Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh.

Our country has consistently been a strong advocate for women’s empowerment and gender equality. In fact, we are one of the first countries in Asia to institutionalize the Gender and Development (GAD) Budget Policy, commonly known as “The Women’s Budget,” through the 1995 General Appropriations Act (GAA), ensuring that allocations consider the different needs and perspectives of women and men, and promoting the empowerment of women and girls. This was further strengthened by the Magna Carta of Women (MCW), mandating the adoption of gender mainstreaming as one of the strategies for promoting, protecting, and fulfilling women’s human rights, and achieving gender equality.

During the International Women’s Day and National Women’s Month celebration on March 8, 2025, President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. renewed the administration’s commitment to promote, protect, and empower women, emphasizing that: “The Bagong Pilipinas we are building will always advocate for women’s rights and vigorously oppose anything threatening their progress.”

Indeed, our country has gone a long way. However, I believe more needs to be done to fully achieve gender equality and women’s empowerment.

This is why I am glad to share that the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) Gender-Responsive (GR) Supplementary Assessment Report was launched in June. The document evaluates our Public Financial Management (PFM) systems’ response to the varying needs of men and women, thereby addressing the gaps. The framework has nine indicators, scored on a four-point scale, from “D,” indicating that gender considerations are not included in the relevant PFM institution, process, or system, to “A,” signifying that gender impact analysis is mainstreamed.

The PEFA GRPFM Assessment Report reveals that gender is being integrated into our PFM system through various laws and guidelines, such as the MCW and the institutionalization of reporting requirements. Policies and guidelines have also been incorporated throughout the budget cycle to further guarantee GRPFM’s responsiveness.

I am proud to note that out of the nine indicators, seven received a score above average, with three indicators scoring “A,” which are “Gender-responsive public investment management,” “Tracking GAD expenditures for gender equality,” and “Gender-responsive reporting.”

Four indicators scored “B,” namely: “Gender-responsive budget circular”; “Gender-responsive budget proposal documentation”; “Sex-disaggregated performance information”; and “Evaluation of gender impacts of service delivery.” A score of “B” signifies that while we have made significant progress in mainstreaming gender impact analysis in the said indicators, some gaps remain, such as the absence of outcome-level reporting, among others.

Meanwhile, the indicator, “Legislative scrutiny of gender impacts of the budget,” scored a “C,” as it does not include a review of the gender impact of service delivery programs in the legislative scrutiny of audit reports. Finally, the indicator “Gender impact analysis of budget policy proposals” received a “D+,” reflecting the lack of gender impact assessment of revenue policy.

To improve our PFM systems, the report recommends several initiatives. One is to incorporate an assessment of gender impacts in the proposed changes in revenue policy, focusing on proposals with significant, direct impacts on revenue. Another is to laser-focus on outcomes and impacts of gender-responsive budgeting rather than just outputs.

To guarantee that GAD funds are making an impact on gender equality and women’s empowerment, it likewise recommends to prioritize the Gender Mainstreaming Monitoring System (GMMS) Version 3, as this includes outcome and results indicators which will consolidate data across agencies and sectors, thereby delivering a complete picture of the overall impact of GAD programs.

Another recommendation is to strengthen the capacity of the Commission on Audit to conduct performance audits on the implementation of GAD programs, activities, and projects (PAPs). The results of these audits of GAD funds and performance audits on the implementation of GAD PAPs should be presented to Congress for scrutiny. In line with this, there is also a need to strengthen the legislative audit review procedures to include a review of the gender impacts of service delivery programs.

Further, the Memorandum Circular on the Preparation and Online Submission of Annual GAD Plans and Budgets should include a requirement to provide information on the gender impacts of proposed reductions in expenditures, aside from the new spending proposals.

Lastly, it is recommended to improve the transparency of gender-responsive reporting by publishing the results of the assessment on the gender responsiveness of major programs and projects performed using the Harmonized Gender and Development Guidelines (HGDG) tool.

Beyond budget, the PEFA Gender Responsive PFM Assessment Report not only validates what we have achieved but also reveals courses of action we can take to make our PFM system truly inclusive — one that listens, sees, and ensures better lives for all Filipinos in our Bagong Pilipinas, regardless of gender. Together, let us break down barriers and shatter the glass ceiling to realize our country’s development goals.