011-2016 Strategy Roadmap, including but are not limited to online registration, filing,
and payment systems for internal revenue taxes, issuance of certificates, and dissemination of
streamlined forms and information. These, while implementation can be improved, are seen by
BIR informants to have contributed significantly in the agency’s efforts to meet revenue collection
targets.
 The Municipality of Arayat is a strong reference on how leadership and prioritization of client
satisfaction on government services can overcome resource and technology investment
limitations. Much of the improvements in the systems, the behavior and outlook of the frontline
government employees, and the response protocols to complaints are attributed to the example
and directives of the local chief executive. The same commitment from the mayor is noted in the
case of Tagum City, wherein the commitment and “political will” are echoed throughout the city
hall’s workforce.
Such variables of agency-level initiatives and management prioritization do not cut across offices because
the efficiency of frontline service delivery contends with other factors such as the density of transactions
and operational inconsistencies from guiding national and local laws. For example:
 The Land Registration Authority (LRA), which ranks high in RCS results and receives positive
feedback from the CSC, implemented the Land Administration and Management Project, which
computerized the registration of lands and acquiring certificates of land titles. However, LRA
informants still deem the investments insufficient to address the volume of requests and
transactions that continue to cause delays, which results to the persistence of fixers. LRA
informants also point out that the office covers complex transactions that require action from
multiple offices in between receipt and release of requested documents. These transactions are
not covered in the LRA’s CC.
 Quezon City remains one of the most articulated references on the variables of density and
requirements for backend processes for efficiency. The LGU’s policies, programs, and technology
investments, as well as its partnerships with international and national development partners, to
32
Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 7.3 “Other determinants of client satisfaction”, and Data Science Methodology Full Report
Section on “Understanding the customer”

improve frontline service efficiency have been recognized. Its Business One Stop Shop for
transactions shows improvements in promoting ease of doing business. Despite these, Quezon
City’s systems are still challenged by the sheer volume of businesses operating in the city.
Informants also point to the difficulties caused by the vastness and variety of business
regulations, and their enforcement across all LGUs, which exercise autonomy and policymaking
powers.
The analytical tracks in the evaluation all highlight that the 2007 ARTA compliance does not
automatically yield outputs that sufficiently address the efficiency level desired for frontline service
delivery. The 2007 ARTA implementation and compliance requires a policy and program ecosystem at
the level of the agency supported by leadership and management prioritization and agency-level
initiatives. The law’s standards of efficiency, particularly the number of days per kind of transaction, also
require review to respond to variables such as nature, volume, and density of transactions.
This evaluation also takes notice on the ISO accreditation, which repeatedly appears in the case studies as
an intervention undertaken by agencies to improve quality management systems 33. Executive Order No.
605 s. 2007 states that ISO 9000 certification seeks to ensure, “consistency of products and services
through quality processes,” and its outcomes interface with the efficiency goals of the 2007 ARTA.
Analyzing a dataset shared by DBM to the evaluation team, preliminary findings suggest that ISO
certification has a facilitating effect on citizen satisfaction and better compliance to the 2007 ARTA. This
may suggest that institutionalization of a quality management system can improve client satisfaction and
government performance through the standardization of processes. It can also embed a culture of
continuous improvement by identifying ways to prevent potential deviations from existing process
standards.34 While deemed an “expensive” endeavor by agency informants, the ISO certification process
may provide further insights on how policy, program, and technology ecosystems in agencies can
complement the standards set by the 2007 ARTA.
[5.1c] What can the RCS/commendation/complaints database of the CSC reveal about the 2007 ARTA
implementation?
In essence, all results and findings from the Quantitative and Data Science Methodology Analyses
emerged as insights from the RCS/commendation/complaints databases of the CSC since both tracks
utilized these datasets. As an efficiency input-to-output process question, however, the following
findings may be highlighted.
First, that deviations from processes lead to dissatisfaction among clients, which was particularly
observed on the matter of hidden costs from the RCS dataset. Quantitative Analysis shows that holding
other factors constant, when customers were asked to pay for hidden costs – either over and above those
33
Among the case studies, SSS, BIR, Quezon City, PhilHealth have undertaken ISO certification processes. DBM also referred to ISO
accreditation as a complimentary initiative that agencies can undertake for efficiency and effectiveness of processes, in line with Executive Order
605 of 2007.
Process note [May 31, 2019]: The sentence is also slightly modified as per inputs from NEDA.
34
Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 9 “Agency-level initiative: ISO Accreditation”

indicated in CCs or illegal costs demanded by fixers or others – their satisfaction level goes down by
4.775, statistically significant at 1%.35
Crossing over to the conversion of the qualitative data on hidden costs from the complaints dataset to
quantitative coding, the analysis breaks down hidden costs into: (a) relevant costs (requirements,
services, pre-conditions, and other costs that are necessary in the delivery of the government services, but
are not reflected in the CC or made known to the citizen prior to availing of the service); (b) irrelevant
costs (considered irrelevant requirements as these are costs unduly imposed, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, to the client); and (c) another type of hidden costs wherein customers could not provide
any explanation for the additional cost.
From this conversion coding process, the Quantitative Analysis finds that a large majority of the hidden
costs are relevant. Relevant hidden costs account for 73% of the total cases and only 18% for irrelevant
costs. The most reported hidden costs were extra requirements (28%) and extra services (28%). The Social
Security System (SSS) has more reports of extra requirements (60%). On average, “grease money” 36 and
fees for registration and penalties were the most expensive. Extra requirements also amount to P1,000
while extra services only averaged at P139.60.
The analysis, hence, “…paints hidden costs as a product of the complexity of providing public services.
On one end, there is grease money offered to expedite or rush the delivery of the service and on the other
end, there are costs that may be legitimate fines and imposition of penalties. However, whatever these
hidden costs are, preventing them from occurring, either through more integrity development initiatives
or better communication of standard, should be a priority of government agencies.” 37
Second, that response to complaints varies across time, agencies, and nature of reports. The Data Science
Methodology Analysis used text-based algorithm, classification trees, and regression analysis on the CCB
dataset, and emerged with the following findings:
(a) Year was an important factor in determining response types, with an increase in the proportion of
“issues addressed” and “explanations given”, and a decrease in “no action taken” from 2015 to 2017,
suggesting a general improvement in response to complaints.
(b) The distribution of response types varied strongly across agencies. Complaints sent to the Philippine
Ports Authority (PPA), PhilHealth, and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) were frequently addressed,
while complaints sent to the National Statistics Office (NSO), Land Transportation Office (LTO), and LRA
tended to result in “no action taken”. There was a weak negative correlation between agency-level RCS
score and the number of complaints resulting in “no action taken”, meaning agencies that tended to leave
35
Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 7.3 “Other determinants of satisfaction”
36
As explained in the Quantitative Analysis Section 8.3, a liberal definition of grease money is used for the analysis of hidden costs has varying
contextual usage of words in the local language. Some would explain the payment exactly as “S.O.P.” (or standard operating procedure) and
“under-the-table payments” while others would use the equivalent word of “pamapadulas” (or grease) like “pampadasig” and neutral words like
“tip” or “para madali” (so that it’s faster). These costs can be conceptually different from payments for positive encouragements to the frontline
officer. Food and transportation expenses for the government employee typically constitute this cost. Related words like “pamahaw” (breakfast)
and “pang soft drinks” (for soft drinks/soda) are commonly associated with this form of cost, suggesting a compensation for perceived
inconveniences caused by the customer.
37
Refer to the Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 8 “Analysis of hidden costs” for details on the data processing and analysis.

complaints unresolved expectedly got lower RCS scores, at least for the 15 agencies with available RCS
scores data.
(c) Across 2007 ARTA complaint categories, relatively less controversial complaints like having no Public
Assistance Complaint Desk (PACD) or an unattended hotline number elicited the highest proportion of
issue addressed responses. In contrast, more controversial complaints related to bribery and extortion,
fixing activities, imposition of additional requirements, and imposition of additional cost were typically
left with no action taken.
(d) A number of 2007 ARTA complaint categories had unexpectedly high maximum customer waiting
times. Across regions, Regions I, VI, and VII tended to have the longest resolution durations, ranging
from 1.5 to 3 work months to completely resolve issues, suggesting a subnational nuance to performance.
Higher number of actions tended to lead to longer resolution durations. Considering this relationship,
some units still exhibited longer resolution durations than expected given the number of actions taken
(e.g., unattended hotline number, imposition of additional requirements). 38
(e) As a potential key factor affecting performance, the ratio of government employees to the number of
constituents they serve was analyzed. It was found that there is no strong correlation between
government office performance and government staffing coverage.39
[5.1d] How do agencies monitor their compliance to the standards in their Citizens Charters (CCs) and revise
the standards when necessary?
The CCs emerged as an important element in the evaluation results. At this point, limited to the question
of agency monitoring of their compliance to the CCs and subsequent revisions, findings are drawn from
the case studies.40
First, agency-level initiatives were launched to meet their own outcome and service indicators, with the
CCs (and 2007 ARTA standards in general) as overall benchmarks for efficiency. The CC provides a
uniform standard and mechanism by which all efficiency measurements were pegged. Some notable
practices from specific offices and LGUs are to create oversight committees that look at 2007 ARTA
compliance. However, these are exceptions and not the rule across agencies. From the case studies, only
PhilHealth has a dedicated webpage for the 2007 ARTA in its website. The website showcases initiatives
and posts commendations received from the CSC. However, it does not have data related to the agency’s
monitoring of 2007 ARTA compliance. 41 In some local PhilHealth offices, there is a Universal Counter
38
Refer to Data Science Methodology Full Report Section on “Understanding each unit’s internal performance drivers” for the full process
undertaken and data tables.
39
Refer to Data Science Methodology Full Report Section on “Understanding each unit’s internal performance drivers”, particularly Figure 23.
Process Note [May 31, 2019]: This finding is added as per input of NEDA.
40
Further findings on the CCs are discussed in Section 5.2 under Effectiveness.
41
The PhilHealth 2007 ARTA website can be accessed via https://www.philhealth.gov.ph/arta/.

Form that provides the backend system to monitor if the transaction time and other standards specified in
the CC are being achieved.
It was also observable that agencies collect data based on their own output-outcome indicators. The CC
(and 2007 ARTA compliance) monitoring is subsumed under the programs and projects of the agencies
which is meant to ensure their own priority outcomes are fulfilled. For example, the one-stop-shop
models in LRA, Cainta, and Quezon City, and the troubleshooting call center project in LRA. They all do
efficiency monitoring, but it is based on the target outputs and outcomes of the respective agency
projects, and not specifically according to what the CC requires. The BIR conducts the same under its
efficiency-oriented Handang Maglingkod Program, first launched in 1992 and later revived in 2009.
Meanwhile, the SSS commissioned its own Customer Satisfaction Survey in 2016 to benchmark
satisfaction of their members and customers as a test of all the programs for multi-point customer
interfaces. Thus, monitoring the CCs as a focus component of 2007 ARTA compliance is a function
attributed to the RCS implementation.
Second, CCs face issues of stakeholder co-ownership before performing its monitoring and revision
functions to ensure efficiency. This manifests in different ways:
(a) CCs are centralized or have been made uniform across central and regional offices, which poses
problems for frontline officers and employees, given the density and complexity of transactions
received per branch.
(b) Government employees both managers and frontline service employees are not sufficiently
consulted in the formulation of the CCs as they contend with the rationale behind the number of
days required to deliver services, given transactions with varying levels of complexity.
(c) The CCs-on-display are simply regarded as a form of compliance to the 2007 ARTA because even
the government employees note that the CC requirements (as per current standards) are not
effective to meet client demand for information.42
This set of feedback is supported by observations from the DILG on LGU practices and previous work on
the subject with regards to citizen’s inclusion in the development process of CCs (Saguin). The CCs need
to be reviewed to prescribe inclusion principles and protocols for more effective stakeholder
management.
Third, some frontline offices reported that even if they knew that their office was subjected to the RCS
review, they do not receive relevant information regarding the review results 43, which could be
informative in terms of improving efficiency. In response, the CSC indicated that the results of RCS
reviews are sent to the respective subject agencies, aside from other forms of public dissemination.
However, the information supplied by the CSC is likely being received at the top management of
agencies only and seldom cascaded to the frontline offices. Such scenario highlights the need to revisit
how the bureaucracy are informed of the RCS results and CSC recommendations from.
42
Refer to Section 5.2g for further discussion.
43
This feedback was documented from Quezon City, Arayat, and Cainta frontline government employees.

These findings are not mutually exclusive of each other, which points to the need to review the process
and expectations of implementing agencies on the 2007 ARTA and the EODB Act in terms of
development, implementation, and review of their own CCs.

5.2 EFFECTIVENESS
[5.2a] How has the implementation of the 2007 ARTA policies improved frontline services?
[5.2b] What are the elements that helped achieve the goals of the 2007 ARTA? What are the constraining
factors?
Consistent across the different evaluation methodologies used was the evidence that 2007 ARTA
compliance improves satisfaction of clients (as a proxy measure of effective frontline services) by
improving service efficiency. The value of establishing such efficiency standards has also been noted in
earlier studies (Aceron, et.al.; Saguin). The 2007 ARTA, as implemented through the CSC’s programs,
serves a normative function, which is an intended outcome of the law. For many frontliners, the 2007
ARTA meant a standard to beat. The 2007 ARTA allowed them to translate, in measurable terms, what is
expected of them in frontline service work.
From the Data Science Methodology, the top three features of client satisfaction are Response Time,
Outcome, and Overall Transaction Time tied with Agency. 44 Meanwhile, the Quantitative Analysis
regression models show a more varied breakdown of which elements of the ARTA Integrated Program
have influenced client satisfaction.45 The results show that the CC, No Noon Break Policy (NNBP), the
physical set-up and basic facilities have positive and statistically significant effect on satisfaction. There is
a weak evidence (at statistically significant levels) that the public assistance and complaints desk has a
positive effect on satisfaction. The anti-fixing campaign and identification cards do not have any
influence on satisfaction.
These results highlight two important things:
(1) As noted in the Quantitative Analysis, not all components of the Integrated ARTA Program have
the same relative effect on client satisfaction. The components that matter more are those that
have more immediate impact on frontline service delivery.
(2) In terms of program outcomes, (Figure 3 under Section 3.4), the effectiveness of the 2007 ARTA
implementation through the Integrated ARTA program has delivered on the efficiency of
government services and in effect, satisfaction of clients on frontline service experience. The other
program outcomes, such as transparency of services and accountability of public officials, have
unsubstantiated evidence to support effectiveness. 46
Consistent again from the various evaluation methodologies are key factors that helped achieve the
efficiency goals: agency-level initiatives and management and leadership prioritization. 47 The relationship
44
Refer to Data Science Methodology Full Report, Section on “Understanding the Customer”, Figure 1- Relative feature importances from
LGBM (Light Gradient Boosted Machine) classification of overall satisfaction
45
Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 7.2 “Integrated ARTA Program”
46
Refer to Section 5.2c for further discussion.
47
Refer to Section 5.1b

