A Laos-perspective Details and Developments on the Learjet N73GP interdiction
A Laos-perspective Details and Developments on the Learjet N73GP Interdiction
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
October 15, 2026
A Transcription
Image 1
“The PDEA says a Mindanao politician financed the chartered flight carrying ₱3.5 billion worth of shabu that was seized in Laos while en route to the Philippines.”
Image 2
Graphic featuring a portrait of Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos III. Header: “SANDRO MARCOS RANKS AMONG THE HIGHEST-FUNDED IN THE DPWH 2025 GAA.” Overlay: “TOTAL BUDGET 12.9B FY 2025 DPWH BUDGET Region I, Ilocos Norte, 1st District.” Bottom text in yellow boxes: “THE WORLDS YOUNGEST POLITICIAN CROCODILE” with a crocodile emoji.
Collation and relation
The first image circulates a claim attributing the financing of a high-value transnational methamphetamine shipment to an unnamed Mindanao politician. Official reporting from October 2026 documents a distinct but related set of facts: on 1 October 2026, Lao authorities intercepted 521 kg of suspected shabu (valued by PDEA at approximately ₱3.54 billion) at Luang Prabang International Airport aboard a chartered Learjet (registration N73GP) that had originated in Subang, Malaysia, with an intended onward destination in the Manila, Philippines. The cargo had been declared as vape products. A Filipino passenger, identified as Dibaroson Fahad (alias Fahad/Fajad), a resident of Marawi City, was arrested. PDEA Director General Isagani Nerez stated that a second Filipino known only as “Boyet” arranged and paid for the charter (approximately $49,500 / ₱3.1 million) via bank transfer before departing for Hong Kong shortly before the interdiction. Both individuals are described as linked to a Davao-based network associated with the Samgor (Sam Gor) transnational syndicate; investigators are examining logistical and financial ties in Mindanao, including possible front businesses in Davao City. NBI later identified at least 10 persons and entities of interest in the Philippines. No official PDEA or NBI statement publicly names an elected Mindanao politician as the financier; the circulating claim therefore remains an unverified assertion that amplifies official leads pointing to Mindanao-linked actors.
The second image accurately reflects documented 2025 General Appropriations Act data. Ilocos Norte’s 1st District, represented by Sandro Marcos (then House Majority Leader, son of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.), received approximately ₱12.9 billion in DPWH funding for FY 2025—the highest district-level allocation in Region I and among the largest nationwide. Broader reporting (PCIJ analysis of “allocable” funds and the so-called Cabral files) places the same district at or near the top of discretionary DPWH capital outlays for 2023–2025, with cumulative figures cited in the tens of billions across the period. Critics have characterized these “allocables” as a functional successor to traditional pork-barrel mechanisms, allocated under a parametric formula whose full transparency remains contested. The “crocodile” / “buwaya” label is a long-standing Filipino political idiom denoting officials perceived as extracting or channeling public resources for private or dynastic advantage.
The two items are not causally linked by any public evidence. They function as parallel illustrations of opacity and elite proximity in Philippine political economy: one concerns alleged political facilitation or protection of high-value illicit capital flows originating in or routed through Mindanao; the other concerns formal, legal, but highly concentrated public capital allocation favoring a presidential relative’s district.
In-depth academic critique and investigative angle
From an investigative and political-economy perspective, both cases highlight structural features of Philippine governance that facilitate concentrated control over resources while weakening public accountability.
1. Opacity in transnational crime finance versus opacity in public budgeting
The Laos interdiction demonstrates the operational sophistication of residual Samgor-linked networks: private aviation, dual cargo declarations, cross-border banking, and rapid flight of key facilitators. PDEA’s attribution to a Davao-based node is consistent with long-standing patterns of Mindanao as both production/transit zone and political economy of informal power. The absence of a publicly named political financier in official releases, contrasted with the viral claim, raises classic investigative questions: Are investigators protecting sources or sensitive political relationships? Is the “politician” claim a deliberate amplification intended to shape public narrative ahead of further disclosures? Rigorous inquiry would require bank-transfer records, beneficial ownership of the charter company, phone metadata linking Boyet/Fahad to elected officials, and independent forensic accounting—none of which have been released as of mid-October 2026.
