TL;DR: The six-part Detailed Lesson Plan format — Objectives, Content, Learning Resources, Procedures, Remarks, Reflection — comes from DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016. DepEd repealed that order on 4 June 2026 through DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, which replaced both the DLP and the Daily Lesson Log with a single lesson plan built on the four-element ILAW Framework: Intentions, Learning Experience, Assessing Learning, Ways Forward. A transitory provision lets teachers keep using the old DLL or DLP formats until the end of the first term of SY 2026-2027, with full implementation from the second term. Most DLP templates and samples circulating online still describe the repealed order.
If you searched for "detailed lesson plan" and landed on a downloadable six-part template, you found the format that governed Philippine public schools for a decade — and that DepEd repealed in June 2026. The templates are not fake. They are just no longer the standard, and the order they came from says so explicitly in its own repealing clause.
This guide covers both: what the DLP actually contained under DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2016, who was required to prepare one, and what DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 replaced it with. If you are looking for the side-by-side comparison of the two old document types, see our guide to DepEd lesson plan formats, DLL versus DLP.
Is the Detailed Lesson Plan Still the DepEd Standard?
No. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, "Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design," signed 4 June 2026, repeals DO No. 42, s. 2016 outright. Its repealing clause reads: "This Order repeals DO No. 42, s. 2016. All other issuances or any provisions thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Order are likewise repealed, rescinded, or modified accordingly."
More specifically, the new order's definition of terms states that its definition of "Lesson Plan" supersedes the distinction between the Detailed Lesson Plan (DLP) and Daily Lesson Log (DLL) in DO 42, s. 2016, and that the lesson plan components it prescribes apply to both new and experienced teachers.
There is a transition. The transitory provision allows teachers to use the DLL or DLP formats specified in DO 42, s. 2016 until the end of the first term of School Year 2026-2027, with capacity-building conducted during the transition and full implementation of the revised guidelines beginning the second term of SY 2026-2027. Under the three-term calendar set by DepEd Order No. 009, s. 2026, the first term of SY 2026-2027 runs to mid-September 2026 — check the term dates for your own school year against our DepEd school calendar guide, and confirm the switchover date with your school head rather than assuming it.
Disclaimer: lesson planning policy is set and revised by DepEd issuance and is currently mid-transition. Confirm the current requirement with your school head or Schools Division Office before preparing documentation for an observation or appraisal.
What Were the Six Parts of the DLP?
Under DO 42, s. 2016, the DLP was defined as a teacher's "roadmap" for a lesson, and its format contained six parts. The Daily Lesson Log used the same six headings, which is why the two documents look so similar in circulating samples.
| Part | What DO 42, s. 2016 required in it |
|---|---|
| Objectives | Statements describing expected learning outcomes at the end of the lesson, aligned with curriculum standards and stated in terms of what learners will be able to do |
| Content | The subject matter or specific content the lesson aims to teach |
| Learning Resources | References and other resources used to deliver the lesson, including the Teacher Guide, Learner Material, textbook and LRMDS portal resources |
| Procedures | The steps and activities teacher and learners will do, showing Before the Lesson, During the Lesson and After the Lesson, with formative assessment integrated throughout |
| Remarks | Documentation of specific instances causing continuation of a lesson to the next day, re-teaching, insufficient time, or transfer of lessons due to class suspension |
| Reflection | Filled out right after delivery: what went well, what was weak, which learners did well and which need help |
The order cited Airasian (1994) for the standard it applied to objectives: that they "(1) describe a student behavior that should result from instruction; (2) state the behavior in terms that can be observed and assessed; and (3) indicate the content on which the behavior will be performed." Flexibility was explicitly encouraged in the Procedures section — changes were allowed based on time constraints or when adjustments were needed to ensure learners' understanding.
Two smaller provisions of DO 42, s. 2016 are worth remembering because they were widely ignored. Giving assignments was optional and had to follow DepEd Memorandum No. 329, s. 2010 on homework; and assignments, where given, had to be checked promptly.
Who Was Required to Prepare a DLP?
This is the part most reviewer material gets wrong. Under DO 42, s. 2016 the DLP was never required of every teacher every day.
- Newly hired teachers without professional teaching experience prepared a daily DLP for one year.
- Applicant teachers, and teachers in the service including Master Teachers conducting demonstration teaching, prepared a DLP for that purpose.
- Newly hired teachers who earned "Very Satisfactory" or "Outstanding" in the RPMS in a year were no longer required to prepare DLPs. Those rated "Satisfactory" continued to prepare them until the assessment improved.
- All teachers, regardless of experience, had to write a detailed lesson plan when new content was integrated into the curriculum.
- Teachers with at least one year of teaching experience — including private school and higher education institution experience — handling learning areas with DepEd-provided learning materials and teacher guides prepared a weekly DLL instead.
Preparation of the DLP and DLL was part of performance assessment for Teacher I-III and Master Teacher I-IV through the RPMS, monitored on the RPMS cycle.