between these two enabling variables is clear and logical. If 2007 ARTA compliance is a priority of the
management and leadership of the office, it aligns the goals and action of all the units and the staff.
Leadership and management prioritization also usually translate to fund allocation, infrastructure
investments, personnel training, manpower allocation, and other innovations. However, overemphasis
on leadership and management efforts (especially if attributed to the person of the leader) can lead to the
discontinuation of programs when a new leadership takes over. This is the case with many Philippine
national and local policies if not supported by appropriate institutionalization and commitment-building
efforts throughout the bureaucracies.
Moving forward, the oversight agencies may embark on a monitoring project to document all relevant
national and agency-level policies and programs that use the 2007 ARTA as a reference, or have
strengthened the 2007 ARTA’s efficiency outcomes through agency or subnational innovations. Such an
endeavor helps establish attribution of specific initiatives to the 2007 ARTA as a standard that influences
other policies and programs. This will also allow the EODB Act to situate its impact in the policy
environment through evaluation approaches that trace how a policy or intervention ripples out into
intended or unintended outcomes (i.e., Rippling-out Approach). 48
Meanwhile, factors that constrain the effectiveness of implementing the 2007 ARTA’s efficiency outcomes
are various deviations from the prescribed transaction protocols. 49 An important constraint identified by
staff interviewed was the cost and strain experienced by staff working on the service delivery frontline.
The strain on human resources was seen in various scenarios from the case studies and corresponding
field notes. One most cited example is the challenge to comply with the No Noon Break Policy (NNBP).
At this hour, clients expect frontline officers to be in peak service operations while frontline employees
assert their need to take the full one-hour break from work. 50 Some have resolved to simply eating at their
workstations. This, as they said, is over and above the overtime they spent to keep up with other
deliverables after the official transaction times have ended. Frontline managers and employees cited
being understaffed and undermanned to cater to the volume of clients during the lunch break to and
manage waiting time. Another scenario is that some assignments (e.g. cashiers with accountabilities to
their cash register) cannot be replaced by other personnel. It must be noted that in these NNBP scenarios,
waiting time is not the same as transaction time, because the 2007 ARTA efficiency standards take effect
when a client is attended to.
When probed, most agencies and offices point to insufficient resources to explain the lack of manpower
for frontline services. However, the DBM pointed out that the hiring issue can be encapsulated within
discussions of proper and timely expenditures of staffing budgets, to which policies and conditions are
being issued and enforced by the agency. It then becomes imperative for the 2007 ARTA or EODB Act
implementation to coordinate with the budget department and other relevant agencies to co-create
solutions for the manpower challenge.
48
Process note [May 31, 2019]: The sentence is expounded as response to NEDA input.
49
Refer to Section 5.1c
50
This feedback is documented in the case studies and field notes from BIR, Arayat, LRA, and PhilHealth.

Another dimension of the human resource strain is one that was found in all cases studies – the frontline
employees’ stress caused by “aggressive clients”. Since service feedback is recorded regardless of the
quality of service rendered by the agency, it was a challenge to vet the validity of this concern.
Some recorded scenarios:
 From Quezon City: On the negative side, clients have become more aggressive because they can
assert their right, given what they know on the expected delivery of service. They make threats
because they know that they can always make a complaint to 8888. Frontline officers’
descriptions of their clients were rude, assertive, authoritative, ill-tempered, condescending, and
gets ticked off easily. “Kami ang nagbabayad ng sahod nyo, kaya kailangan nyo kami pagsilbihan ng
tama at mabilis,” (We pay for your salary so you need to serve properly and quickly) was a
common remark from clients. Name dropping of important local or national politicians or
officials also remains a common strategy. According to the respondents, their interaction with
clients greatly affects their self-esteem and, in turn, their performance. They fear that with the
implementation of the EODB Act (which prescribes more stringent standards), clients will be
more demanding. (Slight edits from the case study version)
 From LRA: Clients were described to be combative when they enter the LRA service offices.
Clients exhibit adversarial bearing. “Parang ready to fight lagi,” (Seemingly ready to fight) was one
description. Statements like “Kami ang nagbabayad sa sweldo nyo,” (We pay for your salary) “ipapa-
Duterte ko kayo,” (I will report this to President Duterte) are common remarks when clients
complain about slow processing time, or if the outcome of their transaction is not favorable.
Clients are rude and assert their authority in transacting with the frontline service. They always
demand to be served first. The senior citizens and the educated clients (lawyers in particular) are
usually the aggressive ones.
Agencies and offices are responding to this challenge differently. In Arayat, they have a “lunch break
buddy system”, which buffers the staffing requirement during break time. However, the field notes
indicate that the volume of transactions in the LGU are not as high as with the other offices visited. Also
in Arayat, frontliners have expressed faith in the mayor that despite the complaints they receive from
aggressive clients, he will understand their limitations and continue to support them in their continuous
efforts to make frontline services more efficient. Meanwhile, in the LRA, even the Regional Directors are
reported to take on frontline functions if the volume of clients reaches the capacity threshold of their
offices. Moreover, many of the frontline offices visited have their ways to ease clients while they wait by
providing a comfortable holding facility.
When probed, the core concern of the frontline government employees is not that clients are informed,
but that they feel their welfare is compromised because of the stretch they constantly need to exercise to
comply with the 2007 ARTA standards. While clients have the hotlines to express complaints, there seems
to be no counterpart for the government frontliners. Hence, suggestions from the frontliners that the RCS
or another form of monitoring mechanism should also account for employee satisfaction emerged. At
least within the scope of the draft implementing rules and regulations of the EODB Act, there are
components on employee welfare and motivation that are proposed for succeeding surveys. This shows
CSC’s response to accounting for the variables as influencers of the 2007 ARTA and EODB Act
implementation success.

[5.2c] Has the improvement in frontline services of key national and local agencies translated to improved
perceptions on business-friendliness, government effectiveness and corruption? Why or why not?
There are two ways that the evaluation address this question, both of which return to the fundamental
point of establishing a results framework, a Theory of Change, that will layer and connect the results
from the 2007 ARTA implementation to higher level outcomes.51
First, echoing the point from Section 5.1d, the monitoring of the 2007 ARTA implementation for higher-
level outcomes has been subsumed under other or larger initiatives (apart from the CSC-led RCS). This
makes measuring the “translation” of frontline services improvement to improved perceptions difficult to
establish. In many of the cases, when the agencies or offices are asked about their 2007 ARTA initiatives,
they point to their EODB-related projects in line with reforms introduced by the National
Competitiveness Council and the private sector (e.g. in SSS, BIR, LRA, Quezon City). In the same breath,
agency and office informants would also point to their own agency-led initiatives (e.g. BIR projects
enacted by Commissioner Henares; SSS own third party monitoring conducted by Nielsen Company, its
Branch Visit Satisfaction Rating System, and its trust rating third party study conducted by EON group).
And as a point of research process reflexivity, there is consistent note from the Associate Evaluator in the
cases that most frontline service informants from field visits do not recognize what the 2007 ARTA is. It is
only when she breaks down the 2007 ARTA programs (e.g., CC, RCS, NNBP) that the frontline
government employees begin to recognize and identify the policy.
These all point to the challenge of framing the direct scope versus rippling-out effects of the 2007 ARTA
in its monitoring and evaluation approach. Literature and best practices in different countries have
associated the removal of red tape to business competitiveness, anti-corruption, and trust in government.
And this knowledge has been taken as an assumption rather than as an outcomes pathway to be
purposively measured. In effect, the 2007 ARTA implementation cannot establish attribution of successes
and failures of higher-level outcomes to itself because the monitoring and evaluation framework was not
designed to measure causal relationships.
This framework limitation extends to the data that the current evaluation tracks could work with, even if
attempts were made.52 The Data Science Methodology examined correlation coefficients between the RCS
score and 168 metrics from the NCC related to economic dynamism, government efficiency,
infrastructure, and resiliency. The analysis found weak correlations from -0.2 to 0.2, with most
correlations close to 0.53 But this result is rather counterintuitive because business competitiveness models
assume an element of red tape reduction in order to facilitate a vigorous business environment.
51
Refer to Section 3.4
52
The Quantitative Analysis has no results component for business competitiveness or trust in government because the RCS indicators are not
inclusive of such variables.
53
Refer to Data Science Methodology Full Report, Section on “Understanding each unit’s external performance – Correlation Analysis”, and
Appendix Fig A12.

The selection of cases, specifically for the LGUs, was informed by the attempt to deep dive into the
relationship of the 2007 ARTA to business competitiveness. This was by juxtaposing RCS scores with
CMCI results (Table 4). The findings from the cases may serve as springboard for the results framework
and outcome pathways. For instance, Arayat ranked high in RCS but was low for CMCI, likely because
the LGU’s mayor-led focus is on improving frontline service experience of the clients. This is not yet
significant to be able to score high in the other components of CMCI. Cainta ranked low in RCS but
ranked top in CMCI, with indications that the difference is a function of its geographical position (i.e., the
competitiveness of the LGU is from the spillover benefits of business activities from Metro Manila), and
the LGU is only taking off to build systems to improve its frontline service efficiency.
Second, the evaluation question mentions “improved perceptions… on corruption”, to which an

immediate response would be to the negative because of the persistence of fixers in many offices and
branches of frontline service agencies. The anti-fixer campaign is a core component of the ARTA
Integrated Program that deals with the outcome of integrity and corruption. Through this, the CSC
requires the posting of anti-fixing campaign materials in the frontline service offices. The presence of
fixers in the frontline government agencies was anticipated by the evaluation team and included
questions for them in the KII and FGD tools. The Associate Evaluator was able to interview fixers in some
offices during field work.54 Some notable findings from the case study data gathering were:
 Ingenuity and creativity of fixers: Fixers have appropriated their strategies to work around the
provisions of the 2007 ARTA. There is ingenuity with how use of special lanes have been
maximized by PWDs, pregnant women, or senior citizens so they can earn money by fixing. They
use authorization letters and facilitate transactions on behalf of clients, especially in bulk
transactions. However, some frontline offices are aware of this strategy and demand for greater
documentation or limit the transactions that can be facilitated through these individuals.
Nonetheless, the creative strategies, and the fixers of this type, remain at large.
 Culture and community over protocols: The culture and community factor in the frontline
offices may override the anti-fixing provisions of the 2007 ARTA. This can be seen on two levels.
First, there are fixers who are licensed professionals (sometimes referred to as
“professional/formal fixers”), who have, through the years, established collegial relationships
among government employees. They leverage on these relationships to facilitate quicker
transactions or negotiate on government fees. Second, fixers in some government offices are
observed to be “part of the community”. They know of and are known by government
employees, and in some offices, are seen to be entering and leaving government offices with ease.
The fixers said they have been doing this for a long time and, as such, maintain a rather pleasant
“working” relationship with the employees. Palakasan (banking on one’s influence or strong ties)
and pakikisama (camaraderie) are values that overtake the enforcement of the anti-fixing
provisions of the 2007 ARTA.
 Negotiable prices: Small-time fixing (usually to expedite processing or facilitate the completion
of steps) was reported to range from P150 to P130 per transaction, depending on the perceived
capacity of the client to pay. Meaning, if the client looks wealthy, he or she gets charged a higher
54
Fixers were interviewed in offices under LRA, and Quezon City. Meanwhile, government employee informants mentioned fixers present in
offices under SSS, BIR, Cainta, and PhilHealth.

price. Meanwhile, other forms of fixing, such as negotiating for the costs of some government
payments and taxes, can cost up to millions of pesos, especially when done by professional fixers.
How has fixing prevailed despite the 2007 ARTA campaign? Several reasons were identified:
(a) Within the scope of the RCS checks, data gathered have not been analyzed in a way that can inform
action on anti-fixing. While the RCS checks on the display of anti-fixing campaign posters, it is also able
to collect information if the client-respondent has encountered fixing (including options to identify who
offered to provide fixing in exchange for money 55, i.e., government employee, security guard, vendors, or
another client). This means that it is possible to proactively pinpoint which agencies have fixers operating
through the client reports. A purposive analysis of this component of the RCS database is a concrete
action point that can be done to inform appropriate response.
The CSC’s RCS team is not providing reports of such nature at the moment, presumably because of the
difficulties shared by the team itself during points of consultation. The RCS process takes around six
months to complete and the technical team focuses on the release of the rankings of the agencies and
offices to meet time-bound demands. This also suggests opportunities to build on the capacities of the
RCS team to perform insight mining on the RCS databases, on top of the rankings and administrative
communications they regularly provide. Furthermore, such insight mining opens opportunities for the
RCS results to help case build up and subsequent investigations of the CSC Legal and other institutional
checks and balances such as the Ombudsman (OMB), the Commission on Audit, and the DILG. In this
way, RCS results may contribute to achieving integrity and anti-corruption outcomes of the 2007 ARTA
(and the EODB Act, as will be implemented under the ARTA Authority).
(b) As with any punitive policy, there can only be action if there is a well-substantiated complaint
received by a committed enforcer. Complaints on fixing can be received through various channels: at the
frontline office itself, via the CCB or 8888. When complaints are received, the CSC records the details and
usually refers the case to the respective agency for appropriate action. CSC Regional Offices are also
empowered to respond to administrative cases. The case studies also showed awareness among central
offices and managers that they need to prioritize complaints forwarded, at least for the well-performing
agencies. However, these courses of actions assume that: (a) there is a well-substantiated complaint to
trigger action, and (b) the agency will follow through with the complaint with full force of the law:
 On the substantiation of the complaint: There are instances that complaints received via the
CCB do not have enough details to trigger action (as seen in the shared records by the CSC). In
the web version56, complainants are asked for their full name (optional if choice for anonymity),
gender, contact information, location, and incident details. However, the incident details question
is open-ended and does not specify what details would be essential to follow through with the
report. In such instances, the CSC’s reported action would be to follow through with the
complainant to ask for further details. Such lengthening of the reporting process can be a
disincentive for a concerned citizen to proceed with the complaint. This extended procedure may
help explain why the anti-fixing component does not have any effect in the effectiveness of the
2007 ARTA effectiveness, as per results of the Quantitative Evaluation. 57 The anti-fixing campaign
also does not figure into a frontline service experience for the clients. The situation can be
55
This information is collected under question code SQ19a of the RCS 2017 version.
56
Refer to CCB online: http://contactcenterngbayan.gov.ph/contact-us

improved if the reporting platforms can specify immediately what kind of information needs to
be provided by the citizen to trigger action, even a case build-up if needed.
 On agency enforcement: There is feedback received from government employees that despite
complaints and/or the prevalence of fixers in their offices, management has turned a blind eye
and tolerated fixing. This to them spells disincentive to prioritize anti-fixing efforts as well. This
suggests possibilities that management may be involved in the fixing, or the culture and
community factors earlier discussed are simply better regarded than the 2007 ARTA
implementation.
(c) Aside from responding to complaints or performing the RCS checks, anti-fixing has not been
efficiently and proactively enforced on an inter-agency level. One oversight agency informant said,
“There are more crackdowns on pirated DVDs and books than [there are on] fixing.” This speaks
volumes about the extent that concerned government agencies prioritize the anti-fixing campaign in
terms of law enforcement.
CSC Legal pointed out that the commission only has mandate over administrative cases against
government employees. There is data shared by CSC Central-Legal of the case files of government
employees who have been dismissed because of fixing-related complaints. This points to two things:
 While there is action from the CSC on this regard, it has no comprehensive record of all fixing-
related cases and the resolutions since CSC Central only keeps track of the cases that are elevated
to the national office by appeals from regional decisions. As such, there is no telling how many
complaints were received in totality with disaggregation, how they were responded to, and most
importantly, how much of the anti-fixing campaign (at least within the CSC’s jurisdiction) had
been effectively and efficiently addressed.
 The CSC’s mandate is limited within the administrative oversight of government employees. It
cannot do much about non-government employees or elected and appointed officials as these
instances cross over to the mandate of the Philippine National Police or the OMB. There are
referrals being done as shared by the CSC, but they acknowledge that much can be done to
heighten inter-agency efforts to proactively address fixing.
This entire discussion on the prevalence of fixing points to the insufficiency of evidence that will strongly
connect the 2007 ARTA implementation to higher-level outcomes of transparency of services and
accountability of public officials. Future studies may focus on analyzing the anti-fixing indicators from
the RCS, collating and analyzing the 2007 ARTA-related cases filed and resolved in regional and central
CSC offices, as well as 2007 ARTA-related cases filed and resolved in the OMB. In so doing, the analysis
may also give deeper focus on the relationship of technology investments (such as computerization of
systems for monitoring of transactions) as this variable is emerging from the cases as a strategy to curb
frontline service corruption.58
57
58
Computerization for monitoring of transactions as a strategy for curbing corruption is documented in field notes from LRA, BIR, SSS, and
PhilHealth. However, as noted, fixing is reported to be prevalent in these same agencies. Such scenario is ripe for insight-mining focused on anti-
corruption outcomes.