2. Dynastic resource capture and the “allocable” mechanism
The ₱12.9 billion figure for a single sparsely populated district (Ilocos Norte 1st) relative to more populous constituencies is difficult to justify solely on technical criteria of need or absorptive capacity. PCIJ and other analyses have shown that “allocables” under the post-2022 formula disproportionately favored districts of the President’s son and then-Speaker Martin Romualdez. This reproduces a classic pattern of clientelist redistribution in which formal budgetary rules mask informal political criteria. Academic literature on Philippine pork-barrel politics (pre- and post-PDAF abolition) emphasizes that such concentrations erode horizontal equity, distort project prioritization, and create opportunities for contractor capture and kickbacks—precisely the risks the Independent Commission for Infrastructure and subsequent reviews have been tasked to examine. The “youngest politician crocodile” framing, while polemical, indexes a broader public perception that dynastic proximity substitutes for performance metrics.
3. Investigative premise and evidentiary gaps
A viable investigative program would treat the two cases as diagnostic of the same underlying pathology: weak institutional insulation of resource allocation (whether illicit or public) from political networks.
- For the drug shipment: subpoena charter contracts, banking trails, and any intelligence reports that mention political facilitators; cross-check against known Mindanao political families with documented prior drug-trade allegations.
- For DPWH allocations: full public release of the parametric formula parameters, district-level project lists with geotagged completion status, contractor ownership networks, and comparison of unit costs against national benchmarks.
Both require independent, non-partisan forensic capacity (NBI technical units, Commission on Audit special audits, or an empowered Independent Commission) rather than agency self-investigation.
A conclusion – viable premise
The juxtaposition of an unverified but resonant claim about political financing of a ₱3.5-billion methamphetamine flight with documented, highly skewed DPWH allocations to the President’s son’s district crystallizes a core tension in contemporary Philippine governance: the persistent capacity of political proximity—whether through informal Mindanao networks or formal dynastic office—to shape the movement of large capital flows, licit and illicit. Neither case has yet produced publicly disclosed, conclusive evidence of personal criminal liability on the part of named elected officials. Both, however, expose institutional designs (opaque allocable formulas; incomplete transparency on transnational financial trails) that systematically privilege insider knowledge and relational power over public justification. A coherent investigative and reform premise therefore follows: durable accountability requires mandatory, real-time disclosure of beneficial ownership in high-value public contracts and private aviation charters linked to controlled substances, coupled with independent, formula-driven infrastructure allocation insulated from congressional insertion and executive preference. Without such structural separation, episodic interdictions and budget controversies will continue to recycle the same elite-capture dynamics rather than resolve them.
A Laos-perspective details and developments on the Learjet N73GP interdiction
On 1 October 2026, Lao provincial public security authorities at Luang Prabang International Airport (LPQ) seized 521 kg of crystal methamphetamine (500 packages inside 21 of 23 suitcases) from baggage intended for a US-registered Gates Learjet 55B (N73GP, serial 55-127, 1986 model). The aircraft, operated by Singapore-based CGT Asia Pte Ltd. (linked to Cambodian-registered entities Birdie Jet Co Ltd. and Birdie Jet 2 Co Ltd., with a Malaysian office and two jets based at Subang), had arrived earlier that day from Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport (Subang/SZB), Malaysia.
Sequence from Lao reporting (primarily Lao Security Newspaper / Vientiane Times):
- Provincial police received a tip-off on 21 September 2026 about a syndicate planning to smuggle narcotics by private aircraft across borders.
- The flight schedule was later altered; the aircraft was expected from Malaysia around 1:30 p.m. on 1 October.
- N73GP arrived from Subang with no cargo (only the operating crew and one passenger). Malaysian accounts confirm departure around 11:30 a.m. local time with a Singaporean captain, Malaysian co-pilot, and a sole Filipino passenger (Dibaroson Fahad / alias Fahad or Fajad, resident of Marawi City).
- Around 1:30 p.m., two vehicles arrived at the airport. Airport staff (including X-ray/screening personnel) and company employees moved 23 suitcases from the vehicles toward the aircraft.