What Replaced the DLP?
A single lesson plan organised around the ILAW Framework, described in DO 016, s. 2026 as "the simplified national standard for designing focused, coherent, and responsive learning experiences."
| ILAW element | What the order requires |
|---|---|
| I — Intentions | Identify the learning competencies targeted for the session; unpack, cluster or sequence them into clear, focused, manageable learning objectives aligned with learner readiness, context and available time |
| L — Learning Experience | Select relevant learning resources, including alternative home-based resources for interrupted face-to-face instruction; design a pre-lesson activity; map the lesson flow applying the Learning Design Principles; identify opportunities for integration and contextualisation |
| A — Assessing Learning | Conduct formative checks throughout the session to monitor understanding, guide immediate instructional adjustments, and identify learners needing support |
| W — Ways Forward | Reflect at the end of each session on the teaching experience and evidence of learning; identify next steps such as remediation, reteaching or enrichment; offer extended learning opportunities |
The order pairs ILAW with eight Learning Design Principles: Clear Goals and Teaching, Scaffolding, Checks for Understanding, Active Retrieval and Spacing, Self-awareness and Metacognition, Social Learning, Values and Purpose Integration, and Inclusion. It states plainly that not all principles are expected in every lesson.
Does the New Rule Mean No More Detailed Plans?
Not quite — it means detail is now a professional judgement rather than a document category. DO 016, s. 2026 states that "there is no single way to write a lesson plan," and that the form and level of detail "shall depend on the specific instructional situation and the professional developmental needs of the teacher."
The order then draws the same distinction the DLP once encoded, but as guidance rather than a rule:
- Lesson plans may be more detailed when a teacher is handling new, unfamiliar or complex content, learners, strategies, tools, resources or modalities.
- As teachers gain confidence and proficiency, they may prepare more concise lesson plans that allow greater focus on reflective note-taking and refinement of practice.
Teachers who are newly hired, newly assigned to a learning area, or identified by instructional leaders as needing additional support receive structured guidance — but the order specifies that increased instructional support "shall not result in additional documentation requirements, expanded templates, or unnecessary administrative burden."
There is also a hard limit on template creep. Regional Offices, Schools Division Offices, schools and community learning centres shall not require additional or expanded lesson plan templates, supplementary forms, or documentation beyond the simplified standards in the order. Annex B of the order provides a lesson planning guide, but the annex carries an explicit note that it is an example only and "should NOT be interpreted as the sole national format for lesson planning."
What About AI-Written Lesson Plans?
DO 016, s. 2026 addresses this directly, in line with DepEd Order No. 003, s. 2026 on artificial intelligence in basic education. Fully AI-generated lesson plans are not allowed. The order sets three categories, and requires that any AI assistance be declared:
| Category | What it covers |
|---|---|
| Prohibited | Core instructional decision-making: defining objectives, unpacking competencies, designing learning experiences and strategies — that is, the ILAW elements themselves |
| Limited | Support tasks such as rephrasing, organising or refining text, only after key instructional decisions are made and after consultation with colleagues has been maximised |
| Guided | Routine technical tasks: grammar and spelling checks, clarity, formatting support, translation assistance |
All AI outputs remain subject to teacher review, validation and adaptation.
Practical Notes for Teachers Mid-Transition
- Check which term you are in. The old formats are valid through the end of the first term of SY 2026-2027; the new guidelines take over from the second term. Do not assume your division has set the same switchover date as the school next door.
- Do not accept extra forms. If a school or division memo asks for supplementary lesson planning documentation, the order forbidding it is DO 016, s. 2026, Section V(A). Our guide to finding and reading DepEd orders covers how to pull the text.
- Shared lesson plans count. The order states that sharing lesson plans is encouraged and recognised as valid evidence of preparation, provided every participating teacher understands the shared plan and can deliver it effectively.
- Multigrade teachers follow the same standards but may use integrated templates covering two or three grade levels, provided all essential components are maintained.
- Archive your plans. The order recommends a three-year retention period, in digital or printed form, organised at school level.
- Observations are meant to change shape. Instructional leaders are directed not to focus solely on checking document completeness, and are encouraged to run frequent, non-rated walkthroughs of roughly 10 to 15 minutes.
Ready to find the right school? Browse schools or explore more guides for Philippine educators on SchoolFinderPH.
Sources
- DepEd — DO 016, s. 2026: Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design (official)
- DepEd — DO 42, s. 2016: Policy Guidelines on Daily Lesson Preparation for the K to 12 Basic Education Program (official, repealed)
- DepEd — DepEd Orders issuance archive
- SchoolFinderPH — DepEd Lesson Plan Formats: DLL vs DLP
- SchoolFinderPH — RPMS and IPCRF Guide
- SchoolFinderPH — DepEd School Calendar 2026-2027
- SchoolFinderPH — MATATAG Curriculum Guide