The bottom-line of the two key points of this subsection is that the support work on monitoring and
evaluation to the 2007 ARTA implementation needs to address the connection of the 2007 ARTA
programs to the higher-level outcomes stated in the law and aspired by the stakeholders. This
recommendation will prove to be even more substantive against the backdrop of the EODB Act
implementation.59
Answers to these two questions are thematically repetitive of the findings from the previous subsections
under Efficiency (Section 5.1) and Effectiveness (Section 5.2a-c).
[5.2d] What factors influence various stakeholders in the implementation of the 2007 ARTA? How do they
collaborate?
[5.2e] What are the good practices from the most improved agencies?
The factors that influence various stakeholders 60 in the implementation of the 2007 ARTA for
collaboration are agency-level initiatives and leadership priorities. These mean agencies and respective
offices work with other stakeholders based on what management considers important. If the agency or
office has programs aligned with the efficiency goals of the 2007 ARTA (usually aligned with EODB Act
or according to its own programmatic strategies, as discussed in Section 5.2c), then it works with relevant
stakeholders as needed. The eight case studies have sufficient documentation on the program-based
collaborations that each agency has undertaken. 61 On specific ARTA Integrated Program components, the
drafting of the CC needs to be more inclusive to frontline service employees and citizens themselves.
Meanwhile, the RCS results need to be communicated to frontline service employees not just to the top
management receiving the official CSC reports (Section 5.1d). The anti-fixing campaign requires a more
strategic collaborative approach among relevant implementing agencies for it to actually have a dent on
the integrity and anti-corruption goals of the 2007 ARTA (Section 5.2c).
As 2007 ARTA-related initiatives are subsumed under agency-level programs, the documented set of
actions of one group of stakeholders is not automatically replicable by another. This is due a number of
factors found in the case narratives: level of complexity of the transactions, number of stakeholders
involved in the transactions (in, up, out of government agencies/offices), volume and density of
transactions handled, and asymmetric capacity baselines of structures and human resource/manpower.
Hence, for future action, EODB Act oversight agencies may consider underscoring policy support and
incentives for agency-level initiatives with explicit attribution to the EODB Act, and firming up the MEL
systems for EODB Act implementation so that EODB Act baselines and progress can be documented and
analyzed.
59
Refer to Section 5.4a-b
60
As a process note, the term ‘various stakeholders’ emerged as a vague reference to translate into the research design as the data gathering
progressed. If the various stakeholders would be the focus of the analysis, then the data gathering approach would change (i.e., stakeholder
analysis, stakeholder network mapping, value chain analysis) and anchor on getting inputs from as many stakeholders per agency. This will set
the Case Study Development strategy off track. The focus on the agencies has been the managers, frontline employees, ARTA program focal
persons, and the fixers, since most of the more compelling Evaluation Questions would need inputs from them.
61
Executive Summaries of the cases can be found in Annex D.

In relation to “most improved agencies”, due to the inconsistent data structure, design of the RCS, and
data collection and sampling methods used for RCS through the years, determining the most improved
ones and the indicators for such improvement has been limited (Section 4.3). Despite this limitation, the
Quantitative and Data Science Methodology Analyses provided thematically similar findings on the
drivers of efficiency and effectiveness of the ARTA Integrated Program implementation as reference to
“good practices”. The case studies further demonstrate how the strategies per agency have yielded results
according to their respective priority programs.
[5.2f] What kind of support can be extended to agencies in difficult situations or to agencies failing in the RCS?
Relevant and rationalized training was identified as essential support. These comments did not
exclusively come from the agencies failing in the RCS per se, but were generally articulated from the
interviews with frontline office managers and employees (refer to Methodological Limitations, Section
4.3).
From the literature review, knowledge and understanding of 2007 ARTA-related programs and
implementation among both frontline government employees and the public (clients), are seen as
enablers of quality frontline service implementation. The reviewed studies suggest that compliance and
satisfaction are positively influenced by how well the employees know the 2007 ARTA and its
components, their functions as government employees, and the details of the government processes
(Salpid-Masucol, 2014; Ramos, 2011). In addition, capacity-building interventions to build employee
knowledge and adherence to the 2007 ARTA positively shape compliance (Ortiz & Gumapac, n.d.). On
the other hand, even if government employees may be capacitated to comply, client satisfaction and
overall compliance with the 2007 ARTA is negatively affected by low awareness among clients of its
provisions (Salpid-Masucol, 2014). This lack of awareness covers not just knowing the number of days or
steps required according to the 2007 ARTA standards, but of government processes in general. The lack
of knowledge and understanding may also contribute to negative attitude of clients toward government
frontliners (e.g., the case of “aggressive clients”, discussed in Sections 5.2a-b), which negatively affects
client satisfaction.
As knowledge and understanding of government employees is deemed an important enabler, capacity-

building interventions are considered essential. However, as per the case study narratives, current ARTA
law-related interventions are broadly packaged for government employees, even if trainings and
information sessions are well-documented. There is no observed pattern or pronounced logic as to which
trainings are deployed to which functional office or employee type. For instance, LRA employees, from
middle managers to the frontline staff, can only recall being oriented about the RCS, which is not a
comprehensive training per se but simply a session to remind them on how their offices are to be
evaluated. In SSS, none of the interviewees said they attended any training or orientation on the 2007
ARTA from CSC or the SSS Human Resource Department. Although ARTA law-related capacity building
activities have been cascaded by the SSS during the start of ARTA implementation, there were no follow
up activities to either refresh the existing staff or orient the new ones. The same feedback was received
from the Municipality of Arayat, wherein frontline employees said they received no trainings or

orientation related to the 2007 ARTA from their LGU Human Resources Department or representatives
from CSC.
More specifically, these capacity-building interventions are suggested to be more “rationalized” in the
sense that certain employees are trained according to their specific functions and contributions to the
efficiency value chain. Some government employees note that they prefer the ISO-related capacity-
building sessions as these cover all the relevant offices and employees, and include content they find
relevant to how their offices and their functions as employees can improve. While ISO standards are
indeed higher and steeper than the 2007 ARTA’s, there may be lessons that can be drawn on how it
improves the effectiveness of its capacity-building interventions for offices and employees alike. Another
suggestion on capacity-building is to package the RCS results discussions specific to the functional
assignments of offices and employees. Similar to the RCS discussion in Section 5.1d, it is not simply about
failing to inform frontliners about the RCS results, but more importantly, a matter of frontliners receiving
the needed information that would help them frame, understand, and eventually do their work better.
The situation is telling once more of the need for a MEL unit to be instituted within the RCS technical
team in order to maximize the insights mining on the RCS data. Despite the limitation of the scope of data
gathering, the RCS can create more value for its stakeholders if the datasets are processed for insights that
can also inform specific agencies and offices or help identify trends as they emerge. This would require a
research agenda that guides RCS processing, and at the very least, a slim team of researchers and
statisticians. Instituting MEL in the RCS can provide multiple springboards for evidence-informed policy
making, especially when it comes to the EODB Act implementation.
[5.2g] What are the facilitating factors and barriers to the public’s utilization of the Citizen’s Charter?
From literature, Saguin (2013) notes that the posting of the CCs “appear to have resulted to a better-
informed citizenry” (p. 44). The CC is also noted to have a positive and statistically significant
relationship with client satisfaction as per the Quantitative Analysis. 62 The CCs are intended to level off
expectations with citizens by providing them with specific information regarding the particular service
and transaction they need. However, the requirement to provide “all” information in the CCs is proving
to be counter-productive to the intended purpose of CCs because the mode of presentation and the
overload of the information written on them tend to discourage clients from reading the CCs in the first
place. For example:
 In Arayat: The CC of all the frontline services in Arayat is printed on a tarpaulin and displayed at
the facade of the municipal hall, making it impossible to miss upon entry. However, due to the
volume of services provided by the seven frontline departments, there is a need to step back to be
able to find the specific service that a client would want to avail. Middle managers and frontline
officers observed that clients do not normally stop and read the CC. Among the probable reasons
cited were: (a) too much reading needed; (b) language barrier since the CC is in English; (c) low
literacy levels of some clients; and (d) preference of clients to talk to “persons” for information
and instruction, such as a PACD staff. In response, the service offices display their respective CCs
at the service windows. Printed CCs are also available at these service windows.
62

 In PhilHealth: In order to address limitations of the CCs in terms of readability and volume,
PhilHealth offices are reported to post CCs in local languages, and offer shortened versions for
clients.
Hence, while CCs supply important information, the issue of usability to intended clients is present. The
effectiveness of CCs as a ready reference guiding the public on government processes assumes that the
clients can, in fact, use the information presented to them. The RCS measures CCs in terms of physical
presence, i.e., a billboard or tarpaulin displayed in conspicuous places. However, field notes from
interviewed clients point out that CCs should account for other factors to make them useful.
First is in the presentation of information to facilitate comprehension. Many clients express that the text in
the tarpaulins are too small and plenty, such that the way the information was presented overwhelms
them rather than simplifying what they actually need to know. There is preference on more interactive
modes of presenting information such as videos. There is also preference on using local languages in the
CCs.
Second is precision of needed information. Clients noted that too much information are on the CCs, and
that they are not inclined to go through so much details to get to their intended inquiry. Instead, they
would rather ask a person who can readily answer their query in a precise and concise manner. To this,
there should be Public Assistance and Complaints Desks or officers of the day to address such demand.
However, (a) there are reports of information desks located in hard-to-locate areas, and, (b) security
guards on duty being deemed more accessible and noticeable to ask than the staff themselves. In relation
to these, recommendations have been identified on: (a) reviewing the guidelines on CCs and emphasizing
strategies for their usefulness, and (b) conducting a separate quantitative insight mining on the CC-
related indicators in the RCS to unpack the issues on the CCs per agency or office as applicable within the
dataset scope.
Moreover, it is worth noting that CCs have been displayed for compliance rather than usability for clients
because the RCS has kept its CC evaluation to the physical presence of a billboard/tarpaulin. The choice
of evaluation indicators functions as policy, and the RCS evaluation of CCs is seen to be mismatched with
client needs. There are offices visited that show information through videos or PowerPoint presentations
on loop, while there are others that breakdown information per window/office through large, well-
designed, colorful standees. These are preferred by clients because these innovations address the usability
issues earlier discussed. However, these innovating agencies still feel compelled to display tarpaulin-
printed CCs because that is how they will be evaluated under the RCS. In essence, this discourages
innovation, and can be addressed by reviewing the indicators in the RCS and shift them towards the
result intended— the usefulness of the CCs to the clients.

5.3 RELEVANCE
To what extent are the various components of the 2007 ARTA relevant to the implementation of the EODB Act?
Strictly on a question of extent, all the components of the 2007 ARTA are relevant to the implementation
of the EODB Act, since the latter was framed as an expansion of the 2007 ARTA. In the ARTA-subset of
the EODB Act scope, the ARTA Integrated Program is the only set of programs that has direct attribution
to translating the 2007 ARTA (as a law) into programmatic implementation. While referring to the 2007
ARTA standards in efficiency, most agency-level initiatives, as alluded to in the previous sections, are
framed, monitored, and evaluated based on the respective output-outcome priorities of the implementing
agency. To this point, the recommendation to document as many, if not all, agency-level initiatives that
used the 2007 ARTA standards as possible reference to their own agency programs, is once more
highlighted to emphasize the relevance and impact of the 2007 ARTA on government service efficiency
and other possible outcome indicators.
Worth underscoring once more is that the EODB Act is broader than the 2007 ARTA, and as such, a
Theory of Change and results framework linking the scope of the two laws must guide the program
strategies and MEL functions supporting the EODB Act implementation. From the EODB Act’s
Declaration of Policy and the business competitiveness dimension of the law shared and implemented by
national and local stakeholders, EODB Act implementation must be strategized as over and above the
scope of the 2007 ARTA. Figure 5 illustrates this point by locating the scope of the 2007 ARTA within the
EODB Act, while accounting for general evaluation results and the broader World Bank Doing Business
program, which has significantly informed the implementation of EODB policies and initiatives in NGAs
and LGUs through the past years.
Deepening discussions of the implications of the tentative Theory of Change for EODB Act in Figure 5, 63
NEDA, UNDP, and the evaluation team noted the anticipated risk of the integrity and anti-corruption
outcomes (which are already identified as in need of strategic attention and substantiation) being
sidelined in the implementation of the EODB Act, should the focus give more weight to the Doing
Business-related outcomes. Such a future may be projected since the EODB Act is a product of a long-term
lobbying efforts of the international and private sector groups to improve the business and market
environment in the Philippines. However, the lobby of the EODB Act was clustered with the lobby for the
proposed amendments to the 2007 ARTA, which had also been standing for a time. The two bills were
passed as a unified law, which is the EODB Act as is known at present. Monitoring the higher-level
outcomes and strategic implementation of a Theory of Change may allow the Authority and the oversight
agencies to evaluate how to build on the lessons from both the 2007 ARTA and the Doing Business
initiatives for the EODB Act implementation.
63
The discussion was held in the NEDA office on March 25, 2019, for NEDA’s review and processing of the report.

