There is an ongoing debate, mostly among tech enthusiasts, precipitated by SB 1330, also known as the Blockchain the Budget Bill, filed by Senator Bam Aquino. At least for now, discussions about artificial intelligence have died down somewhat.

We all know that the filing of the bill comes as an aftermath of the current corruption mess the government is embroiled in, which has affected how citizens view the bureaucracy these days. Most of us no longer know who in government we can trust. Even well-meaning and idealistic public servants can sometimes fall prey to the social cancer of corruption.

At the heart of good governance lies trust. Citizens must believe that their leaders are managing resources fairly, delivering services honestly, and making decisions in the public’s best interest. When trust erodes, corruption thrives, and democracy weakens. Technologies, including blockchain, with its promise of transparency and immutability, offer governments a powerful tool to rebuild that trust. But should laws mandate specific technologies in the first place?

Yes, blockchain, among the available technologies today, has great potential to minimize corruption in government. Imagine living in a society where every peso of public funds, every government contract, and every land title can be traced in real-time by citizens. No hidden deals, no “missing” budgets, no falsified records—just a transparent system where accountability is built into the very fabric of governance. This vision may sound idealistic, but blockchain technology can make it a reality. In fact, blockchain is now being used by the Department of Budget and Management to save Special Allotment Release orders.

Blockchain can be complicated enough to make it difficult for everyone to understand what it is all about. Several articles have attempted to explain what it is all about in layman's terms. I actually prompted a popular GenAI tool to explain the blockchain concept to a Grade 10 student. And here is the reply:

“Think of blockchain as a digital notebook that everyone can see, but no one can erase or secretly change. Every time something happens (like money being sent, a contract signed, or a record updated), it’s written down in this notebook. Instead of one person keeping the notebook, thousands of people have the same copy. If someone tries to cheat and change a page, everyone else’s copy will show the truth—so the cheat gets caught.”

Traditional systems often rely on centralized authorities to maintain records, but these can be tampered with or hidden from public view. Blockchain changes the equation. By creating a shared, tamper-proof ledger of transactions, blockchain ensures that once information is recorded, it cannot be altered without leaving a clear and identifiable trace. This means government spending, procurement, and public records can be monitored openly, reducing opportunities for corruption and restoring confidence in institutions.

Will the use of blockchain completely eliminate corruption? I posit that the answer is no! Corruption is not just a technical flaw—it is also cultural, institutional, and political. It is also about establishing the correct data at the very start. If corrupt officials upload false data, the blockchain will only preserve those lies immutably. The immediate passage of the Freedom of Information Bill can help make things more transparent.

This brings me back to my question: Should laws mandate the use of specific technologies? Yes, laws can push the adoption of technologies that serve the common good and reduce opportunities for fraud and corruption. But any law that mandates a specific tool may lock governments into outdated systems. It can also unfairly give one company or industry an unfair advantage, raising concerns about competition. Additionally, different regions or agencies may require alternative solutions; one-size-fits-all mandates can be inefficient.

I am with those who believe that instead of mandating specific technologies, laws should mandate standards, outcomes, or principles. If laws prescribe how to achieve a goal rather than what the goal is, they may discourage creative solutions. I go with the suggestion to require government data to be stored in a tamper-proof and auditable system—but leave it open to any technology, whether that is blockchain, another distributed ledger, or a future innovation. This way, laws encourage innovation while still protecting public interests.

Corruption is not just a financial crime—it is a betrayal of public trust. Yes, the future of governance lies in combining technology with integrity. Blockchain may not be a silver bullet, but it can be a powerful shield against corruption. However, mandating its use in a law may not be the best approach.

Laws work best when they set clear goals and establish guardrails (such as transparency, safety, or accountability) rather than locking society into a single specific technology. Mandates can be helpful in critical areas, but flexibility ensures that as technology evolves, society can evolve with it.