- Inspection of the luggage (described in some reports as blue bags with a golden fish symbol) revealed the methamphetamine in 21 suitcases; the remaining two contained ordinary personal items (~180 kg).
- Authorities seized the Learjet, a white Nissan pickup truck, and other related items.
- 13 people were detained: the Singaporean pilot, Malaysian co-pilot, the Filipino passenger, three company employees, and seven Luang Prabang International Airport employees (three of the detainees were women).
Lao authorities framed the operation as interdicting an attempt to transport the drugs *out of* Laos aboard the private aircraft. Malaysian police (Bukit Aman NCID) stated the drugs did not originate in Malaysia, were loaded in Laos, and were intended for the Manila market in the Philippines (not Malaysia). The charter was booked on 23 September for US$49,500 (~₱3.1 million), with the cargo declared as vape products for a Laos-to-Manila leg. The passenger boarded in Subang without carry-on luggage and told the crew he would collect baggage (vape products) in Laos before continuing to Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila. CGT Asia stated the luggage was not accepted for carriage or loaded onto the aircraft at LPQ; Lao authorities took control of it. The company has denied knowingly transporting narcotics and is cooperating.
The aircraft remains under Lao control as evidence. No further major public updates from Lao authorities on charging decisions, forensic results on the methamphetamine origin within the Golden Triangle, or release of detainees were detailed in available reporting as of 15 October 2026. Coordination with Malaysian and Philippine counterparts is ongoing.
Follow-up on pursuit of the financier / charter arranger
Philippine authorities (PDEA and NBI) identify the primary arranger/financier as a Filipino known by the alias “Boyet,” who allegedly arranged and paid for the charter via bank transfer. Boyet is described as linked to a Davao-based network affiliated with the Samgor (Sam Gor) transnational syndicate, with operational ties and possible front businesses in Mindanao used for laundering and distribution. He reportedly left the Philippines for Hong Kong shortly before (or around the time of) the Laos interdiction and remains at large. PDEA has confirmed bank-transfer data linking him to the arrested passenger Fahad (both reportedly share Luzon addresses in addition to Fahad’s Marawi ties). NBI announced on 14–15 October that it has identified at least 10 persons and entities of interest in the Philippines and is coordinating with PDEA and foreign partners to pursue all those responsible.
Malaysian updates (NCID, as of 13–14 October) provide additional descriptors of the charterer: a 54-year-old Filipino man, a former pilot with a prior drug-related criminal record in the Philippines, who rented the aircraft. A 51-year-old Filipino woman is described as the syndicate’s coordinator. Malaysian investigators recorded statements from a Malaysian broker who helped arrange the charter and from owners/operators of the private aviation company; some individuals linked to the firm were briefly detained in Subang and later released after statements. NCID is handling the case under provisions relating to abetment or preparation in Malaysia for drug trafficking abroad and is working closely with the Philippine PDEA and Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry.
No official public identification equates “Boyet” precisely with the 54-year-old former pilot, nor has any source confirmed the circulating claim of a named “Mindanao politician” as the ultimate financier. PDEA continues to emphasize the Mindanao/Davao–Samgor nexus and is tracing recipients and distributors in the Philippines. The investigation remains multi-jurisdictional (Laos–Malaysia–Philippines, with intelligence sharing), focused on financial trails, beneficial ownership of the charter, and the broader network. Boyet’s location in the Hong Kong area and the identities of higher-level financiers or political facilitators (if any) have not been publicly resolved as of the latest reports.
Latest status on “Boyet” (as of 15 October 2026)
There are no confirmed public updates indicating that the individual known by the alias “Boyet” has been located, arrested, or extradited from Hong Kong. Philippine authorities continue to describe him as having left the Philippines for Hong Kong and remaining at large.
Key points from the most recent reporting:
- PDEA Director General Isagani Nerez and subsequent agency statements (from around 12–14 October) state that Boyet, the suspected primary handler who arranged and paid for the US$49,500 charter of Learjet N73GP via bank transfer, departed the Philippines for Hong Kong. Timing descriptions vary slightly across reports (“two days prior to the Laos raid,” “a day before the operation,” or specifically referencing a flight around 10 October), but the consistent claim is that he left before Philippine investigators fully identified him in connection with the 1 October interdiction.