Figure 5. The scope of EODB Act with ARTA Evaluation Result Annotations (Author’s Reconstruction from EODB Act Section 2).
Notes for Figure 5:
[1]: ARTA has a focused gaze on frontline services, defined as “the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or
for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned (Section 4(c), ARTA)”. EODB expands the scope
of frontline services, and seeks to expedite business and non-business-related transactions, with non-business transactions defined as “all other government transactions not falling under Section 4(c) of ARTA (Section 4(h),
EODB)”.
[2]: Refer to Quantitative Analysis Full Report Section 7.2 “Integrated ARTA Program”
[3] Examples: Paying taxes, Registering property, Starting a business, Resolving insolvency, Trading across borders, Getting electricity, Protecting minority investors, Enforcing contracts, Dealing with construction permits, Getting
credit
[4] EODB Law provisions, e.g. backend infrastructure and administrative systems that support a more efficient transaction environment -- databases and knowledge systems, interconnectivity, shorter processing time, no-contract
and automatic approvals in case of failure to comply, and a sharper “two strike” policy with administrative and criminal liabilities for non-compliant government employees

5.4 SUSTAINABILITY
[5.4a] Based on the findings, how can the 2007 ARTA be better implemented in light of EODB?
[5.4b] Are there areas that need further improvement to sustain/maximize the benefits already achieved by
implementing the 2007 ARTA?
[5.4c] How should a future impact evaluation study for the EODB be designed?
[5.4d] What methodologies and tools can be applied to measure NGAs’ implementation of the standards in their
CCs?
[5.4e] How can data collected by CSC be used to analyze the causal impact on the 2007 ARTA outcomes, i.e.,
reducing corruption and improving ease of doing business?
Responses to the Evaluation Questions under Sustainability are clustered together because even though
the various evaluation tracks conducted address each point from different approaches, they all emerged
into a coherent theme. Annex C presents all the Sustainability recommendations compiled from the
different reports, framed as improvements on the 2007 ARTA and its various components, but with the
awareness that these recommendations move towards EODB Act implementation.
Based on the collated recommendations from the various evaluation tracks, this integrated analysis
highlights the following points:
[5.4a-b] The 2007 ARTA can be better implemented toward EODB Act by providing policy, capacity, and
infrastructure support, and performing disciplined MEL work on the areas of efficiency with
substantiated evidence of success, and even more so for areas with unsubstantiated evidence of success,
particularly on integrity and anti-corruption (Refer to Figure 5).
Worth noting is that the data-gathering and interface with government middle managers and frontline
employees happened at a time when EODB public consultations and orientations were being conducted
by the DTI, NCC, CSC, among other relevant oversight agencies, and at a time when the draft IRR of the
EODB Act was already submitted for review. There was an observable awareness from the frontline
officers that the transition from the 2007 ARTA to EODB Act was about to happen. Despite such
awareness, however, there was lack of clarity in terms of what to expect, causing an observed level of fear
and worry among the government employees. From the field and interview notes, many expressed
qualms that if many agencies and frontline offices complied only partially with the 2007 ARTA standards
and continue to struggle, then the situation would worsen when EODB Act’s steeper standards would
finally in effect. A handful of government employees expressed worry about the “two-strike policy” in
punishing non-compliant employees under the EODB Act. Some frontliners say, however, that the EODB
Act could be “ningas kugon” or forceful only at the beginning. Anticipating that most frontline offices
cannot comply with the steeper standards, one NGA informant asked: “Will [oversight agencies] file
cases against thousands of government employees? Dismiss them all?”

To this concern, agencies who have been part of the IRR draft preparation noted that many of the worries
among government employees are addressed in the draft guidelines. For instance, agencies will be asked
to take stock of their transactions and classify them according to level of complexity (thus identifying the
required number of days). The number of days will also be counted “per office node” of the transaction,
which addresses implementation coherence concerns. Additionally, employee satisfaction and welfare
variables will be considered in future evaluation designs.
However, worry prevails because the IRR has not been issued yet, as this is contingent on the policies and
further actions of the ARTA Authority. There are no pronouncements on progress with the Authority as
of writing.64 While the appointments and transitions are pipelined, it will be important to take
preliminary steps to reach out to the bureaucracies, especially the frontline offices and employees, to level
off expectations with regard to the EODB law and implementation. Trust and faith in the transition is
imperative to ensure buy-in from government employees as part of the change process.
[5.4c-e] Any future impact evaluation study for EODB Act must stem from its own Theory of Change and
results framework, accounting for relevant contributions of the 2007 ARTA, but not be limited by it. As
Figure 5 illustrated, the EODB initiatives that preceded the law and the provisions of the EODB Act itself
are broader than the 2007 ARTA, which focuses more on frontline service delivery. There are lessons to be
learned from how Governance Roadmaps (as translations of Theories of Change) have allowed agencies
such as NEDA and DILG65 to set gradually increasing targets per outcome areas, and to articulate how a
progression of programs through the years achieves higher-level outcomes in their respective priorities.
This strategic focus should take into account that data sources informing the evaluation of the higher-
level outcomes of EODB include, but also are not limited to, the RCS and CCB data currently collated. It
would be useful for the EODB Act to be informed by multiple sources of data, such as the CMCI, ISO
accreditation results, as well as other data collated by other agencies such as DBM and DILG on agency
and LGU performance. Annex C elaborates on the specific technical recommendations with regard to
RCS and CCB. These recommendations can also be found in the and the respective cited sections from the
Quantitative and Data Science Methodology Analyses Full Reports.
The limitation of the RCS as the monitoring and evaluation mechanism within the 2007 ARTA is well
documented and acknowledged even by the CSC teams. However, literature and current evaluation
tracks emphasize that RCS data collection has to be broader, more frequent, and more disciplined in its
implementation. One way of addressing this scenario is to focus the scope of RCS to a handful of agencies
that can be considered benchmarks for the EODB Act outcome indicators. Much like how Quezon City is
used as benchmark by the Doing Business index for its volume and complexity, the same pre-selection
consideration can inform how the RCS can be employed for EODB Act. If this cannot be broadened, it can
become more purposive and focused instead.
64
As of writing, the Authority, while already formed, awaits the appointment of the Director General by the Philippine President,
and the administrative, policy, and technical directives thereafter.
65
DILG has been applying Governance Roadmaps with increasing levels of higher-level outcome indicators for programs such as
the Seal of Good Local Governance and the Conditional Matching Grant for Provinces (roads).

Specific to integrity and anti-corruption outcomes, this evaluation makes three points:
[1] The case studies pointed to the preference of clients to direct their queries to persons (PACD, guard-
on-duty), rather than go through the voluminous information in the CCs. However, the EODB Act
standard is that the client should only make transactions at minimal points: at the moment of request, at
the moment of payment and during receipt of documents. Such a standard assumes clear, robust backend
information and transfer systems among agencies and offices, and an effective response mechanism for
any deviations from the ideal process.
However, feedback from the NGAs note that such capacities will take years to build. It is important to
consider that the EODB Act may be potentially setting up a larger demand for a black market for fixers
because of its no-contact provisions. The client preference to be assisted by a person who will give them
the precise information they need and to enjoy a level of ease while waiting, is a scenario that fixers can
easily provide—clarity and usefulness of information, as well as ease and convenience. Vendors and
small-time fixers capitalize on “welcoming” confused clients, while professional fixers provide “complete
packages” to their clients. The gap between status quo and the standard necessitates further strategizing
to prevent further opening up opportunities for fixers to setback anti-corruption goals.
A significant part of the EODB Act is dedicated to reforms in business transaction processes in the LGUs.
However, capacities to invest in the necessary technology and backend infrastructure are largely
asymmetric across LGUs. DILG informants have noted that many LGUs depend on the technologies that
DICT will provide, but there is leverage from the long-time EODB initiatives wherein LGUs have
instituted their Electronic Business Permit and Licensing System (eBPLS) and its variants. What remains
to be seen is whether LGUs in their respective uneven capacities will be able to deliver according to the
steep standards of the EODB Act. But for those unable to comply, the opportunity for fixers—small-time
and professionals alike—yet again abound. At the local levels, the challenges in implementing the anti-
fixing policy are even more pronounced.
[2] Implementing and evaluating EODB Act would also benefit from better collaborative work with other
agencies with anti-corruption programs. Table 5 lists several programs of other agencies that are also
considered contributory to anti-corruption efforts, as an initial reference.

Table 5. Consolidated Initial List of Agency Programs Related to Anti-Corruption (Author’s Own)
Agencies Scope and Coverage Selected Programs
Office of the All government Mediation System;
Ombudsman branches and Task Force on Asset Recovery;
(OMB) agencies Integrity Caravan;
Environmental Ombudsman;
Integrity Development Review;
Integrity Management Program, with the Office of the
President;
Lifestyle Checks, inter-agency;
Graft and Corruption Prevention Education Teaching
Exemplars, with the Department of Education.
Commission on All government Regular audits on performance and fiscal diligence;
Audit (COA) branches and Citizen Participatory Audit.
agencies
Department of All local Capacity/institutional development: Conditional Matching
Interior and government units Grant for Provinces for Road Repair, Rehabilitation and
Local Improvement; Assistance to Cities; Assistance to Municipalities
Government
(DILG) Performance Measures and Incentives:
Local Governance Performance Management System; Seal of
Good Local Governance; Performance Challenge Fund;
eBPLS
Community Empowerment:
Full Disclosure Policy; SubayBAYAN; DevLive
It is notable that many of the programs from other agencies have components similar to EODB. First,
programs identified in Table 5 capture these components of preventive measures, punitive measures, and
incentives in their respective scope. Second, the programs, in varying intensity, seek to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of government transactions by strengthening the capacities (i.e.,
infrastructure, information, human resource) of government agencies. Third, some of these programs rely
heavily on feedback and satisfaction of “clients” (operationalized differently as communities, civil society
organizations, or individual citizens) on government service delivery. Hence, there are opportunities to
better approach the governance roadmap and framework-building strategically and more purposively
with these cross-cutting features appropriately included.
Meanwhile, there are emergent suggestions to consider models for incorporating costs clients are willing
to pay for efficiency into the main transaction costs in order to curb fixing. One such model that agency
informants repeatedly refer to are the passport processing fees, which are divided into regular fees
(P950), and “expedite” fees (P1,200) 66. Such practical logic renders costs usually allocated to the fixers
incorporated within the government fees.
[3] The EODB Act may leverage on broader anti-corruption and integrity discourses that have traction in
their respective networks and policy implementation. Three of these are: Sustainable Development Goals
(specifically SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) 67, the United Nations Convention on Anti-
66
Costs from the Department of Foreign Affairs website: http://consular.dfa.gov.ph/passport?id=75
67
The SDG monitoring includes the 2013 National Household Survey on Experience with Corruption in the Philippines, generated by the
OMB.

Corruption or UNCAC68 (which the Philippines has ratified and conducted several baselining efforts in
the past), and the Open Government Partnership or OGP (which already includes EODB on the
competitiveness outcomes and has explored the possibility of including the CCB). These international
initiatives translate to government commitments, partnerships, knowledge pools, and other resources in
their policy formulation and support-building. EODB Act strategy and implementation will benefit from
the insights and lessons learned from the efforts under these programs, both in respective successes and
areas of improvement.
68
The 2007 ARTA is one of the key policy anchors that the Philippines has reported as compliance and achievement for the UNCAC
in 2009. Refer to the UNODC Pilot Review Programme on the Philippines UNCAC implementation, from the OMB website:
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/docs/references/PilotReviewProgramme.pdf

6 CONCLUDING NOTES
In assessing the implementation of the 2007 ARTA to draw insights for the EODB Act implementation,
this integrative mixed methods evaluation presents the following concluding notes.
6.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Efficiency: Focusing on the 2007 ARTA’s effect on government processes, there is substantiated evidence
supporting how implementation of the 2007 ARTA (through the CSC’s Integrated Program) has been able
to influence efficiency levels of frontline government services, as evidenced by client satisfaction. Factors
contributing to this success areas are leadership and management prioritization, agency-level initiatives,
and technology investments—all of which are viewed as mutually reinforcing of each other. However,
the relative successes of these initiatives are still impeded when volume, density, and levels of complexity
of transactions are high in frontline government offices. Any deviation from the prescribed processes,
such as paying for hidden costs, tend to lower client satisfaction. Meanwhile, for process improvements,
the positive influence of agency-level initiatives on the 2007 ARTA implementation poses a challenge on
monitoring and evaluation, since the 2007 ARTA standards are subsumed under agency program-level
outputs and outcomes (including Doing Business-related programs in line with the EODB initiatives prior
to the law). This highlights the need for a more robust monitoring strategy for the 2007 ARTA intended to
establish policy impact. On field implementation, frontline government managers and employees noted
that they do not receive RCS results on their level, hence the need to review RCS communication
protocols to reach the level of the frontline implementers.
Effectiveness: While there is overall improvement in efficiency of frontline services, not all ARTA law
program implementation components contribute to effectiveness outcomes. Those with evidence
contributing to effectiveness were found to improve frontline experience in terms of quick response time
and positive transaction outcomes. These components include agency-level initiatives and leadership and
management prioritization. However, an unintended consequence of the drive to meet the 2007 ARTA
standards is the stretch on the time and welfare of frontline government employees, as offices exhaust the
limits of their manpower. Adding to the stretch are what employees described as aggression from clients
threatening to report them via the hotlines and compromised time for lunch breaks. The frontline
government employees hope that their own satisfaction, motivation, and welfare can be better accounted
for in future implementation of the 2007 ARTA and the EODB Act.
Meanwhile, evidence is weak and unsubstantiated on the effects of the 2007 ARTA implementation to the
integrity and anti-corruption outcomes that the law aspires to achieve. The anti-fixing campaign was
found to have no correlation to client satisfaction from the RCS data. While technology investments (such
as computerization of transactions) have been employed partly as an anti-fixing strategy, both big-time
and small-time fixers are still prevalent in many frontline offices, with the fixers themselves sharing how
they have appropriated their strategies for conducting business despite the 2007 ARTA provisions. Data
is available on administrative cases filed and resolved against erring government employees, as well as
potentially important data on fixing from the RCS datasets. However, all these data have not been
consolidated and processed to generate insights to improve policy and program interventions. Inter-
agency collaboration and prioritization is also a gap that is yet to be sufficiently addressed.

Continuing with Effectiveness assessment dimensions, the evaluation identified the need to provide
purposive, rationalized capacity-building interventions for frontline government employees, specific to
the knowledge and skills they need to learn to improve service delivery. This is in response to the
feedback that ARTA law-related trainings (mostly orientations on the RCS) have been too general or too
thinly dispersed, limiting the relevance and usability of the interventions to the government employees.
Furthermore, the evaluation also underscores the need to review the guidelines and indicators measuring
the CCs, since the value of availability of information through CCs are compromised by the perceptions
of CCs being overwhelming, unreadable, and in effect, unhelpful. Preference of clients is still to interact
with persons (e.g., PACD, guard-on-duty), to provide them the specific information they need.
Relevance: Strictly on a question of extent, all the components of the 2007 ARTA are relevant to the
implementation of the EODB Act, since the latter was framed as an expansion of the former and the
ARTA Integrated Program has been the only direct, attributed programming of the law. Within the scope
of the 2007 ARTA implementation, there is benefit on taking off from the components that resulted to
efficiency in frontline transactions, but critical attention is needed to strategize policy and programs to
address the integrity and anti-corruption components of the 2007 ARTA towards EODB Act. Moreover, it
is important to note that the relationship between these two laws is beyond the extension of the 2007
ARTA, since many documented agency-level and LGU programs have been subsuming compliance of
the 2007 ARTA under Doing Business efforts. The EODB Act also covers significant provisions that cater to
ease of business transactions in the local frontline offices. These interrelationships among frontline
efficiency, doing business, integrity and anti-corruption, and their translation to a Theory of Change and
a corresponding results framework, are important to be addressed collaboratively among oversight and
implementing agencies moving forward.
Sustainability: The various evaluation tracks provide layered approaches into answering an improved
implementation of the 2007 ARTA in light of the EODB Act. On short-term change management,
communicating the transition plans and support to be given to frontline government offices and
employees is seen to be important in light of growing concerns on the more stringent standards under
EODB Act. In terms of a strategic and evaluative framework for EODB Act, the importance of articulating
a Theory of Change and a results framework is again emphasized. Technical recommendations on
revising the RCS indicators and implementation were provided, as well as support follow-through
protocols on the CCB. Meanwhile, improving the manner of implementing higher-level outcomes on
integrity and anti-corruption, the EODB Act implementation will benefit from expanding its efforts by
working with existing and even broader integrity advocacies with government and civil society
organizations.

