Ann Cuisia is a Filipino technology entrepreneur and blockchain advocate with over 20 years of experience in financial technology and digital transformation. She is the Founder and CEO of TraXion Tech, focusing on Web3 and blockchain innovations to enhance financial inclusion. Cuisia is recognized as a Blockchain Champion at the Philippine Block Awards and plays a key role in promoting blockchain and fintech solutions in the Philippines.

Her notable projects include digiCOOP, the first digital cooperative platform in the country, which provides digital banking and financial services to cooperative members, and Gava, a crowdfunding platform for social causes. Additionally, she leads the Kadena Hub, a blockchain accelerator in Mindanao, and participates in organizations like Concerned Doctors and Citizens of the Philippines (CDC PH), contributing to technology-driven national development efforts.

Below is a feature by her on online Filipino identity.

I understand why the government wants to act.

Anyone who spends even a little time online knows the damage that scams, fake accounts, and coordinated disinformation can do. Filipinos lose money to online fraud every day. Public discourse is polluted by bots and manufactured outrage. Children are exposed to harm. These are not imagined problems. They are real, and they deserve serious solutions.

That is why I see the intention behind the proposed policy on mandatory identity verification for social media accounts. The goal is accountability. The goal is safety. The goal is a healthier digital public space. As someone who works in technology and cares deeply about this country, I respect that impulse.

But intention is not the same as outcome.

The moment we require identity verification as a condition to speak online, we change the nature of that space. Social media is no longer just entertainment. It is where citizens criticize the government, report abuses, organize relief, and speak when no one else will listen. Requiring people to register their identity before they can participate, even if their real name is hidden from the public, creates hesitation. And hesitation is often enough to silence the people who most need protection.

We should be honest about this. Pseudonyms are not the same as anonymity. Knowing that your identity exists in a database, linked to your speech, changes behavior. It discourages whistleblowers. It chills dissent. It makes ordinary citizens think twice before speaking about powerful interests. These are not edge cases. They are part of our democratic tradition.

There is also a legal reality we cannot ignore. Policies that affect free expression face the highest level of scrutiny. Unlike SIM registration, which was debated and passed by Congress, this proposal relies on administrative authority alone. Courts are unlikely to accept a system that places a blanket condition on participation in a modern public forum without clear legislative backing.

Still, the answer is not to do nothing.

We can protect Filipinos online without treating identity as an entry fee to speech. A smarter approach is possible, and it is already used in many parts of the digital world.

Instead of forcing verification on everyone, we should adopt a risk based framework. Ordinary users should be free to speak anonymously or under a pseudonym by default. Verification should be required only in higher risk situations. These include accounts that run paid political ads, accounts that reach massive audiences, accounts that seek algorithmic amplification, or accounts flagged through due process for coordinated inauthentic behavior. This targets harm without burdening every citizen.

At the same time, platforms must be held accountable for their systems, not their users’ identities. Strong bot detection, transparency in political advertising, rapid takedown of scams, and cooperation with lawful court orders already give the government powerful tools. What matters is enforcement that is precise, proportional, and respectful of rights.

As a technologist, I know that collecting more data does not always make systems safer. As a Filipino, I know that freedom is rarely lost all at once. It is often lost through reasonable sounding rules that slowly narrow who feels safe enough to speak.

We should pause, refine, and narrow this policy. We should invite public debate and legislative participation. We should choose solutions that are strong enough to fight abuse but careful enough to protect the freedoms that define us.

We can have safer social media and free expression at the same time. We just need the humility to design policy that understands both technology and people.

Again, I don’t just criticize without a suggested solution in mind. Here is the outline of the proposed alternative policy for DICT’s consideration .

Title: Risk-Based and Rights-Preserving Framework for Account Verification in Social Media Platforms

To combat online fraud, bots, and coordinated inauthentic behavior without imposing blanket identity verification on all users, thereby preserving constitutional rights and minimizing legal risk.

1. Risk-Based Regulation

2. No Prior Condition to Speech

3. Preservation of Anonymous Expression

4. Data Minimization

5. Due Process–First Enforcement

A. Tiered Verification Model (Instead of Universal Verification)

Tier 1 – Unverified Accounts (Default)

No identity verification required

Full access to posting, commenting, and browsing

Pseudonymous and anonymous speech preserved

Tier 2 – Verified Accounts (Voluntary or Triggered)

Verification required only if:

Account engages in paid political advertising

Account reaches a defined reach/engagement threshold

Account is flagged through due process for coordinated inauthentic behavior

Account seeks algorithmic amplification privileges

Platforms must demonstrate robust bot-detection and moderation systems

DICT audits systems, not individual users

Focus on behavior, not identity

Identity disclosure only:

◦ Upon court order

◦ For specific accounts

◦ In active criminal investigations

No pre-emptive identity stockpiling

Enhanced safeguards for minors

Platform-based age assurance rather than universal identity linkage

Any move toward universal verification must be:

◦ Explicitly legislated by Congress

◦ Subject to public consultation

◦ Accompanied by sunset clauses and oversight mechanisms

Advantages of This Alternative

Constitutionally defensible

Technically feasible for platforms

Targets actual harms

Avoids chilling effects

Aligns with international best practice

At the end of the day, any disruptive policy should involve consultation from the public. We can only hope they start engaging communities like ours to be part of the conversation.