Written by Gabriel Dionio
Over the course of the research’s investigation over the implementation of FSL, a formal request was made to the Department of Health (DOH) for an interview, as they were the initial subject of interest for another major interview. However, the DOH redirected the request through the Freedom of Information (FOI) process to the National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA). This shift has led to a rather insightful interview with Sir Exequiel A. Francisco, the Division Chief, Finance and Administrative Division (FAD) of the NCDA.
Sir Francisco has revealed a lot of key information during that interview, revealing key points that dispelled some misconceptions regarding the FSL Law and their role in it. Contrary to what many believe, the NCDA is not the implementing body of the FSL Law. Instead, it serves as a secretariat agency, tasked with tracking and monitoring how other implementing agencies fulfill their roles. Additionally, he had this to say:
“The NCDA, we ourselves, we don’t have [FSL programs], because we’re not an implementing agency, the NCDA. We’re just monitoring the implementation of the laws for persons with disabilities. But the offices or the institutions that are actually implementers, the ones implementing the law, are our member agencies. So, yeah, DOH, Department of Education, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, DFA.“
There was also confusion that led to a misunderstanding between the member agencies and the NCDA regarding the latter’s status as a secretariat agency. Their role as a secretariat makes sure that they are the ones implementing the law. Since 2024, that was the misunderstanding between the NCDA and the member agencies. In relation to this, this is what Sir. Francisco had mentioned:
“What normally happens in our board meetings is that we’re the ones reporting on what has been the updates when it comes to the implementation of the laws, which is wrong. It should be the member agencies that should be reporting on what their different offices are doing when implementing the law.”
This misconception has led to misplaced expectations, such as assuming NCDA would directly provide FSL programs or training services that are not within its mandate. Moreover, as reported from the DOH, it can be assumed that no FSL training has been implemented. The DOH has asked for FSL training, but the DOH themselves have not sanctioned such training programs yet, but the correct agency that handles implementation falls under the responsibility of the DOH, as confirmed by Sir Francisco.
However, it was stated that there are modules and courses for FSL classes from the Philippine Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (PRID), and other non-governmental organizations, however, such training material has not been completely standardized with each having their own ways of evaluating the competency of one’s FSL. Moreover, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) had made their own plans on such courses on FSL training, but developments and updates have not been given for a long time.
Interestingly enough, the NCDA also echoed a sentiment shared by some medical practitioners: policies tend to gain more traction when they impact the majority. As the Deaf community constitutes a smaller population segment, their needs, unfortunately, tend to receive less immediate attention, despite the existence of legal protections like the FSL Law. This highlights a broader issue of visibility and prioritization within public service delivery for marginalized groups.
This article is based on the research “A Phenomenological Study on the Use of Filipino Sign Language (FSL) pursuant to Republic Act No. 11106 in Medical Institutions in Metro Manila,” where the researchers interviewed Sir Exequiel A. Francisco, Division Chief of the Finance and Administrative Division of NCDA. The conversation shed light on the agency’s true role and the broader systemic gaps in the law’s implementation, with gaps that continue to affect the Deaf community’s access to inclusive and equitable healthcare.