6.2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This section consolidates the recommendations emerging from the evaluation findings, presented
thematically for reference of the oversight and implementing agencies. 69
[A] Transitioning from the 2007 ARTA to EODB Act
[A1] Leveraging on Gains from the implementation of the 2007 ARTA

 Use the 2007 ARTA as minimal conditions for public service improvement. Use lessons gained from
other efficiency-oriented initiatives, such as ISO accreditation, and specific Doing Business programs
for improvements on the 2007 ARTA standards and implementation.
 Encourage agency-level initiatives that promote efficiency and ease in government transactions.
Support such initiatives with a documentation and monitoring protocol to trace ripple effects of the
ARTA or EODB Act on agency- or office-specific programs.
 Encourage and support investments to infrastructure and technologies for efficiency and for curbing
corruption. This is especially needed for LGUs that do not have enough resources to invest on
appropriate technologies.
 Minimize hidden costs and all other deviations from prescribed processes.
[A2] Strategizing for and Evaluating Target Outcomes

 Develop a Theory of Change and corresponding results framework for the EODB Act that articulates
the various outcome areas (explicit and implied from the law and Doing Business tracks): government
efficiency, competitiveness and ease in doing business, and integrity and anti-corruption. The Theory
of Change and results framework can take the form of a Governance Roadmap that puts logic into the
variables and indicators prioritized and improved on through the years of the EODB Act
implementation.
 Institute a monitoring, evaluation, and learning system and capacities within the Anti-Red Tape
Authority, with the CSC, for the RCS and other surveys/data gathering strategies.
o Develop a research agenda that enables regular and disciplined evidence-informed policy-
making for the strategy and implementation of the EODB Act, including, for instance:
 Measuring attribution of agency-level initiatives (including specific Doing Business
programs) to the 2007 ARTA as ripple effects
 Measuring the relative expectations of respondent-clients in order to fully control for
major variables that can affect satisfaction
 Analysis on the different components of the RCS database, such as those specific to
the anti-fixing campaign and the PACD, given issues identified on pursuing integrity
and assuring a “personal” interaction option for the EODB Act, respectively
 Analysis on the RCS results per NGA, GOCC, and especially per LGU, given the
significant provisions of the EODB Act for local implementation
o Institute a team of qualified researchers to maximize insight mining from RCS, CCB, and
other datasets developed from the EODB Act implementation.
o Create a knowledge management and storage protocol to make sure all raw datasets and
relevant information are kept through many years.
69
Annex C provides a breakdown of the references of the recommendations from the different reports.

[A3] Forwarding Integrity and Anti-Corruption Outcomes
 Take lessons from the RCS datasets to inform action on anti-fixing, especially on agencies and offices
wherein fixing has been directly reported by clients.
 Consider models for incorporating costs clients are willing to pay for efficiency into the main
transaction costs (e.g. faster passport processing for higher fees).
 Preempt possible unintended consequences on the “fixing market” of the Zero-Contact Policy
provisions of the EODB Act, in response to the preference of clients to talk to persons for specific
information needed, instead of going through the overwhelming amount of information included in
Citizen Charters.
 Make the reporting protocols in platforms (web-based, CCB, 888) easier for clients. Specify what
kinds of information are immediately needed to substantiate complaints and trigger action from
oversight agencies (e.g., CSC, Ombudsman, DILG).
 Review strategies and implementation among and within agencies and law enforcement.
 Collate and analyze information from different sources (CSC, Ombudsman) on ARTA law-related
cases pending and resolved through the years. Include in the knowledge management strategy and
use for evidence-informed policy-making.
 Collaborate with broader integrity and anti-corruption initiatives to leverage on networks, resources,
and lessons learned, e.g. Open Government Partnership, United Nations Convention on Anti-
Corruption, Sustainable Development Goal #16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), among other
agency-level anti-corruption programs implemented in national and local levels.
[A4] Mitigating Unintended Consequence on Government Manpower

 On the short-term, communicate to frontline government offices and employees on the steps being
taken for the transition to EODB Act, including efforts to manage changes on the steeper standards
and penalties. This is to appease the fear and worry of government employees on the EODB Act,
pending the official release of the law’s implementing rules and regulation.
 Collaborate with the DBM to harmonize efforts to complete manpower and staffing requirements in
agencies and offices.
 Incorporate government employee satisfaction and welfare variables in appropriate data gathering
platforms.
 Establish a communication protocol between the CSC and agencies so that the RCS results that it
provides the agencies will be transmitted and explained to frontline offices and employees.
[B] Technical Recommendations
[B1] Report Card Survey

 Revisions existing RCS questionnaire and data analysis process:
o Include qualitative measures of expectations.
o Develop a measure of transaction complexity.
o Incorporate a relative measure of efficiency.
o Use Likert scale to measure satisfaction.
o Gather more information on most relevant features.
 Revisions to the existing RCS methodology:
o Create a universe of public services to measure. If the scope of the RCS cannot cover all
offices and transactions, focus on agencies and types of transaction as focus points to reflect

priority results areas as per Theory of Change/Governance Roadmap covering certain
periods of time.
o Ensure consistency of measurements across time. Shift from reporting pure summary
statistics to time-series analyses. Use the same methodology across different years.
o Regularly record the RCS scores of a consistent set of offices.
o Do not aggregate data together.
o Standardize the types of requests responded to by each unit.
o Use mobile/digital applications to collect future data.
o Limit the types of responses across all researchers and agencies.
[B2] Contact Center ng Bayan

 Impose stricter service levels in responding to complainants and forwarding concerns to offices.
 Streamline what CCB measures. The CCB should monitor the types of issues that genuinely require
additional information versus those that can be directly escalated to offices.
 Ensure that there are clear and consistent metrics for closing complaints.
 Make sure that any data collected is forwarded to appropriate agencies.
 Ensure stricter monitoring on more serious allegations that currently tend to be ignored.
[B3] Citizen Charters

 Review indicators for measuring Citizen Charters to focus on usability to clients.
 Support and encourage innovation on presentation of Citizen Charters.
 Ensure that the PACDs are visible and available to the clients in response to preference for personal
interactions and demand-driven, precise information received.
 Ensure that the Citizen Charters develop policies support and uphold inclusive processes, both for
the government employees and the citizens themselves.
[B4] ARTA law- / EODB Act-related Trainings

 Training programs should provide targeted support on features that: (a) are most relevant in
determining customer satisfaction, and (b) each office performed poorly in. This will facilitate
stronger improvement of overall customer satisfaction.
 Training on CCB concerns is important in standardizing types of responses and ensuring that issues
are promptly and effectively addressed.
 Create and implement a rational capacity-building intervention plan that specifies which capacities
are developed for targeted offices and types of employees.

7 WORKS CITED
Aceron, J., Cornelio, M., & Crismo, J. (2015). Enhancing the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) Report Card Survey
(RCS): A Report to the Civil Service Commission. Quezon City: USAID Philippines.
Agamata, L. (2018). ARTA Overview - Presentation to the ARTA ERG. Quezon City: Civil Service
Commission.
Avila, J. (2014). Report on the Administration of the Report Card Survey in the Cities of Batangas, Iloilo, and
Cagayan de Oro. Quezon City: OIDCI & USAID.
Deloitte Consulting LLP, Ateneo School of Government. (2015). Civil Service Commission: Enhancing the
Anti-Red Tape Act Report Card Survey. Manila: USAID.
Department of Trade and Industry. (2006). Streamlining Business Registration in LGUs. Manila: BSMED,
GTZ-SMEDSEP, TAF.
Gainer, M. (2015). Listening to the Public: A Citizen Scorecard In the Philippines, 2010-2014. New Jersey:
Princeton University.
Imas, L. M., & Rist, R. (2009). The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development
Evaluations. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Mendoza, M. (2011). Legislating Citizen's Charters. Makati: Development Academy of the Philippines.
Ortiz, G. F., & Gumapac, D. (n.d.). Implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) of 2007 in the Land
Transportation Office (LTO) Region XI. Retrieved from Korean Association for Public
Administration: m.kapa21.or.kr/datasearch/data_download.php?did=7228
Perante-Calina, L. (n.d.). Issues and Implications of the Anti-Red Tape Act on Public Sector Reform: A
Mechanism Toward Development. Quezon City: University of the Philippines - NCPAG.
Ramos, M. (2011). Implementation of RA 9485 (Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007) in the Local Government of Maddela,
Quirino: An Assessment. Santiago City: University of La Salette.
Saguin, K. I. (2013). Critical Challenges in Implementing the Citizen's Charter Initiative: Insights from
Selected Local Government uUnits. Philippine Journal of Public Administration LVII(1), 30-57.
Salpid-Masucol, L. (2014). Implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007: The Case of LGU Maramag
(THESIS). Cagayan de Oro City: Mindanao University of Science and Technology.
Taplin, D., & Clark, H. (2012). Theory of Change Basics: A Primer on Theory of Change. New York:
ActKnowledge.
Zabala, B. J. (n.d.). Evaluation on the Implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Law in the Municipality of San
Leonardo, Nueva Ecija (THESIS). no info: no info.

ANNEX A. EVALUATION MATRIX – INTEGRATED
As referred to in Section 4.1, this Evaluation Matrix is a more integrative version of the matrix in the inception report. In this version, the DAC
Criteria and Evaluation Questions are unpacked according to the three components of the evaluation: (a) Quantitative Analysis, (b) Data Science
methodology, and (c) case studies developed. This Evaluation Matrix also describes the integrative mixed methods approach employed for the
evaluation.
While all questions have been answered, the evaluation prioritized those which provide NEDA and oversight agencies insights to the
implementation of the EODB law, as a primary consideration in the project.
Evaluation Key Questions Data Collection Indicators/ Success Standard Methods/Means for
Criteria and Analysis Track Verification
Efficiency [a] How has ARTA been Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
implemented by NGAs and local Analysis client satisfaction
government units? Effects of components of ARTA
Integrated Program on client
satisfaction
Hidden cost analysis Qualitative analysis of hidden
cost cases
Data Science RCS scores across Visualizing RCS scores;
Methodology time/agencies/sectors Statistical analysis (variants of
ANOVA)
Case study Supporting data from the case KII, FGD, site visits
development subjects on policies, programs Data triangulation
and corresponding outcomes
[b] What are costs and benefits Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
associated with ARTA Analysis client satisfaction
implementation? Effects of components of ARTA
satisfaction

cost cases
Data Science Components of customer Machine learning methods
Methodology satisfaction; (Feature importance on
components of customer
Variation in CCB response
satisfaction);
statistics across
time/agencies/complaint Visualizing feature
categories importances;
Visualizing components of
customer satisfaction across
agencies;
Visualizing CCB response
statistics
Case study Data from case subjects on KII, FGD, site visits
development policies, programs, and Data triangulation, pattern
corresponding outcomes matching
[c] What can the Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
RCS/commendation/complaints Analysis client satisfaction
database of CSC reveal about Effects of components of ARTA
ARTA implementation? Integrated Program on client
satisfaction
cost cases
Data Science Variation in CCB response Visualizing CCB response
Methodology statistics across statistics
time/agencies/complaint
categories
[d] How do agencies monitor Case study Data from case subjects on CC KII, FGD, site visits
their compliance to the development implementation Data triangulation, pattern
standards in their Citizens
matching
Charters (CCs) and revise the
standards when necessary?

Effectiveness [a] How has the implementation Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
of ARTA policies improved Analysis client satisfaction
frontline services? Effects of components of ARTA
satisfaction
Methodology time/agencies/sectors; Statistical analysis (variants of
Components of customer ANOVA);
satisfaction; Machine learning methods
Variation in CCB response (Feature importance on
statistics across components of customer
time/agencies/complaint satisfaction);
categories Visualizing feature
importances;
agencies;
statistics
[b] What are the elements which Quantitative Effects of components of ARTA OLS regression results
helped achieve the goals of Analysis Integrated Program on client
ARTA, and what are the satisfaction
constraining factors?
[c] Has the improvement in Data Science Components of customer Machine learning methods
frontline services of key national Methodology satisfaction (Feature importance on

and local agencies translated in components of customer
improved perceptions on satisfaction);
business-friendliness, Visualizing feature
government effectiveness and importances;
corruption? Why or why not?
agencies
Supporting KIIs, Data from informants KIIs, FGD, site visits
FGDs with national Data triangulation, pattern
government matching
agencies
[d] What factors influence Case study Data from case subjects on KII, FGD, site visits
various stakeholders in the development policies, programs, and Data triangulation, pattern
implementation of ARTA? How corresponding outcomes matching
do they collaborate?
government matching
agencies
[e] What are the good practices Quantitative Difference in compliance and Two sample T test
from the most improved Analysis satisfaction between ISO
agencies?70 certified and non-ISO certified
offices
Methodology time/agencies/sectors; Statistical analysis (variants of
Components of customer ANOVA);
70
The original project terms of references included in this item the question, “What are best practices from other countries?”. However, in the project inception, since the study is positioned to contribute
to the policy transition from ARTA and EODB, the sub-question was dropped for focus on more relevant dimensions of the question.

satisfaction; Machine learning methods
(Feature importance on
Variation in CCB response
components of customer
statistics across
satisfaction);
time/agencies/complaint
categories Visualizing feature
importances;
agencies;
statistics
[f] What kind of support can be Case study Data from case subjects on KII, FGD, site visits
extended to agencies in difficult development policies, programs, and Data triangulation, pattern
situations or to agencies failing corresponding outcomes matching
in the RCS?
government matching
agencies
[g] What are the facilitating Case study Data from case subjects on KII, FGD, site visits
factors and barriers to the development policies, programs, and Data triangulation, pattern
public’s utilization of the corresponding outcomes matching
government matching
agencies
Relevance [a] To what extent are the Case study Data from case subjects on KII, FGD, site visits
various components of ARTA development policies, programs, and Data triangulation, pattern
relevant to the implementation corresponding outcomes matching
of the EODB law?