- He is described as linked to a Davao-/Mindanao-based network affiliated with the Samgor (Sam Gor) syndicate, already on a PDEA watchlist, and sharing Luzon address connections with the arrested passenger Dibaroson Fahad (alias Fahad/Fajad). Bank-transfer evidence is cited as linking the two.
- On 14–15 October, the NBI announced it had identified at least 10 persons and entities of interest in the Philippines tied to the attempted shipment. NBI Director Melvin Matibag confirmed ongoing validation and coordination with PDEA and foreign counterparts but declined to name individuals and stated the bureau did not yet have solid findings on specific syndicate links. Reports note that the NBI has not publicly confirmed whether Boyet is among the 10 POIs.
- PDEA has indicated it is coordinating with foreign counterparts (including in Hong Kong) to continue tracking him. No details have been released on any formal request for assistance, mutual legal assistance treaty action, or confirmation of his current whereabouts beyond the initial Hong Kong destination.
In short, as of the latest available statements (through 15 October 2026), Boyet remains a wanted person of interest believed to have fled to Hong Kong, with the multi-agency investigation (PDEA–NBI plus international partners) still focused on financial trails, associates, and locating him. No arrest or further location update has been publicly reported.I dug specifically into the Malaysian reporting and the “Boyet” identifier. The evidence currently supports a distinction that is important here:
What Malaysian police actually identified
The relevant Malaysian police official is Datuk Hussein Omar Khan, director of the Bukit Aman Narcotics Crime Investigation Department (NCID). In his October 13–14 statements, Malaysian police said:
- A 54-year-old Filipino man, described as a former pilot with a drug-related criminal record in the Philippines, chartered the Malaysian private aircraft.
- A Malaysian intermediary/broker arranged the aircraft rental.
- The aircraft was booked on September 23 for US$49,500.
- It departed Subang without the drugs and subsequently went to Luang Prabang, Laos, where 521 kg of suspected methamphetamine was discovered in 23 bags.
- Malaysian police said the drugs were believed destined for Manila, not Malaysia.
- Malaysian NCID is investigating the matter under Sections 34 and 39B of Malaysia's Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 and is coordinating with Philippine authorities.
The important point is that Malaysian police have not publicly named the 54-year-old man in the statements I can locate. The Malaysian reporting continues to describe him as a Filipino former pilot.
Where “Boyet” enters the picture
The Boyet identifier comes from the Philippine side, specifically PDEA, rather than from the Malaysian police statement itself.
PDEA Director General Isagani Nerez said investigators were tracking a Filipino known by the alias “Boyet,” who allegedly arranged the charter of the aircraft. PDEA said:
- Boyet allegedly paid for the private-jet charter by bank transfer.
- PDEA already had Boyet on its watchlist because of suspected connections to a drug-trafficking group.
- Boyet allegedly has a Luzon connection/address.
- Investigators found a connection between Boyet and “Fahad”, the Filipino detained in Laos.
- Boyet reportedly left the Philippines for Hong Kong shortly before authorities could act on the information identifying him.
Philippine reporting is therefore increasingly treating “Boyet” as the person who financed/arranged the charter. But that does not yet establish from the public Malaysian police statements that “Boyet” and the 54-year-old former pilot are definitely the same person.
That distinction matters.
The strongest current identification
The available reporting produces this evidentiary chain:
Malaysian police:54-year-old Filipino → former pilot → prior drug-related record → chartered the jet → US$49,500⬇
PDEA:“Boyet” → Filipino → allegedly arranged/paid for the jet → already on PDEA watchlist → linked through financial/intelligence information to “Fahad” → reportedly fled to Hong KongThere is a very strong apparent overlap, especially because both descriptions concern the Filipino who arranged the aircraft. But I would presently characterize the equation
54-year-old former pilot = “Boyet”
as an emerging identification reported by Philippine investigators/media, not an identity explicitly confirmed in the Malaysian police statement.
One correction to the earlier answer
I also need to correct something from my previous response: I described the shipment as 52 kg. The Malaysian and Philippine reports indicate the actual seizure was 521 kg of suspected methamphetamine, with an estimated Philippine street value of about ₱3.54 billion.
