QuestionsQuestions (MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 72)
It strengthens the standards of complete staff work as a requirement before processing and evaluating requests for presidential issuances, authorizations, and other approvals, to ensure prompt, efficient, and effective government service delivery through evidence-based, inclusive, and holistic policies.
Proposed Presidential issuances in the form of Executive Orders, Administrative Orders, Memorandum Orders, Memorandum Circulars, Proclamations, or other documents, as well as requests for authorizations and approvals signed by the President or the Executive Secretary by authority of the President.
Government departments, bureaus, agencies, offices, including GOCCs, government financial institutions, state universities and colleges, and local government units; it also covers, to the extent applicable, similar requests from private and non-government entities.
CSW is the recommendation of a single and coordinated best course of action by a proponent in such form and substance that enables the Office of the President to adequately assess and indicate its approval or disapproval.
They must be: (a) evidence-based, (b) inclusive, and (c) holistic.
The proponent must use the best available evidence; information (especially statistics) should be relevant, timely, accurate, validated, and from verifiable and credible sources; the issue must be clearly defined and effects identified, emphasizing operational matters not sourced merely from generally accessible literature.
Positions of all concerned government agencies and instrumentalities and other stakeholders, particularly when issues are contentious; the proponent is responsible for obtaining concurrence or comments from concerned entities, including experts or affected sectors whenever applicable.
The problem must be viewed in a holistic manner and the proposed solution should adopt a whole-of-government approach, considering macro-level standpoints including legal, political, social, economic, technological, security, cultural, and environmental factors.
It should not exceed three (3) pages.
(a) Title, (b) Antecedent (background/history), (c) Recommendation (requested action and salient features), (d) Rationale (justification, legal bases, alternatives, cost-benefit, risks, short- and long-term outcomes), and (e) Agency Coordination (agencies involved and those that agreed/disagreed/failed to respond).
(i) Enumeration of alternative options weighed by relevant criteria; (ii) detailed breakdown of costs and benefits of each alternative and the proposed action, including strengths and weaknesses; and (iii) identification of short-term and long-term benefits, outputs, outcomes, and potential risks, problems, and complications.
The cover memorandum must enumerate government agencies and instrumentalities that may be involved or affected, indicating those that agreed, disagreed, or failed to respond under Section 4; copies of signed/endorsed comments or recommendations by agency heads/department secretaries must be attached, along with a proponent statement that necessary coordination/consultations were made.
A certification by the concerned government entity’s chief accountant or head of accounting unit that funds for the purpose are available; if not available, a discussion of how funds will be raised, and whenever possible, DBM’s comment on the proposed funding source.
The following: (i) a printed draft of the action document plus an editable electronic copy; (ii) if applicable, a comprehensive implementation plan with milestones/deliverables, responsible agencies, budgetary requirements, and monitoring/review/evaluation mechanisms; and (iii) other relevant documents/data/cost-benefit analysis properly annexed and referenced.
Within fifteen (15) working days from receipt of the request for comment.
Upon proof of receipt and failure to respond within the prescribed period, the agency is considered to have interposed no objection to the proposal or the proponent’s position.
Non-compliance is sufficient basis for the Office of the President not to act on the request or to return it to the proponent.
MC Nos. 152 (s. 1996), 18 (s. 2001), and 68, as amended by 147 (s. 2007).