government matching
agencies
Sustainability [a] Based on the findings, how Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
can ARTA be better Analysis client satisfaction
implemented in light of EODB? Effects of components of ARTA
satisfaction
cost cases
Data Science Increasing weight on important Machine learning methods
Methodology components of customer (Feature importance on
satisfaction; components of customer
satisfaction);
Improving consistency of data
collection methods and Visualizing feature
granularity of data collected importances;
agencies;
Assessment of data quality
and collection methodology
government matching
agencies
[b] Are there areas that need Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
further improvement to Analysis client satisfaction
sustain/maximize the benefits Effects of components of ARTA

already achieved by Integrated Program on client
implementing ARTA? satisfaction Qualitative analysis of hidden
Hidden cost analysis cost cases
Data Science Increasing weight on important Machine learning methods
Methodology components of customer (Feature importance on
satisfaction; components of customer
satisfaction);
Improving consistency of data
collection methods and Visualizing feature
granularity of data collected importances;
agencies;
Assessment of data quality
and collection methodology
government matching
agencies
[c] How should a future impact Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
evaluation study for the EODB Analysis client satisfaction
be designed? Effects of components of ARTA
satisfaction
cost cases
Data Science Improving consistency of data Assessment of data quality
Methodology collection methods and and collection methodology

granularity of data collected
government matching
agencies
[d] What methodologies and Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
tools can be applied to measure Analysis client satisfaction
NGAs’ implementation of the Effects of components of ARTA
standards in their CCs? Integrated Program on client
satisfaction
cost cases
Data Science Time series analysis, when Assessment of data quality
Methodology more granular data is obtained and collection methodology
[e] How can data collected by Quantitative Effects of ARTA compliance of OLS regression results
CSC be used to analyze the Analysis client satisfaction
causal impact on ARTA Effects of components of ARTA
outcomes, i.e., reducing Integrated Program on client
corruption and improving ease satisfaction
of doing business?
cost cases

government matching
agencies

ANNEX B. INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDES
The key informant interview (KII) and focus group discussion (FGD) guides in this section are leaner versions of the approved tools in the project
inception phase. The KIIs and FGDs employed separate but mirroring questions to the supervisors and managers of the selected LGUs and NGAs,
customers, Public Assistance and Complaint Desk personnel, Contact Center ng Bayan personnel, and Civil Service Commission employees who
are in charge of handling the ARTA law-related concerns. Fixers were also asked with separate questions. The questions were phrased within the
DAC criteria and evaluation questions. Consent forms were prepared and used during the KIIs and FGDs.
Supervisors/Managers Frontline Government Clients PACD, CC, and Fixers

Employees CSC personnel
Efficiency How did your office implement the How did your office How did the office How did you How many
ARTA? What are the activities and implement the ARTA? that you have monitor ARTA transactions do
interventions that your office What are the activities availed service compliance? How you “process” a
implement in relation to the ARTA? and interventions that from implement many ARTA- day? How much
What is the span of these activities your office implement? the ARTA? What related complaints do you charge?
and interventions? Who are the How did you receive are the activities do you receive How much
participants of these activities and these activities and and interventions every month? transaction time
interventions? How did the interventions? Was being Every year? How is cut by
management identify what activities there a consultation implemented? Are well-informed are availing of your
and interventions to implement? with the employees these activities and the citizens with services? How
Was there a consultation with the before these activities interventions being the existence of an does No Noon
employees before these activities and interventions were carried out by the ARTA citizens’ Break, Anti
and interventions were implemented? frontline employee complaints desk? Fixer Campaign,
implemented? What are the efficiently? How How do you and other
constraints in implementation terms satisfied are you as classify an ARTA- ARTA-related
of resources? How did you observe client with the related complaint? interventions
your clients’ response services that you Where do cases affect your job?
with ARTA availed? With your that are not Do you still get
Did your office undergo the Report interventions? Were interaction with the classified as ARTA- clients even
Card Survey? What are the they well-informed frontline related transferred with the
highlights of the data collected from about these employee? into? What presence of the
your office’s RCS? Are these data interventions? Do they comprises the bulk Anti Fixer
reflective of how your office served act empowered over of the cases that Campaign?
its clientele? Is the RCS reflective of the system or over the Which part of the you receive? How
the individual performance of the office they are availing service delivery can are these

frontline employees? service from? be further documented and
improved? docketed?
How does your office monitor How is your clients

compliance to the standards of the asked about their
Citizens Charters? How does your perception on your
office measure compliance with the service delivery after
Citizens Charters? Is compliance on ARTA
the Citizen’s Charter present among implementation? Was
the employees of your office? there bias in how the
data was collected? If
there is, how can bias
Kindly compare your management be veered away from?
style throughout the whole
implementation of ARTA? Was
there a change in your management Is the Report Card
style when ARTA was introduced? Survey reflective of
How did the employees, especially your individual
the frontline employees, receive performance?
your new management style?
How informed are you

about the contents of
the Citizen’s Charter?
How do you ensure
responsiveness to the
Effectiveness Was there an observable change in Was there a change in How do you Did you notice
behavior among frontline your colleagues’ service compare service differences in the
employees after the ARTA was delivery after the delivery of number of
implemented? How long from the ARTA was frontline employees complaints before
implementation did the employees implemented? in this office before and after ARTA
of your office show improvement in and after implementation?
Which activity and
service delivery and? implementation of Did the numbers
intervention in line
ARTA? Was there a reduce
with the ARTA helped

What key features of ARTA could you in improving your significant significantly?
you say helped your frontline service delivery? improvement after
employees improve their service Which activity and the ARTA was
delivery? intervention did not implemented?
help? How can these
What features of ARTA did not help
unhelpful activities and
the frontline employees improve
interventions be Which activity and
their service delivery? How can
improved for future intervention in line
these non-functioning features of
implementation? with the ARTA
ARTA be improved? helped you in
availing services?
How enthusiastic are Which activity and
How did your office’s clientele
you to do your work intervention did
respond to activities and
when the ARTA was not help? How can
interventions adopted by the
implemented? Which these unhelpful
ARTA? How did your office
interventions helped activities and
measure your clientele’s response to
you as an employee? interventions be
ARTA activities and interventions?
improved for
Did your data show improvement
future
on perceived service delivery? If
implementation?
your data did not show any
improvement in perceived service
delivery, did your office undertake
necessary revisions in the activities
and interventions?
How did the stakeholders, apart

from the clientele, respond to the
activities and interventions adopted
by the ARTA? Were they responsive
to these activities and interventions?
What is the highlight of your

office’s whole ARTA

implementation? What are your
office’s good practices that other
offices can emulate as well in terms
of ARTA implementation?
How do you fair your office’s

performance in the Report Card
Survey? Had your office fail the
RCS, what support can be extended
to your office to improve
performance?
How is the Citizen’s Charter

received by your office’s clientele?
Relevance Which component of the ARTA is Have you been treated Did you experience Did the number of Have you been
the most effective in improving with more respect by better service graft and penalized in
service delivery? How can these clients who avail delivery? How corruption relation to your
effective components be transferred services? friendly is the complaints job as a fixer?
to the Expanded ARTA? frontline employee decrease for the last What are the
to you? Were you eight years? penalties
Do you observe “under treated with kind involved? Were
the table” transactions language and mild you able to get
done among your your manner? Was your away with the
co-workers? If you do, transaction time penalty?
would you report to consistent or at
the management? least comes close
with what the
office stated in their
Do you explain the citizen’s charter?
process of the Did your
transaction to your perception with
clients in complete government offices
detail, kind language, improve for the
and mild manners?

past eight years?
How often do you
Was there a change in
visit government
you manager’s /
offices, especially
supervisor’s r
those with frontline
management style
transactions?
when ARTA was
Would you opt to
introduced? How did
get services from
you receive these new
government rather
management style?
than private
providers?
Have you been

offered by fixers
with their services?
Have you availed
of those services? If
yes, would you
rather avail of a
fixer’s service
instead of going to
the process?
Sustainabilit What are the areas in public service Which component of How do you see How can the public
y was improved by implementing the ARTA benefitted service delivery by be better informed
ARTA? How can these you most as frontline government offices about the existence
improvements be sustained for employee? Could these be working for the of contact centers?
longer term? interventions be the next few years? · How can data
implemented for longer For the longer collected by CSC be
term? term? How can you used to analyze the
Is there an existing baseline study as a customer help causal impact on
on the EODB law? Will the CSC be improve service ARTA outcomes,
open to conducting an experimental delivery of i.e., reducing
design of evaluation? government corruption and
offices? improving ease of

Apart from compliance to ARTA doing business?
processes, what areas must be Does the CSC data
added to the Report Card Survey? collection have
countercheck
mechanism with
What methodologies and tools can the frontline
be applied to measure NGAs’ and employees and
LGUs’ implementation of the customers? Can
standards (e.g. processes, steps, and these data
time) in their Citizens’ Charters? collection
Which part of the ARTA must be mechanism be used
retained and which must be for longer term?
replaced? Are the inputs to
implement ARTA systems and
processes minimal and justifiable? Is
there a baseline study for the EODB
law? Will the CSC be open to
conducting an experimental design
of evaluation?

ANNEX C. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE VARIOUS EVALUATION TRACKS
Table C1. Recommendations from the Various evaluation tracks

Theme/Category Quantitative Analysis Data Science Methodology Case Studies
(Refer to full report for details) (Refer to full report for details) (Compiled from eight cases
studies)
ARTA as program Section 12: Conclusion and Case Study (LGU3): Cainta
Recommendations on ARTA Implementation  Measurement of
 Use ARTA as minimal conditions for accomplishments in the
public service improvement ARTA implementation and
 Encourage agency-level initiatives other reform initiatives
 Minimize hidden costs should be inculcated as part
 Further studies to elaborate on the of project/program
role of ARTA compliance to the implementation cycle to be
achievement of other program able to develop and design
outcomes a better ARTA
 Measure the relative expectations of implementation strategy in
respondent-clients in order to fully the future, particularly in
control for major variables that can the eventual
affect satisfaction implementation of the
EODB law.
Case Study (LGU 4): Quezon City

 Synching national and local
laws
RCS Section 11.1: Revisions to existing RCS Section 3C: Assessing the current RCS
questionnaire methodology
 Include qualitative measures of  Use the same methodology across
expectations different years.
 Develop a measure of transaction  Regularly record the RCS scores of
complexity a consistent set of offices.
 Incorporate a relative measure of  Do not aggregate data together.
efficiency  Standardize the types of requests
 Use Likert scale to measure responded to by each unit.
satisfaction  Use mobile/digital applications to
collect future data.

studies)
Section 11.2: Revisions to existing RCS  Limit the types of responses across
methodology all researchers and agencies.
 Create a universe of public services
 Ensure consistency of measurement Subsection – Data Analysis Process
across time  Shift from reporting pure
summary statistics to time-series
analyses.
 Gather more information on most
relevant features.
CCB Section 3A: Recommendations to improve
government services based on research
results
 Stricter service levels in
responding to complainants and
forwarding concerns to offices be
imposed for the CCB
 The CCB should monitor the types
of issues that genuinely require
additional information versus
those that can be directly
escalated.
 Ensure that there are clear and
consistent metrics for closing
complaints
 Make sure that any data collected
is forwarded to appropriate
agencies.
 Enforce stricter monitoring on
more serious allegations that
currently tend to get ignored.
ARTA-related Section 3C Subsection: Training and
trainings Development
 Training programs should provide
targeted support on features that:
(1) are most relevant in

studies)
determining customer satisfaction,
and (2) each office performed
poorly in. This will facilitate
stronger improvement of overall
customer satisfaction.
 Training on CCB concerns is
important in standardizing types
of responses and ensuring that
issues are promptly and effectively
addressed.
For government Section 3A: Recommendations to improve Refer to Table 5b
agencies/LGUs government services based on research
results
 Leverage best practices from
different agencies.
 Have clear mechanisms for
addressing concerns and
implementing feedback.
 Improve the metrics used to
monitor frontline service agents in
offices.

Table C2. Recommendations on the EODB Implementation for the Case Study Subjects
(Lifted from the Case Studies’ Conclusions and Recommendations)
Case Study Subject Recommendations71
Case Study (NGA  A more appropriate medium in explaining/displaying Citizen’s Charter such as video presentation of the services
1): LRA using big monitor/screen or any other innovative ways of making clients know and understand the service
procedures should be considered. Very long, text heavy citizen’s charter that adorn government offices as wall
decorations have proved to be an ineffective strategy.
 Outsourcing the service e.g. LRA call center, can be considered. Other options in enhancing the ability of the office
to respond to client needs include training on deepening the understanding of the different functions and technical
know-how of the LRA transactions; Training orientation on ARTA/EODB; De-briefing sessions for the frontline
officers and staff who serve s punching bags of the LRA clients; technical resource such as computers/laptops; etc.
 Although infrastructure improvements in the Registry of Deeds have been identified in the Plans and Programs for
implementation in 2013 and beyond, there is still a lot to be considered in improving the infrastructure facilities of
the majority of the RDs for a more convenient experience for both the employees and clients as well.
 Collaboration with other national and local government units that have related functions should be enhanced
further e.g. LGU Circulars involving registration of land in relation to the collection efforts in relation to taxation;
DAR on registration of title; LMB-DENR Land Management System (technical description) in sharing data for
reconstitution; NAMRIA; Land Management Bureau, Bureau of Land.
Case Study (NGA  There is a need to inform the public about Revenue Memorandum Order 19-2018 and Revenue Memorandum
2): BIR Circular No 30-2018, which specifically relates to the (i) 30-day timeline for the registration of books of accounts; and
(ii) reiteration of the removal of the requirement to submit books of accounts to be issued a certification of
registration.
 While the rules and policies are circularized for the public to know, there is a need to codify these voluminous
amounts of policies and make it user-friendly, and effective and efficient to utilize by a layman. The circulars in the
BIR website takes time and effort, and guidance on navigating the circulars through codification can definitely make
a difference.
Case Study (GOCC  Having a universal counter proves to be effective when there is a long queue in availing the different services of
1): PhilHealth PHIC.
 The CSMS should be rolled out immediately to be able to manage customer feedback & complaints received
through all official communication channels nationwide.
 Explore more ways of streamlining the processes, procedures, and documentary requirements through database-
sharing with other government agencies, particularly hospital. In addition to the database-sharing with other
government agencies, inter-office database sharing should be done first. Future streamlining should not require
anymore those requirements that are provided within PHIC units/departments.
 Trends suggests that the interventions identified in addressing customer satisfaction did not merit appropriate
71
Refer to the individual case study reports for substantiation of each set of recommendations.

