Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

Department of Justice Manila

VNA-DC-

DEC 14 2016

DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 0 6 7 - A TO : The Prosecutor General and Heads of Regional and NCR

Prosecution Offices

SUBJECT : Guidelines for Performance Evaluation and Ranking of Prosecution Offices and Employees for the Grant of CY 2016 Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) and Step Increment for Meritorious Performance

1.0 This is to provide internal agency guidelines for the ranking of offices and individuals in the National Prosecution Service (NPS) in line with the following policy issuances:

1.1 Memorandum Circular (M.C.) No. 2016-1 of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Harmonization of National Government Performance Monitoring, Information and Reporting Systems (AO 25 Task Force), and Department Circular (D.C.) No. 021, s. 2016, re: FY 2016 PBB;

1.2 M.C. No. 2016-2 of the AO 25 Task Force, re: Guidelines on the Identification and Determination of Delivery Units Relative to the Grant of FY 2106 PBB; and

1.3 CSC-DBM Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2012, re: grant of step increment/s due to meritorious service and length of service.

Prosecution Offices

2.0 Prosecution offices shall be clustered by region for purposes of performance evaluation and ranking—regional cluster is to be considered as delivery unit. For this purpose, the DOJ Prosecution Staff and NCR prosecution offices shall be considered as one (1) cluster.

3.0 Regional cluster rating shall be based on the performance indicators, targets and rating/ranking system implemented under D.C. No. 049, s. 2014. The following success indicators with corresponding performance weights and consistent with the attached rating scale (Annex A) shall be used in evaluating the performance of each regional clusters: 3.1 Regional Case Disposition Rate (50%); 3.2 Regional Case Aging (30%); and 3.3 Regional Prosecution Success Rate (20%).

Page 1 of 4

4.0 Each regional cluster should have an overall weighted performance rating of at least three (3) points or satisfactory to qualify for the PBB. Regional clusters shall be rated and ranked based on weighed accomplishment rates under the SPMS.

5.0 The following PBB percentage distribution prescribed by the AO 25 Task Force shall be applied to the cluster ranking subject to accomplishment of agency-wide targets:

5.1.1 "Best" regional cluster—Top 10%; 5.1.2 "Better" regional cluster — Next 25%; 5.1.3 "Good" regional cluster — Next 65%.

6.0 In case of equal adjectival ratings and calculated weighted scores among two or more delivery units, forced ranking shall be based on the Secretary's assessment of performance aspects such as service/output quality and responsiveness not quantified and included in the prescribed indicators.

Individuals/Employees

7.0 Third level officials shall be rated using the Career Executive Service Performance Evaluation System (CESPES) and should receive a rating of at least "satisfactory".

8.0 First and second level employees/officers shall be rated and ranked through the SPMS under CSC M.C. No. 6, s. 2012, and D.C. No. 049, s. 2014. The said employees/officers should receive a rating of at least "satisfactory".

9.0 The PBB rates of individual employees shall depend on the performance ranking of the regional cluster where they belong, based on the individual's monthly basic salary as of December 31, 2016, as follows, but not lower than P5,000.00:

Performance Category PBB as % of Monthly

Basic Salary "Best" Regional Cluster 65%

"Better" Regional Cluster 57.5% "Good" Regional Cluster 50%

10.0 The performance rating of Heads of Offices

11.0 Step increments due to meritorious performance may be granted to qualified officials/employees within the top 5% in every office or cluster, as follows:

1.1 Two (2) steps for two (2) ratings of "outstanding" during the two (2) rating periods within a calendar year; and

1.2 One (1) step for one (1) rating of "outstanding" and one (1) rating of "very satisfactory", or two (2) ratings of "very satisfactory" during the two (2) rating periods within a calendar year.

Page 2 of 4

12.0 Individuals/employees under the following occupational groups in each office or cluster may be grouped and force ranked separately for personnel, especially for large offices with at least 20 personnel per group (i.e. the person ranked on top, which is 5% of 20, will be entitled to step increment for meritorious performance): 12.1 Prosecution officers (prosecutors and prosecution attorneys); and 12.2 Support staff (e.g. administrative officers/assistants/aides).

13.0 In case of same ratings, the Prosecutor General or regional prosecutor, as the case may be, shall force rank employees and officials concerned based on performance aspects such as service/output quality and responsiveness not quantified and/or included in the IPCR forms, in consultation with respective supervisors and/or heads of prosecution offices.

Implementing Procedures

14.0 Eligibility for the FY 2016 PBB and step increment for meritorious performance requires compliance to the SPMS. Non-compliance to the following SPMS requirements shall warrant the disqualification of offices and employees concerned:

14.1 Quarterly Report of Operations (NPS Report Form 2016-1) and Yearend Report of Office Resources and Amenities (NPS Report Form No. 2016-2), and necessary data therein; and

14.2 Duly accomplished/approved IPCR forms, with success indicators, accomplishments and ratings for individual prosecutors and employees.

