Wazzup Pilipinas!?
A senator has proposed using blockchain to manage budget allocations from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). On the surface, it’s being hailed as a bold leap into digital governance. But scratch that glossy surface, and you’ll find a hollow core — one that risks becoming nothing more than transparency theater at the expense of the people.
The Sales Pitch vs. The Reality
Blockchain advocates frame it as incorruptible. They tell us it’s immutable, secure, and decentralized — the perfect cure for corruption. But here’s the inconvenient truth: corruption is not a technological bug, it’s a governance disease.
You can put a rotten system on the blockchain, and all you’ll have is a highly sophisticated way of recording the rot forever.
Just ask the World Bank. In a 2023 report, the institution cautioned that while blockchain could enhance transparency in certain sectors, “technology alone cannot solve governance weaknesses.” The failures of blockchain-based land registries in Honduras and Sierra Leone prove that without political will and institutional reform, the ledger is meaningless.
Misunderstanding the Tech
What worries experts is that politicians treat blockchain like a shiny Excel upgrade. It’s not. It’s a verification system that only works if independent nodes validate every transaction.
So, key questions remain unanswered:
Who runs the nodes — government offices, private firms, or international validators?
If this is public money, will it run on a public blockchain or a tightly controlled private one?
If it’s private, where’s the transparency? If it’s public, how do we protect sensitive data from being exploited?
So far, there’s no white paper, no technical framework, and no governance model. Without these, this proposal looks dangerously close to a buzzword smokescreen.
Immutability ≠ Security
Blockchain’s biggest selling point is immutability: data, once entered, can’t be altered. But immutability doesn’t guarantee accuracy. Wrong numbers will still be wrong, only now they’re wrong permanently.
Consider this: In 2022, the city of Austin, Texas, scrapped a blockchain voting pilot after cybersecurity experts warned that immutability meant errors or hacks would be irreversible. If a world-class tech hub backed away, why would we gamble public finances on it?
The Cost Nobody Talks About
Blockchain isn’t free. Every transaction carries computational costs — known as gas fees — and the larger the network, the higher the energy demand. A single Ethereum transaction can use as much electricity as an average household in a day.
So, who’s paying for this? The taxpayer? And is this really more efficient than existing, cheaper auditing systems? Or are we being sold “expensive transparency” with no guarantees of cleaner governance?
Global Lessons We Refuse to Learn
Success Story: Estonia’s blockchain-backed governance works — but only after decades of building digital ID systems, strict data laws, and ironclad trust in public institutions.
Failure Story: In Sierra Leone, a blockchain-based election project collapsed after officials admitted the system was poorly understood and lacked safeguards.
The pattern is clear: blockchain succeeds only when governments already have a culture of accountability. Where corruption thrives, blockchain becomes nothing more than a fancy digital facade.
The Verdict
If this senator truly believes in blockchain for governance, then transparency starts with him:
Publish the white paper.
Explain the governance model.
Disclose costs, risks, and fallback mechanisms.
Identify who controls the nodes.
Until then, this isn’t innovation. It’s misdirection dressed up as modernity.
Because no matter how advanced the algorithm, no technology can replace political will. And in the fight against corruption, the strongest ledger is still public accountability — not a blockchain built on buzzwords.

Ross is known as the Pambansang Blogger ng Pilipinas - An Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Professional by profession and a Social Media Evangelist by heart.
Post a Comment