Case Study Subject Recommendations
study, but options are identified based on what are the common program of actions available. Measurement on
improving process should be properly addressed.
 An innovative strategy in implementing reforms in PHIC should not be a one-size-fits-all approach. An assessment
of the member demographics, culture, characteristics, needs, requirements, and background should be the driving
force in identifying strategies in the efficient delivery of service.
Case Study (GOCC  Online facility and database-sharing with other government agencies
2): SSS  Partnerships for database-sharing
 Electronic queuing system
 Effective promotional materials
 Define the objectives of 8888
 Increased membership
 Interventions backed up by study
 Capacity-building training on Quality Work Improvement Program
 Streamlining within SSS departments
 One-size-does-not-fit-all approach
Case Study (LGU 1):  Various recommendations on queueing systems, PACD, and frontline waiting and transaction time efficiency are
Tagum City embedded in the case study discussion.
Case Study (LGU 2):  Although an initial coordination can be done through them, it will be far more effective an efficient if
Arayat, Pampanga information and official data pertaining to the municipality can be accessed in its official website.
 A transactional presence model of web measure is recommended for Arayat, which allows two-way
interaction between the municipal government and its citizens.
 Since resources are scare for capacity building activities for the municipality, a brown bag session for the
municipalities’ officers and staff can be facilitated to cascade the learning to a greater number of the
municipalities’ staff.
Case Study (LGU3):  The LCE should provide a clear direction on how ARTA should be a priority activity of the entire municipality, with
Cainta buy-in from the SB and the Management Committee members.
 Instill a professional look and demeanor in the bureaucracy through the good example of its heads and leaders.
 Institutionalize a true BOSS that will involve a streamlined process through the use of information and
communications technologies that will allow faster processing of documents and allow interconnectivity among
concerned offices.
Case Study (LGU 4):
 Online facility in business government transactions
Quezon City
 Also various points of consideration for better implementation of its One Stop Shop and system innovations in light of the
World Bank Doing Business indicators, all embedded in the case study discussion

ANNEX D. EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES OF SUPPLEMENTARY REPORTS
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF ARTA COMPLIANCE ON CLIENT

SATISFACTION
By Kidjie Saguin
More than ten years since its enactment, the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (2007 ARTA) now serves as the
flagship anti-corruption and public service delivery improvement policy of the government. This study
sought to analyze the contribution of the implementation of the 2007 ARTA and the CSC’s ARTA
Integrated Program to the improvement of the quality of government services. It examined the effects of
the 2007 ARTA provisions on enhancing the satisfaction of the public availing frontline services. Broadly,
it is interested in answering the research question: Does compliance to the 2007 ARTA contribute to
improving the quality of public service delivery?
Using the Report Card Survey (RCS) 2014-2015 dataset from six national agencies, client satisfaction was
regressed on compliance with the 2007 ARTA. The pooled cross section regression analysis revealed a
positive effect of the 2007 ARTA compliance on client satisfaction. When broken down into the 2007
ARTA’s program elements, the analysis found the following to be associated with the positive feedback
of the availing public (clients): Citizen’s Charters, No Noon Break Policy, quality of basic facilities, and
physical set-up of the service office. However, anti-fixing campaign and wearing of identification cards
were not found to influence satisfaction, while only weak evidence can support the effectiveness of public
assistance and complaints desk (PACD) in improving satisfaction.
The regression analysis also revealed that payment of ”hidden costs” negatively affects client satisfaction.
Further qualitative analysis of the 173 cases of hidden costs surfaced its two types: irrelevant and relevant
hidden costs. Irrelevant hidden cost refers to grease money, food, and transportation payment to the
employee and unaccounted cost, which only accounted for 18% of the cases. Relevant hidden cost. This
accounted for 73% of the hidden cost incidence, which refers to extra requirements, services and penalties
levied on the client. Average hidden cost paid is small at P773. However, payments vary quite
extensively (SD: P3,730), ranging from P3 to P45,015.
The study also emphasized the role implementing agencies play in the success of the 2007 ARTA. The
findings of the regression analysis confirmed the variation of client satisfaction level across agencies.
Further analysis of agency-level initiatives suggested the facilitating effect of ISO certification on client
satisfaction and better compliance with the 2007 ARTA. ISO-certified offices generally performed better
on 2007 ARTA compliance than non-ISO-certified offices, suggesting that process standardization can
make it easier to implement the 2007 ARTA provisions. At the same time, the qualitative dimensions of
the frontline service were found to affect client satisfaction ratings. More specifically, improving response
time and a positive outcome of the services have the strongest effect on satisfaction. The challenge for the
government is to ensure that services are dispensed quickly and consistently.
The evaluation results show the 2007 ARTA as an effective instrument for improving client satisfaction
with public services. Policy implications include utilizing the standards set by this law as minimum
conditions for public service improvement, encouraging innovations in documenting and improving
frontline services at the agency level, and boosting efforts to minimize both relevant and irrelevant

hidden costs. Various insights are provided by the study on how the RCS questionnaire and
methodology can be improved in light of the EODB Act.
DATA SCIENCE METHODOLOGY SUPPORTING THE ASSESSMENT OF ARTA
By Thinking Machines Data Science
The Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 (2007 ARTA) was implemented to reduce the inefficiencies hindering
customer service in various agencies throughout the Philippines. In light of the ongoing development of
the revised 2007 ARTA through the Ease of Doing Business Act, it is valuable to conduct analyses that will
evaluate how well the 2007 ARTA achieved its objectives, especially when ARTA law-related data was
systematically captured and stored.
This study employed a holistic view of performance by getting an understanding of the overall sentiment
of clients (generally, the Filipino public), the performance of service entities (government agencies), and
the impact that implementation of the 2007 ARTA has had on both. Specifically, the study looked at: (a)
which elements of government service matter most to its primary recipients; (b) how different
government agencies performed in relation to various ARTA law-related dimensions; and (c) how the
implementation of the 2007 ARTA has impacted overall agency performance to customers, and where the
government can go from there.
The study found that the most important factors affecting overall customer satisfaction were related to
timeliness and the quality of outcome. Greater emphasis in both training and assessment should be
placed on these highly-valued factors. The weights of these factors were determined by building a
random forest classifier, then conducting a feature importance analysis on this classifier. Specifically, the
classifier attempted to predict overall customer satisfaction as a function of various features related to
customer demographics (e.g., age, sex, marital status) and components of satisfaction (e.g., timeliness,
outcome, fairness, facilities), while feature importance analysis quantifies the relative usefulness of each
feature in predicting overall customer satisfaction.
In addition, there was a general improvement in agency response to customer complaints, with a greater
proportion of issues being addressed over time, likely pointing out the effectiveness of the 2007 ARTA
implementation in the last few years. However, complaints related to more complex issues (e.g., bribery,
fixing activities) tend to remain unresolved. This is a red flag, considering that these issues can greatly
impact service delivery. These insights were obtained by using a text-based algorithm to categorize
response types (i.e., into “resolved”, “responded”, and “unresolved”), and then plotting distributions
across customer complaint types and years. Finally, by plotting distributions of customer satisfaction
components across agencies, it became clear that agencies varied in the aspects they performed well (and
poorly) in. Thus, leveraging best practices from high-performing agencies could improve customer
service across the board.
The findings presented above would not have been possible without the commendable efforts of all
agencies involved in collecting quantifiable data. Nevertheless, improving methods in the way data is
collected and stored (e.g., standardizing methods and sampling units, and keeping data as granular as
possible) would provide even more useful insights that would benefit the implementation of the 2007
ARTA.

CASE STUDY (NGA 1): LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY
By Kathleen Jovellanos
*Executive Summary pending updates72
The Land Registration Authority (LRA) has been surveyed for seven years since the RCS started in 2011,
and it generated an overall descriptive rating of “Good” in all those years, while also receiving high
ratings on the overall client satisfaction. However, field validation and observation for this study still
suggests necessary improvements on the Citizen’s Charter (CC), public assistance and complaints desk
(PACD), and identification/nameplates of frontline service providers. In addition, the LRA had high
ratings on the compliance with 2007 ARTA provisions, particularly in anti-fixer campaign, no hidden
costs, and No Noon Break Policy. However, validation in the field affirmed the prevalence of fixers in the
transactions relating to land titling and administration.
Land titling in the Philippines has been a tedious and expensive process, discouraging many landowners
from registering their lands. Oftentimes, because of the time and resources spent, engaging the services of
a fixer is the more resource-efficient action. Fixers take on different personas. They can be licensed real
estate brokers or lawyers who are experts on the land titling in the Philippines. Fixers can also be an
employee of the LRA who can be bribed to prioritize and fast track papers for a minimal fee. An
additional charge can be invoiced if the services will require advise on the required transaction. In some
cases, fixers are former Regional Directors who have made fixing a source of income after retirement.
These cases usually involve complicated transactions so charges can go rocket high.
Because of the urgency involved in requesting land titles to be used as requirements for bank loans and
other similar exigent transactions, engaging the services of fixers becomes more attractive to clients. This
situation – the complicated and voluminous number of requirements – complicated land titling
procedures with transactions involving multiple government agencies, and long processing time, making
fixing in the LRA a thriving business.
The anti-fixer campaign has not affected their transactions over the years since the 2007 ARTA was
implemented. Fixers rely on their subject matter expertise and on clients who are ever willing to pay fees
and charges for convenience, allowing their client base to grow over the years. In fact, clientele has
steadily increased because fixers are able to process transaction very quickly by leveraging their
familiarity with the officials and staff in the LRA office.
The agency has launched a massive land titling computerization project (LTCP), which created a database
of all its business processes. However, the development of the system took so much time that the system
is now outdated, and has resulted in slower processing. The project was meant to reduce discretion on
the part of the staff of the Regional Director, and reduce contact between the landowner and the LRA
personnel.
Processing time is the heart and soul of the 2007 ARTA. It goes hand-in-hand with automation of systems
in the LRA.
72
Process Note [May 31, 2019]: NEDA indicated a handful of points for revisions for the executive summary. The revisions may be included in a
later version of this report.

CASE STUDY (NGA 2): BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE
The implementation of the 2007 ARTA has been a dedicated mission of then Commissioner Kim Henares
who accepted the task of leading the country’s main revenue agency. The Bureau of Internal Revenue has
long been perceived to be one of the most corrupt government agencies in government service. Known
for her fearless integrity and dedication to serving the country, the Internal Revenue Commissioner for
the years 2010 to 2016 implemented policies and programs aimed at reforming the controversial office
and managed to increase tax collections and improve service to taxpayers
Under her leadership, the BIR has taken measures to improve tax administration and attain collection
targets. This was through the implementation of the Revenue Administration Reform Project, an ICT
reform project aimed at improving the collection process to attain targets and sustain revenue growth.
Through the ICT system, the annual BIR collections in the years 2009-2016 increased at an average growth
rate of 10% since 2011. This growth rate much higher than the country’s GDP. She was instrumental in
the country’s investment grade credit and economic growth, with tax collections almost doubling in the
six years that she held the commissioner post.
The reform master plan was the backbone for the online computerization of BIR’s tax administration on
taxpayers service, registration, filing and payment, audit, collection enforcement,
legal/enforcement/internal affairs, and support. All of the institutionalized web-based systems
addressed revenue losses and were used in auditing transactions. Taxpayers experienced smoother
transactions because of the readily available online documents, which can be easily validated by other
concerned offices (such as LRA and QC for the registration of land and payment of tax, respectively).
The projects were all targeted to achieve the objectives outlined in the strategic roadmap. Most of the
programs are still the priority activities even after 2016, as those reforms cannot be accomplished within
Henares’ term. But the crucial first step of defining the plan and program has been set in placed with the
help of the abovementioned e-tools.
Computerization of the entire tax administration services – from registration to audit – has been
stonewalled for a long time by BIR examiners who will not be able to offer tax reduction to business
taxpayers in exchange for bribes, or manually select companies for audit, making it susceptible to abuse.
But now, the trail facility of auditing that can trace the history of transactions made by all BIR personnel
deters personnel to commit unjust and corrupt practices. However, the shortcoming on the ability of
online facilities remains a concern for the BIR. Reports of slow transaction caused by an offline system is
common.
Taxpayers are more organized now than before. They are aware and demand service due them if they are
one of the privileged priority clients – senior citizens, people with disability, and pregnant women. Since
they know the processes and timelines, they can demand better delivery of service. Generally, the
complaints are on slow processing time and the unattended hotline number for both 8888 and CCB. It
appears that time consideration is always a concern of the client.
73

Finally, while fixing in the BIR has been slowly curtailed through initiatives like computerization and the
establishment of online facilities, the trend has now shifted to engaging firms and agencies providing
expert advice on the subject matter. Taxpayers, individual or business, resort to these kinds of paid
services because availing them means avoiding complicated technical processes.
CASE STUDY (GOCC 1): PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION
PhilHealth began its efforts towards being a 2007 ARTA-compliant government agency in 2009. It
institutionalized compliance with the 2007 ARTA through the creation of a Committee, and designating
Officers through (a) Special Order No 34, s.2009 creating the Committee on Anti-Red Tape (CART); (b)
Special Order No. 961 s.2009 designating the Head of the Anti-Red Tape (HART) and PhilHealth Anti-
Red Tape Officers (PARTOS) in different Regional Offices; and (c) Special Order No. 0753 s. 2011
(amended with Special Order Nos. 594s.2012, and 682 s.2013) composing the new CART.
Local health insurance offices (LHIO) all over the country exercised independence in localizing the 2007
ARTA implementation, with the end goal of providing service excellence while keeping very close in
mind the core areas that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) takes note of in assessing compliance.
PhilHealth implemented various initiatives to provide excellent service such as the use of the Electronic
Collection Reporting System (ECRS), the implementation of the Health Care Professional Portal, the
Electronic Claims System using a hybrid approach, software certification for the Unified PhilHealth
Electronic Claims System using Electronic Medical Record (UPECS-EMR), and the implementation of an
Auto-Credit Payment Scheme (ACPs) to all health care institutions. Another initiative was the
streamlining of forms, which include the Membership Registration Forms, Employer Remittance Report
(RF-1), and Enhanced PhilHealth Claim Forms.
LHIOs all over the country were very creative in complying with the 2007 ARTA provisions,
incorporating their marks on how to best implement and advertise the 2007 ARTA provisions. Among
the initiatives include combining the 2007 ARTA commitments in one poster, publishing a shortened
version of the Citizen's Charter, and the deployment of Customer Assistance Relations and
Empowerment Staff (CARES).
Customer Service excellence initiatives include the establishment of 24/7 PhilHealth Call Centers. With
the main goal of reducing the number of people going to PhilHealth offices for “routine” inquiries,
PhilHealth set up its first interactive voice response system in 2017.
In 2016, PhilHealth, in partnership with Bayad Center, introduced one of its latest payment modalities,
Bayad Center 1Pay Machine. This is a self-service payment kiosk with a user-friendly interface available
24/7. The Bayad Center 1Pay Machines were initially deployed in various business centers in the
74