15.0 The Performance Management Team (PMT) constituted under Department Order No. 497, s. 2013, shall serve as the implementing and oversight group for PBB implementation to harmonize with the SPMS, and shall provide necessary guidance and management/policy recommendations on the matter.

16.0 The Planning and Statistics Division (Planning and Management Service) shall evaluate office performance based on prescribed/applicable SPMS indicators and submitted quarterly performance reports.

17.0 The Personnel Division (Administrative Service) shall enforce the prescribed eligibility requirements and rating/ranking criteria at the individual/employee level for the PBB and step increment for meritorious performance, including compliance to CESPES and SPMS as well as other pertinent Civil Service and compensation rules and regulations.

18.0 The PMT shall duly advise offices concerned on SPMS compliance/ deficiencies, calculated office performance and rating based on performance reports mentioned in sub-item 12.1 above, and eligibility of individual officials/officers/employees based on submitted IPCR forms and PBB requirements. Validation/audit of reported accomplishments may also be conducted by the PMT, as necessary.

Page 3 of 4

19.0 Disputes/complaints arising from implementation hereof shall be formally submitted/referred to the PMT Chairperson thru the Regional Prosecutor for appropriate action, mainly in accordance with SPMS guidelines/procedures.

20.0 As prescribed under AO 25 Task Force M.C. No. 2016-1, the herein guidelines and other relevant issuances/documents/information shall be posted in the Transparency Seal page of the D03 Website. Regional Prosecutors shall ensure that this is disseminated to constituent offices/employees immediately upon receipt. The PMT may organize/participate in forums to facilitate information dissemination, communication and feedback.

For guidance and compliance of all concerned.

VITALtI N AGUIRRE II retaty Department:o2ol o2f138u3stice c

11 101.111 11 El

Page 4 of 4

Annex A

National Prosecution Service Office Performance Targets for the Strategic Performance Management System

Success Indicators Performance Weights Case Disposition Rate 50% Case Aging 30%

200/0 Prosecution Success Rate Over-all Rating 100%

A. Case Disposition Rate

Heavy Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

95%-100% Higher or at

most 5% lower

5.1% to 10% lower

10.1% to 15% lower

15.1% to 20% lower

More than 20% lower

90%-94% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

81%-90% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

61%-80% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

60% and below At least 1%

higher At least same

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

Medium Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

95%-100% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

90%-94% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

81%-90% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

61%-80% At least same

At most 10/0 lower

At most 3 °/o lower

3 . 1 Wo to 6 °/o lower

More than 6% lower

60% and below At least 2%

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

Annex A

3 Li ht Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

95%-100% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

90%-94% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

81%-90% At least same

At most 1% lower

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

61%-80% At least 2%

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

60% and below At least 4%

higher At least 2%

higher At least same

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

B. Case Aging

1. Heavy Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96%-100% Higher or at

most 5% lower

5.1% to 10% lower

10.1% to 15% lower

15.1% to 20% lower

More than 20% lower

81%-95% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

66%-80% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

41%-65% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

40% and below At least 1%

higher At least same

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

Annex A

C. Prosecution Success Rate

Heavy Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96%-100% Higher or at

most 5% lower

5.1°k to 10% lower

10.1% to 15% lower

15.1% to 20% lower

More than 20% lower

91%-95% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

81%-90% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

61%-80% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

60% and below At least 1%

higher At least same

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

Medium Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96°/0-100% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

91%-95% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

81%-90% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

61%-80% At least same

At most 1% lower

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

60% and below At least 2%

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

v.

Annex A

Medium Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96%-100% Higher or at

most 4% lower

4.1% to 8% lower

8.1% to 12% lower

12.1% to 16% lower

More than 16% lower

81%-95% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

66%-80% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

At most 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

41%-65% At least same

At most 1% lower

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6% lower

More than 6% lower

40% and below At least 2%

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

Li ht Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96%-100°/o Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4°/o lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1°/o to 8°/o lower

More than 8% lower

81%-95% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 7% lower

More than 7% lower

66%-80% At least same

At most 1% lower

At most 3°/o lower

3.1% to 6°/o lower

More than 6% lower

41%-65% At least 2%

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

40% and below At least 4%

higher At least 2%

higher At least same

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower

, .

4 •

Annex A

3. Li ht Case Load

Previous Year Performance

Rating Scale and Current Year Targets (Score and Performance Levels)

5 4 3 2 1

96%-100% Higher or at

most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.1% to 6% lower

6.1% to 8% lower

More than 8% lower

91%-95% Higher or at

most 1% lower

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 4% lower

4.10/0 to 70/0 lower

More than 7% lower

81%-90% At least same

At most 19/0 lower

At most 3% lower

3.1% to 6 % lower

More than 6% lower

61%-80% At least 2 °/o

higher At least same

At most 2% lower

2.1% to 50/0 lower

More than 5% lower

60% and below At least 4%

higher At least 2%

higher At least same

2.1% to 5% lower

More than 5% lower