The hidden danger in the government’s blockchain craze that nobody talks about

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

By Art Samaniego

I wasn’t surprised when, during a recent press conference on blockchain, only the host managed to ask questions. That silence spoke volumes. Too often, the government launches these kinds of initiatives without ensuring that the media, the very people tasked with explaining them to the public, truly understand what is being presented.

If government agencies want genuine engagement, they need to invite journalists who understand the issue into a dialogue, rather than staging a monologue.

Lawmakers across both chambers are rushing to make blockchain the next big reform. Senator Bam Aquino’s SB 1330 (“Blockchain the Budget Bill”) is already making headlines.

In the House, Rep. Javier Miguel “Javi” Benitez has filed House Bill 4380, and now Rep. Brian Poe-Llamanzares has joined the fray with House Bill 4489, proposing a National Budget Blockchain System that records every allocation and expenditure on a blockchain ledger.

Sounds revolutionary, right?

I am not against blockchain. Technology has a central role in modernizing government and expanding transparency.

However, turning “blockchain” into a political slogan, especially when it’s locked into a single provider or platform, is precisely when the promise shifts from reform to risk.

At its core, blockchain is a digital ledger. Each “block” bundles a set of transactions or records, in the case of bills filed, these are entries in the national budget (department, project, amount, date, recipient).

That block is digitally signed and securely linked to the previous ones, forming an immutable chain. Before a block is added, a set of validators (nodes) must agree that it is valid; once added, the record becomes very hard to erase or alter.

The appeal is clear: budget entries become permanent, auditable, and public. Journalists, civil society, or citizens could trace the path of a fund from allocation to completion (if appropriately recorded).

But here’s the catch: blockchain is blind to truth. It preserves what’s entered, but cannot verify whether it’s honest. If a padded project, ghost spending, or false invoice is uploaded, the system immortalizes the lie. Garbage in, permanent record out.

That’s the first danger: garbage in, permanent record out.

The second danger is subtler. There are existing government blockchain projects that don’t track processes as they happen. They only record the final document.

By the time a budget paper or contract is uploaded, the irregularities have already occurred, the bidding process has been rigged, the figures have been inflated, and the approvals have been secured. Blockchain then steps in only to timestamp the result.

It doesn’t reveal what happened before the document was created. It just gives a false sense of transparency after the fact.

Who controls the chain?

And then there are the validators. In theory, they are the ones who check records before adding them to the chain. But who are they? Which agency? Which company?

The real power in a blockchain system rests with whoever controls the validators. If a single agency or private provider controls who becomes a validator, decentralization collapses. Rules can be changed behind closed doors. Access can be restricted.

If a private firm offers the government a “free” proprietary blockchain solution, that is not generosity. That is control. The provider effectively determines who is authorized to validate entries, how the system’s rules can be modified, and whether hidden backdoors exist.

In the end, the survival of the entire chain depends on the company’s decisions, not public oversight.

That isn’t transparency. That’s centralization with a new face.

Blockchain is not a silver bullet

Let’s be clear. Blockchain can make cover-ups harder. It can create audit trails. It can make it obvious when someone tries to alter records.

But it cannot detect collusion. It cannot expose ghost projects hidden in plain sight. It cannot replace auditors, whistleblowers, or independent oversight.

Blockchain is a tool. Nothing more. It can be used for transparency. It can also be used as political cover, a shiny buzzword to distract from the fact that the old problems remain.

Questions journalists should ask

So the next time a lawmaker says “my blockchain bill will stop corruption,” ask:

Who runs the validator nodes — government agencies, independent watchdogs, or private firms?

Is the system open to public scrutiny, or hidden behind restricted interfaces?

How is data verified before it enters the chain?

Does the system record only after-the-fact documents, or does it track the process in real time?

Who benefits from adopting a proprietary solution?

Let me repeat it: I am pro-technology. Blockchain has potential. But let’s not confuse permanence with honesty.

If the budget is dirty before it’s uploaded, the blockchain will not clean it. It will only lock it in forever.

And that, if we’re not careful, is the opposite of transparency.