And there is another intriguing detail: PDEA's reporting says Boyet allegedly paid through bank transfer, which potentially gives investigators an unusually concrete financial trail rather than merely an intelligence alias.
Bottom line: I cannot responsibly give you a full legal name for “Boyet” at this point. The Malaysian police material I found does not publish it, and the Philippine authorities are still publicly using the alias. Naming a specific person beyond that would require evidence from an official disclosure, court document, arrest record, or another highly reliable source.I followed the Malaysian trail specifically through the Bukit Aman/Narcotics Crime Investigation Department (NCID) statements and the reporting based directly on those statements. The result is more precise than the earlier reconstruction.
What the Malaysian flight record actually establishes
The most important Malaysian statement is NCID director Datuk Hussein Omar Khan's October 9 briefing, reported by Bernama. Police said the private-jet booking was made on September 23 by a Filipino national for US$49,500 (RM202,356). The proposed itinerary was Laos → Manila, with the cargo described on the manifest as vape products. Crucially, Hussein explicitly said Malaysian investigators obtained the cargo declaration from the manifest secured at Subang and information from Lao authorities.
That means there really is a documentary trail behind the Malaysian investigation: this is not merely police reconstructing the charter from passenger recollections. There was a manifest/documentary record at Subang identifying the declared cargo and the charter arrangement.
The same statement says the Filipino charterer apparently used the aviation company's services for the first time, choosing it because it offered the lowest price for the route. The operator had two aircraft based at Subang and had only begun offering the service in July 2026.
But here is the crucial problem: the Malaysian police have not published his name
Despite the existence of the manifest, Bernama's account does not disclose the Filipino charterer's name. It says police were gathering further information about him and had passed what they had to PDEA to help locate him.
This is important because it prevents us from saying that the manifest itself publicly identifies “Boyet.”
What the later Malaysian police statement adds is that the charterer was a 54-year-old Filipino former pilot with a drug-related criminal record in the Philippines. Police also identified a 51-year-old Filipino woman believed to have acted as the syndicate coordinator.
So the Malaysian evidentiary description has now become:
Filipino → 54 years old → former pilot → prior drug-related record → chartered the jet → US$49,500 → September 23 booking → Laos-to-Manila itinerary.
But the legal name remains withheld publicly.
Where “Boyet” fits—and where it does not
The Philippine investigation independently identifies alias “Boyet” as the Filipino who allegedly arranged the private jet. PDEA Director General Isagani Nerez said Boyet was already on PDEA's watchlist and was believed to have connections to a drug group under surveillance. PDEA also said Boyet had a Luzon connection and reportedly travelled to Hong Kong.
More significantly, Philippine investigators now say they have identified the names and accounts used by the suspects. PDEA spokesperson Jean Fajardo/officials have indicated that investigators possess account information, while the NBI says it has identified at least 10 persons and entities of interest connected to the case.
That substantially changes the investigative picture.
It suggests that “Boyet” is not simply an unidentified street alias floating in intelligence reports. Philippine investigators appear to have underlying identity and financial information. But they have not publicly released the legal name, so I would not manufacture the identification from unofficial posts or attempt to infer it from the alias.
The strongest inference we can make
There are now two independently reported descriptions that appear highly likely to converge on the same operational role:
Malaysian investigation Philippine investigation 54-year-old Filipino Filipino alias “Boyet” Former pilot Alleged aircraft arranger Prior drug-related record Already on PDEA watchlist Chartered the aircraft Allegedly arranged the aircraft US$49,500 Allegedly paid/financed the US$49,500 charter Laos → Manila Laos → Philippines Information from Subang manifest PDEA possesses identity/account information The overlap is substantial. However, it remains an inference until Malaysian or Philippine authorities explicitly state that the 54-year-old former pilot and “Boyet” are the same individual.
And there is another reason for caution: an NBI report published today, October 15, says investigators have identified at least ten persons and entities of interest, but it does not publicly identify Boyet's legal name and does not confirm that Boyet is among those ten.
The “flight logbook” question
There is also a terminology issue worth correcting.
The Malaysian reporting refers specifically to a “manifest secured in Subang.” It does not say that police have released a pilot's flight logbook containing the charterer's name. The manifest is a cargo/flight document; it is not necessarily the pilot's personal logbook.
The public Malaysian evidence therefore presently supports three documentary layers:
1. Charter documentation — establishes the Filipino customer's booking and the US$49,500 transaction.
2. Subang manifest — records the declared cargo as vape products and is explicitly cited by Hussein as an investigative source.
3. Financial/account evidence — Philippine authorities now say they have information about the accounts used by the suspects, although the actual account-holder names have not been publicly released.
That third layer may ultimately be the decisive one.
Investigative conclusion
The most defensible reconstruction at this point is that the person Malaysian police describe as the 54-year-old Filipino former pilot is almost certainly the central chartering subject of the Malaysian investigation, while “Boyet” is the alias Philippine authorities have attached to the person they say arranged the aircraft.
But I would not yet publish the proposition as fact that “Boyet = [legal name]”, because the underlying Malaysian manifest has not been made public and neither PDEA nor NBI has released the person's full identity.
What has become considerably clearer is the money-and-logistics chain:
Filipino charterer → US$49,500 payment → Malaysian private-aviation company → Subang departure → empty aircraft → Luang Prabang → 23 bags loaded in Laos → 521 kg suspected methamphetamine → intended Manila market.
And the investigative significance of the former-pilot detail is greater than it initially appeared. It potentially places the unidentified Filipino not merely as a customer but as someone with specialized aviation knowledge, while the Malaysian police investigation is explicitly examining whether the Malaysian aviation operator was a participant or was itself exploited.
The next evidentiary breakthrough should therefore be the actual charter agreement, payment record, passenger manifest, and the identity/KYC documents supplied when the US$49,500 booking was made. Those documents should be capable of answering the question that the public reporting still cannot: Who, exactly, signed for the aircraft and whose bank account ultimately funded the charter?
Malaysian police have identified the charterer sufficiently to describe him as a 54-year-old Filipino former pilot, but they have not publicly released his name. Philippine authorities call their corresponding suspect “Boyet.” The evidence strongly suggests a possible identity convergence, but it has not yet been officially disclosed as such.
----
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
He has been active in the Philippine art scene since the late 1990s and has worked with galleries, museums, artist-run spaces, and international cultural organizations.His practice appears to represent several interconnected concerns:
Cultural work as artistic practice. Roldan has argued that the labor of curating, organizing exhibitions, teaching, documentation, and cultural administration should be understood as creative work rather than merely support work. This perspective has been reflected in his writings and exhibitions.
Social and political engagement. His artworks frequently address politics, religion, faith, denial, courage, social inequality, and the everyday experiences of Filipinos. He has stated that he draws inspiration from Filipino cultural practices while approaching painting, printmaking, and installation from a conceptual perspective.Printmaking and conceptual art. Roldan is particularly recognized for his printmaking, with works shown internationally, including exhibitions in Japan and France. His practice also encompasses painting, photography, installation, and curatorial research.International cultural exchange. A significant milestone in his career was receiving an Asian Cultural Council fellowship in 2003, which enabled him to undertake research and create work in the United States while engaging with artists and curators internationally.
More broadly, Roldan's work represents an attempt to bridge artistic production, curatorial practice, scholarship, and cultural activism . His writings often emphasize postcolonial discourse, cultural memory, and the ethics of artistic collaboration, positioning the artist not only as a maker of objects but also as a builder of cultural infrastructure.
In the Philippine contemporary art context, he can be understood as representing the figure of the artist-curator-cultural worker —someone who contributes both through making artworks and through developing exhibitions, mentoring artists, and fostering institutional and independent cultural initiatives.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Networkhttps://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/ChiTnSEl1VN/?stkn=MWhwZmV2ZWxvYjA1NA==
LanguageLoginCreate connection,Value conversation.For youWho we areMeet the teamICM cultureHow to applyStoriesContact usLanguageManage your cookie preferencesPrivacy & Cookie PoliciesTerms of useGlobal code of conduct & ethicsAll rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026***Disclaimer:This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility.The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments