"Kalantiao at Lubluban" by National Artist Carlos "Botong" Francisco
In the last few weeks, the term Important Cultural Property (ICP) has become a subject of conversation. This began with a strong warning issued by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) in a letter sent to art and artefact resellers regarding items originating from Sofitel Philippine Plaza — or as it is widely known, the Sofitel Hotel.
In the letter, GSIS reiterated the hotel's classification as an ICP, as well as its ownership of "all improvements, including chandeliers, bannisters, railings and all important properties."
The situation stemmed from the termination of Sofitel Hotel's contract with GSIS, which owns the land on which the hotel stands, in April 2026, resulting in the forfeiture of all improvements in favor of GSIS.
As such, the removal of attachments, fixtures, and accessories from a structure classified as an ICP may carry criminal liability. GSIS went further by asking recipients to notify them should they come across any of the objects previously described.
While GSIS has sought to protect the Sofitel Hotel's ICP classification, a separate petition has called for the lifting of the presumed ICP classification of "Kalantiao and Lubluban," a painting by National Artist Carlos "Botong" Francisco.
In a social media post last September 14, the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) announced the petition, and invited the public to submit their views before the September 30 deadline.
A portrait of Botong FranciscoThe petition was filed to pave the way for the artwork's sale and transfer to the National Gallery of Singapore.
But before that, the petition should be able to support the grounds for lifting the ICP presumption, which are as follows: That "Kalantiao and Lubluban" is not an important cultural Property as defined by the IRR, or RA10066, or NCCA Resolution No. 2017-309; that the artwork has no cultural, artistic or historical significance to the Philippines; that it was never declared as an ICP in accordance with Republic Act. No. 11961; and that its sale and export will not deplete the prevalence of Francisco's works in the Philippines, nor diminish its cultural patrimony.
This prompted arguments both for and against the proposed delisting, online and, among cultural circles, privately. Before making a hasty comment on the matter, it might be good to read up first on the petition here.
Completed in 1946, the painting depicts two lawmakers: Kalantiao, a figure later established as a fabrication by José E. Marco, and exposed as a hoax in the late 1960s; and Lubluban, a pre-colonial Visayan lawgiver documented by Miguel de Loarca, the Spanish conquistador and chronicler who recorded the life and customs of the Philippines in the 16th century.
Among those approached for this story, many were either unaware of the issue, did not want to get involved, were too busy, or simply did not care.
"Wala akong paki, sa totoo lang."
"Sorry, I have nothing to say because I am not aware of the issue."
"Sino owner? Ay, no comment!"
"I will be working with those people. Sorry."
"I would rather not be included in the conversation."
"We're kinda busy these days."
But those who agreed to be interviewed — artists Lena Cobangbang, James Clar, Lynyrd Paras, Cian Dayrit, and National Artist Kidlat Tahimik — gamely shared their views, while artist Karl Castro submitted a formal opposition to the proposed delisting.
"Ano pa ang sasabihin ko na wala dun sa petition ko?" Castro asked. Indeed, he has composed a comprehensive argument against the delisting, which he posted on his Facebook page. You can read about his comprehensive argument opposing the petition here.
And so, the interviewees considered the four grounds specified in the petition, beginning with its central claim that the painting is not an Important Cultural Property (as stated by an independent curator and historian, an art conservator and restorer, and an art critic and artist), and the supporting argument that "Kalantiao at Lubluban" has no cultural, artistic, or historical significance to the country.
Castro takes issue with the rules cited by the petitioner. In his opposition, he writes: "Presumption of importance is framed in a way that undermines the very intent of presumption."
"Section 5 of RA 10066 and Section 3 (ii) of RA 11961 are not administrative footnotes. They exist because asking whether a specific painting is 'nationally significant enough' is not a question with a stable answer; it depends on who is asked, when, and under what context. The law's response to that instability was to build in a default: National Artist and Gawad sa Manlilikha ng Bayan works are Important Cultural Property unless the Commission itself declares otherwise. The burden was placed on the state to make an affirmative case for delisting, not on the public to keep re-proving significance every time someone wants to sell."
National Artist Kidlat Tahimik
National Artist Kidlat Tahimik, on the other hand, offers a personal assessment of the work.
"I'm not going to make a judgment whether it's important or not," he says. "Siguro ang importante, does it speak to me? 'Yung puso ko ba ay medyo nagre-react dun? I think, yeah, it's a good work of art, but I can't really say if it’s important. And kung ang pinag-uusapan ay relative, in relation to other Botong works, that's really a very subjective decision, no?"
He went on to explain why he appreciated the painting on a "personal level," describing "Kalantiao and Lubluban" as one of Francisco's "more quiet" works that nevertheless touched him.
"But I only saw it yesterday. Hindi ko siya maja-judge."
Another point raised online by some supporters of the petition concerns the subject matter itself — particularly the fabricated Kalantiao. For the artists interviewed, however, the fact that the figure was later debunked does not diminish the painting's significance as a work of art.
"Importante 'yung intent nung artist," said Cobangbang. "We have to also know the context or the time when Botong painted it. Ano 'yung thinking niya, why he painted this at a particular period. That was after the war, magulo pa ang Philippines. There was probably this wish for order."
While she was familiar with the story of the Kalantiao hoax, the painting also brought to light a mythological figure she herself had not previously encountered.
"Maganda 'yung juxtapositioning, maski na fake si Kalantiao. The first lawmaker in the Visayas is a woman. Ang galing!"
Kidlat Tahimik echoes the sentiment, recalling a comment he encountered in an online post about the painting.
"It's a very simple comment," he said. "I love that it's a woman who endures… Pinagkukumpara 'yung significance ni Kalantiaw and Lubluban. It may be an important gender issue, but I think the fact that the two characters are of equal billing, parang pareho silang importante in that picture, and there's no over-dramatization of the male hero or the heroic act… that's why I like the work."
Kidlat Tahimik continued: "Whether or not na-debunk 'yung [Kalantiao myth], whether or not involved sa isang scam 'yung opinion about Kalantiaw Code, I think irrelevant 'yon. It’s a work of art and whether intentionally or unconsciously, si Botong painted the Kalantiao Datu, ang ganda pa rin tignan nitong work. And I like this argument na, the man and woman are equal, more or less, in spite of the controversy. For that reason, I would keep it in the country."
The story of Kalantiao's origins also takes the discussion back to the circumstances surrounding its creation by José E. Marco in 1913. "Bakit sila nagfe-fake?" Cobangbang asks, hypothesizing that perhaps there was "money to be made in the trade in historical documents back then." Or that, in a patriarchal society, there may have been a desire to create a male counterpart to Lubluban.
"Even if Botong knew it was false, it's kinda like you’re creating a belief, an idea or a mythology," Clar said, pointing to the emergence of Kalantiao in the early years after Spanish colonization and the post-war atmosphere in which Kalantiao and Lubluban was painted.
"Myths can unite people," he continued.
Reflecting on what the painting might mean to today's generation, Clar added: "A work can contribute to a national understanding even if it's exposing certain contradictions or mistaken beliefs."
Paras sees a parallelism between the painting and the present scenario. "Ang lakas ng pyesa na 'Kalantiao at Lubluban' para sa 'kin, na pininta taong 1946 at tungkol ito sa batas. Ngayong 2026 pinagtatalunan ang pyesa na ito gamit din ang batas. 'Yan ang obra, batas na makikita sa lumang pyesa gamit ang pintura na kumunekta sa batas ngayon, at sa makabagong pamamaraan ng mundo sa pagsasalita. Kaalaman, opinyon, at damdamin ang nilalabas nating lahat."
What appears glaringly clear, however, is the contradiction within the petition itself.
"Bakit contradicting dun sa mga sinasabi ng mga nauna?" Cobangbang asked. "While they're all trying to justify 'yung pag-void ng significance ng painting, and with shallow reasoning, the chief proponent for its sale and transfer to a Singapore museum, who is a curator, is practically saying the opposite. Parang he is saying, 'Hindi, significant ito.' Kaya nga namin isasama dito [sa Singapore museum]. Dun pa lang, weak na 'yung petition."
Clar agreed, adding: "What’s interesting is that the Singapore museum is arguing about its importance in the context of Philippine modernism. And that it should be in their hands to archive it. But then at the same time, the petitioner is arguing that it is not important."
"Tsaka sino ang magsasabi na insignificant?" Cobangbang asked. "Ano ang qualifications, guidelines? Actually, pampagulo 'yung presumption. Sana either yes or no, wala nang presumption. Siguro, hindi significant 'yung mga painting ng mga flowers, ng mga tasa, 'yung mga nudes. 'Yung mga papahid-pahid lang. Kailangan talaga may certain board, na hindi lang all government, at well-represented with artists, people from the academe, etc."
Add to that, according to Clar, transparency in the discussions and decision-making. "A lot of the cultural decisions are a bit opaque here," he observed. "Even like how they selected the artists for the National Pavilion in Venice. There is no transparency in terms of how that was selected; What were the judging criteria; Who were the judges. It's to everyone’s interest to understand how these things are judged and who makes the decisions."
And if everyone had the power to just veto the export, what would be their argument for it?
"I think in general we should not just allow works by significant artists basta-basta mawala sa ating bayan," said Kidlat Tahimik. "I think that's an important consideration. Pero once we start going into the criteria, since it involves a lot of subjectivity, and its clashing with precise protocols, dito nagkakahirap ang ating final judgment kung dapat ba o hindi lumabas ang trabaho."
Having exhibited around the world, Clar sees the importance of cultural exchange. He also observed the accelerated growth of the Philippine art scene.
Given that, he said that "Philippine audiences should have meaningful access to works that are important to our cultural history. And that's an important thing, even if it is going to be maintained by the National Gallery Singapore, which has more facilities to archive these works."
"But at the end of the day, it's gonna be held under a foreign institution," Clar continued. "So they're going to be the ones to determine when the work is shown, where the work is shown, how the work is shown. And that is something that should be built here. That's something that should be created locally."
A millennial requesting anonymity said that Francisco's work should be kept in the country, because it is part of our cultural capital. "If people want to see his work, they should come here."
Clar agreed: "How many people travel to Paris to see the Mona Lisa? Artworks can bring an audience from abroad also."
The issue also sheds light on the crucial role of government in protecting and stewarding the country’s cultural heritage — and in creating the systems, institutions and resources needed to make those responsibilities meaningful.
"The bigger question should be directed towards public funding for culture, arts, heritage, etc.," said Dayrit, "and the infrastructures around it like education and other basic social services. Because without support from the state, these things will just be a matter of rich people debating without considering the actual stake of the masses."
Dayrit is clear about his own position on "Kalantiao at Lubluban": "I want it to stay in the Philippines. But I want it on public platforms. Is this too much to ask?"
There is another heartfelt plea from Charlie Co, who underscores why the question of whether art is significant — or insignificant — should be considered carefully:
"Because our work is our soul."