National Capital Region, but will soon be made available in government offices, malls, factories and
convenience stores.
In 2012, online inquiry was activated not only to improve customer service but also “customer delight”.
To support this, the long testing of the Customer Service Management System was conducted to act as a
unifying IT System that serves as the central hub for managing customer feedback and complaints
received through all official communication channels nationwide. Through the initiative of the Corporate
Action Center, it was pilot tested in late 2018, and was expected to be rolled out in early 2019. It was
enhanced to incorporate more features related to performance management and customer satisfaction.
PhilHealth has also been the subject of scrutiny. In the 2015 Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on the
questionable claims made by several eye clinics the previous year, PhilHealth was slammed for its “slow”
processing of cases against “abusive” institutions and doctors. There were reports that in some clinics,
patients went through cataract surgery without informed consent. Some patients allegedly underwent
unnecessary laser procedures just so doctors can claim more benefits from PhilHealth. There were 82
cases filed against institutions and doctors.
With the issuance of ISO 9001:2015, PhilHealth continued to improve its public service delivery by
adopting the latest version of the standard. A technical working group was created to facilitate the
transition process. In July 2018, PhilHealth was officially certified as compliant to ISO 9001:2015
standards, following the recommendation of the third-party auditor Anglo Japanese American (AJA)
Registrars Inc.
CASE STUDY (GOCC 2): SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM
The Social Security System (SSS) is the social insurance vehicle for private sector employees. It includes a
pension fund facility to provide various social security benefits like retirement, disability, maternity
assistance, employee compensation, death and funeral benefits. It also offers a Flexi Fund service for
overseas Filipinos, providing them an additional layer of social security protection. As of September 2018,
SSS membership has reached over 36 million.
The right to social security is enshrined in the agency’s mandate. However, its membership has limited
coverage, especially of the poor and the informal sector. Massive information drive and collaborations
with various agencies have intensified in the recent years. On top of the collaborations, the use of
information technology in providing services across different platforms are already in place. Among
those are web-based transactions and payment system.
The automation system is aimed to speed up the processing of benefits claims, loans, and other member
transactions. Automation initiatives include direct transfer of funds for loans and benefit proceeds to
bank accounts of members; mobile service that will address the limitations and technical difficulties in
75

accessing the web portal My.SSS due to the influx of online users; a 24/5 call center services are made
available to further augment member services. A mobile application to view membership information
and international and nationwide toll-free hotlines are also available for OFW and local members.
Despite the numerous contingency measures to post contribution payments real-time and release benefits
and privileges on time, interruptions in the daily transactions of members and employers with the office
still ensues. Its promise of accurate and real-time posting of contribution payments, minimized errors in
contribution records, and faster turn-around time (TAT) to process member’s and dependent’s benefits
and loans remains unrealized.
In support of this service and to ease the difficulties of the new payment scheme, 94 SSS branches with
Automated Tellering System (ATS) facilities have extended their service hours up to 7 pm during
weekdays, while 51 branch offices are open until Saturdays from 8 am to 5 pm.
The SSS got the most feedback from the Citizen Hotline 8888 in 2016 and 2017. Among the top concerns
resolved by the agency were documentation hassle, clarification on SSS procedures, and slow processing
of benefit claims. The most common SSS concerns coursed thru the CSC include complaints on the slow
processing of benefit claims and release of UMID (Unified Multipurpose Identification System) cards, as
well as clarifications on SSS procedures and documentary requirements.
Complementary to the 2007 ARTA, ISO certification in the SSS has been initiated. Thirty branches have
started the transition to the ISO 9001:2015 standards.
An innovative strategy in implementing reforms within the office should not be a one-size-fits-all
approach. An assessment of the member demographics, culture, characteristics, needs, requirements, and
background should be the driving force in identifying strategies that will ensure efficient service delivery.
CASE STUDY (LGU 1): TAGUM CITY
The present administration introduced dynamic reforms in local governance. Political will on the
implementation of various programs and projects becomes the foundation that guides the city
development in various sectors, most importantly, the infrastructure. The incumbent mayor, with the
support of the City Council and the LGU organization, initiated to forge a new brand of public
administration. Coming from a corporate background, the mayor applied corporate management
principles and strategies in local governance. This opened the city hall to more efficient and effective
approaches in delivering public services and massive implementation of important infrastructure and
socio-economic programs and projects.
76

All these efforts resulted to development, as evidenced by fast-growing urbanization and the physical
transformation of Tagum City.. Nevertheless, the contribution of Tagum City’s bureaucracy cannot be
discounted.
With the active leadership of the Tagum City Mayor, the direction the local government wanted to take
was clearly spelled out in the projects and programs identified to be implemented in the coming years.
This inspired the Tagum City government to perform professionally
Tagum City has an impressive website that business operators can readily access to download the
necessary forms before submitting these personally at the municipal office. Its Business One-Stop-Shop
(BOSS) involves a three-step process of Assess-Pay-Release or APR.
The government encourages its citizens to be enterprising. However, the system in establishing a
business is challenging because of the complex procedures, voluminous requirements, and very tedious
registration process. A particular remark that the city noted is the unreasonable costs in the business
permit application. Given this input, the city implemented an ordinance where payment for a Mayor’s
Permit and the cost of the business plate will only be collected for new businesses.
Clients are generally satisfied with the city hall’s services because they are already familiar with the
system. However, there remains some complaints on the time it takes for the verification of requests or
transactions.
Stakeholder consultation with the department staff and with the frontline officers on the 2007 ARTA and
its provisions are practiced in Tagum City. Meetings with the frontliners are regularly conducted, and the
sanctions are part of the discussions. Professionalism and expertise on each department have been
developed over the years, as staff turnover is low, and the presence of a tight engagement practice in each
department. The offices are reaping the fruits of years of experience that resulted in a professional
bureaucracy that is committed, strong, and effective.
To complement the 2007 ARTA implementation, the Human Resource Department is on top of
monitoring all activities relating to the law and professional growth of all department staff. This includes
the monitoring of complaints, which is discussed with the concerned department for processing.
The department heads noticed the prevalence of senior citizen transactions in the city hall and they
believe they take advantage of the priority lane afforded to them, together with the PWDs and pregnant
women. Additionally, more and more transactions are facilitated by bookkeepers of companies.
The city performs with a high level of integrity, which is why high level of outcomes are expected from
all department heads and staff. This will be further strengthened with the implementation of the
Computerization Program, which will prioritize revenue and cost (services) centers, and will entail full
automation of all departments that will be linked to each other through a network system. It was
benchmarked after the service automation programs of Valenzuela and Pasig. An Executive Order
creating a technical working group for this endeavor is already actively preparing for the planning,
designing and preparation phase.

CASE STUDY (LGU 2): ARAYAT, PAMPANGA
The success of policy reform initiatives hinges largely on the commitment of top-level stakeholders
primarily because there is ownership of the policy recommendations. Arayat, Pampanga Mayor
Emmanuel Alejandrino has been leading the municipality in the last five years and continues to realize
the initiatives in furthering the best delivery of service and client satisfaction.
He echoes former President Benigno Aquino III’s “Kayo ang boss ko” mantra, which regards the
constituents as bosses of government officials. With this, he has vowed to provide quality service to the
people since his first election in 2013.
He consistently reminds municipality employees, officers and officials to be welcoming, accommodating,

and sincere. “Bawal ang nakasimangot,” (No frowning) is one of his daily reminders, which is widely felt
the moment one enters the municipal hall. In the regular 7 am Monday flag ceremony, he stresses the
wholehearted acceptance of the needs of the people because as he usually stresses: “Sila ang nagbabayad
kaya tayo ay nandirito, sila ang nagpapatakbo ng munisipyo natin.” (They pay for our operations with their
taxes that’s why we are here. They run the municipal hall.)
Because of these instructions, frontline officers and management are under pressure to improve public
services. Understanding red tape in individual work stations helps in creating better circumstances for
employees to perform. This provides insight into how the rules affect each individual employee’s work.
The municipality strives to provide an environment conducive for investors to come in. The mayor
proudly marks his accomplishment in revenue collection, saying that when he first assumed the post in
2013, the total revenue was at P2 million. But during his first term, tax collections rose from P140 million
to P300 million.
The kind of leadership that the he espouses is leading by example. You can often see him working within
the offices of the different departments, and deeply involved in their daily operations and management.
He is visible to the people that he works with and works for. He is an achiever—focused on results and is
persistent in pursuing opportunities for the municipality. The direction he sets for the municipality is
clear, and empowers the department heads through team building and harnessing collaborative
relationships.
Due to his leadership initiative, Arayat has been consistently awarded with the DILG’s Seal of Good
Local Governance in the years 2015, 2016, and 2017. They were also awarded with a consistent
“Excellent” rating in the 2007 ARTA RCS for the years 2011, 2016, and 2017.
The inversely proportional scores generated by the CSC’s RCS and the NCC’s CMCI do not directly
influence the municipalities’ ability to provide a better service delivery. Although both of its salient
objectives on enabling an environment suitable for investments are aligned, it is a matter of leadership
prioritization on what can be delivered given its limited resources. The delivery of the RCS “Excellent”
77

score of 94.75 is a reflection of the overall client satisfaction in the services of Arayat. The dismal score of
6.8 in the CMCI, ranking Arayat in the bottom 10, however, does not necessarily reflect dissatisfaction or
non-delivery of service expected from the municipality. Rather, it reflects a character in its leadership in
prioritizing the “good to have” systems engineering processes from the “nice to have” award.
CASE STUDY (LGU 3): CAINTA, RIZAL
In 2010, Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 2010-002 was passed adopting the Citizen’s Charter of
Cainta, Rizal. The resolution acknowledged the importance of establishing an effective system to
eliminate bureaucratic red tape, avert graft and corrupt practices and improve the efficiency of the
delivery of government frontline services.
While the CC cannot be accessed from the website, the form for application for business permit and
license is downloadable. The website only provides the list of forms and requirements but does not
provide information of the process steps, forms requires, personnel in-charge, and duration of processing.
The same situation was observed in the Business-One-Stop-Shop (BOSS).
Most of the clients transacting in Cainta BOSS are either fixers or business owners themselves. The
business owners interviewed have other businesses in other towns, which allowed them to make
comparisons of the services of Cainta. Comparisons on the level of service with cities such as Makati and
Marikina have been cited. According to them, the services in Cainta BOSS are far behind in relation to
efficiency. Application or renewal of business permit in Cainta, as described by the clients, typically
takes: (a) assessment for the completeness of the application; (b) assessment and payment of cedula; (c)
assessment and payment in the Bureau of Fire Protection; (d) assessment and payment in the Health
Department; (e) assessment and payment in the Planning Department; (f) assessment and payment of
environment fee; (g) assessment and payment for the Mayor’s Permit; (h) notary service; and (i)
assessment and payment in the Business Permit and Licensing Office (BPLO). Clients will have to process
all of the nine steps in the different tables set up conveniently in the People’s auditorium (commonly
called the Cainta People Center) located inside the municipal ground, in front of the Cainta Municipal
Hall.
Both the processing time and waiting time is very long. Clients particularly described the initial
assessment and the processing in the BPLO as very slow. Clients compare their experiences in the other
cities and municipalities in relation to streamlined process, long processing and waiting time, as well as
very high fees and charges, particularly the environmental fee.
The clients are also certain that one of the reasons for the long waiting and processing time is because
some employees in the BOSS are also facilitating processing of applications and/or renewal, or are also
acting as fixers. The clients will point to the employees who keep on going around the tables of the
78

different departments with documents at hand. While unverified, this client perception is a negative
indication of the public’s confidence and trust level on Cainta’s service delivery.
Although the general sentiment is positive, provided that the permit will be issued within the day, clients
still described their experience in the BOSS as chaotic. In addition to this, they also expressed that there is
no priority lane for the senior citizen in the BOSS.
It is important to note also that the observation period in the BOSS was done in February, when business
application and renewal has been extended. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that efficient service
delivery and the level of standard should be implemented all year round without any service lapses
during peak seasons.
Meanwhile, anti-fixer campaign posters are not permitted in the Civil Registrar Office, following the
directive from the Mayor. According to the Mayor, these only acknowledge the presence of fixers.
Nobody is in charge of overseeing the 2007 ARTA implementation in Cainta. The current Human
Resource head, although a long-time staff in the department, seems oblivious of ARTA law-related
activities. And most of the department heads interviewed were unfamiliar with the results of the RCS.
They are familiar with the RCS orientation prior to the conduct of the survey, but are not privy to its
actual conduct and its results.
CASE STUDY (LGU 4): QUEZON CITY
Various trends in government administrative simplification have emerged over the years and are
currently being improved to suit an agency’s needs and requirements. One of the more commonly
adopted trends is the government web portals and the merger of one-stop shops (OSS).
Despite the vast services that an OSS offers, the ideal perfect situation is having a single window that will
take care of all the government’s interactions with clients. In Quezon City, the implementation of the OSS
was triggered by its representation of the Philippines in the Doing Business Survey (DBS) of the World
Bank Group. This initiative provides objective measures of business regulations that enhance business
activity and those that constrain it. As the benchmark city for Ease of Doing Business (EODB) in the
Philippines, this case study attempted to look at the number of reforms in the three doing business
indicators namely: starting a business, dealing with construction permits, and getting electricity.
The number of processing days in the first two business indicators have significantly decreased to merit
an increase in the scores in the DBS. Meanwhile, there is not much improvement in the third indicator
because there is no significant initiative that will merit increase in scores.
79

A feature of the QC Business OSS is the presence of a concierge who assists all new business applicants
from start of application to the issuance of the business permit itself. The concierge facilitates the two-step
business permit application: File and Pay. This significantly short and straightforward steps in business
permit application is designed to steer faster service. However, in reality, it just shifts the old process
from the business applicant to the government personnel or the concierge.
Failure to make significant reforms within the city hall’s departments can be attributed to the absence of
policy synergies between national and local laws. The burden of excessive rules and regulations imposed
to local governments through national laws, without their capacity to customize them locally, does not
facilitate significant improvement.
Despite the highlighted attention that the EODB initiative generated for Quezon City over the years, the
2016 ISO accreditation was cited as the driver of major activities that were undertaken to streamline
processes and cut down requirements and processing time of transactions.
Quezon City also maintained that the 2007 ARTA did not provide adequate feedback on the RCS results
and claimed that the results were not reflective of the actual provision of service that it delivers. Among
the common complaint of clients is the long waiting and processing time.
The effect of the complaints hotline 8888 on clients is that they are more confident because they are aware
of the services and expected outputs in terms of time and documentary requirements. They threaten
frontliners because they know that they can always file a complaint via the 8888 hotline. Frontline officers
described their clients to be rude, assertive, authoritative, ill-tempered, condescending (particularly the
lawyers), and gets ticked off easily.
Fixing and fixers are very prevalent in Quezon City because of the volume of clients transacting in its
offices. A senior citizen fixer jokingly remarked, “P150 lang naman sinisingil ko for clients to take
advantage of my senior citizen priority privileges.” (I only charge P150 for clients taking advantage of
my senior citizen privileges.)
Innovative approaches are especially significant in the implementation of the EODB Act. A thorough
assessment of the appropriate interventions should be designed and stakeholder engagement should be
properly incorporated. Respondents believe that the CC is an effective tool in itself, but the appropriate
approach of applying it should be studied in detail.

ARTA Evaluation Report - STYLE EDITED - 04282020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTA Evaluation Report - STYLE EDITED - 04282020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTA Evaluation Report - STYLE EDITED - 04282020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT OF THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT (2007

Governance Specialist, Lead Investigator Czarina Medina-Guce

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 1

Assessment of the Anti-Red Tape Act (2007 ARTA):

By Czarina Medina-Guce (Governance Specialist/Lead Evaluator), with: Kidjie Saguin (Associate

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 2

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 3

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 4

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 5

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 6

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 7

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 8

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 9

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 10

Governance Specialist, Lead Investigator

Associate Evaluator (Quantitative)

Associate Evaluator (Case Studies)

Data Science Support

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 11

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 12

Table 1. Evaluation Questions (Ref: Project Terms of Reference)

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 13

3.1 OVERVIEW OF ARTA

The 2007 ARTA’s Section 2, Declaration of Policy states:

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 15

3.2 CSC’S INTEGRATED ARTA PROGRAM 6

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 16

Table 2. RCS Coverage from 2010 to 2017

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 17

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

No Noon Break Discourtesy No Noon Break Unclear procedures

Failure to attend to Failure to attend to

In a press release, the CSC also reported:

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 18

3.3 OVERVIEW OF THE EODB ACT

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 19

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 20

3.4 IMPLICATIONS TO THE ANALYTICAL APPROACH

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 21

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 22

4.1 EVALUATION MATRIX

4.2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 23

Quantitative Data Science

KIIs and FGDs

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 24

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 25

Table 4. Case Study Subjects and Rationale for Selection26

4.3 METHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 26

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 27

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 28

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 29

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 30

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 31

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 32

2007 ARTA Evaluation Report | 33

These results highlight two important things: