YesDominance by blockchain in public administration is becoming institutionalized. Within a few weeks of each other, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Supreme Court (SC) have all announced their own blockchain initiatives.
However, I worry that this government use of blockchain technology is creating expectations that do not consider the possibility of failure if the infrastructure is weak. And by baseline, I refer to the pillars of policy and regulatory environment as well as law, audit, energy and human capacity.
Blockchain technology is a digital system for recording and verifying information that is shared across multiple computers linked together, rather than stored in a single location. Each new record, called a block, is linked to the previous record, forming a chain that cannot be easily changed.
In short, the blockchain is a “public notebook” that everyone can see and verify, and which no one can secretly erase or rewrite. Each page or block is filled out, signed, and time-stamped before the next page is added. And any attempt to tamper with the records leaves visible evidence.
While current government documentation, recording, audits, and legal processes remain largely consistent, information written on physical documents cannot be easily accessed and can be lost, altered, or destroyed. It is logical to transfer government documentation from paper to digital systems.
Blockchain promises immutable records, time-stamped transactions, and public visibility. These appear to be features that are designed to prevent manipulation and corruption. But like every reform that combines technology with bureaucracy, success will depend on compliance. The more important question is whether blockchain in governance can pass the test of law, audit and sustainability.
DPWH's Integrity Chain initiative aims to use blockchain to document and track infrastructure projects, from budgeting and procurement to construction milestones. The SEC's Veritas system will authenticate corporate filings such as articles of incorporation and financial statements, giving digital documents the same legal force as notarized papers. SC will secure court records through a blockchain-supported records management system.
All three initiatives attempt to address a persistent weakness in governance: the threat of falsification of records. Blockchain, once a technological buzzword, is now entering the bureaucratic bloodstream. And that, to me, increases the danger, especially because these programs will affect millions of people.
For the DPWH, blockchain promises a tamper-proof project ledger to prevent ghost projects, fake inspections, or duplicate or fraudulent payments. For the SEC, this ensures that corporate filings are verifiable, resistant to counterfeiting, and traceable to their legitimate origin. For the SC, this means that court orders, pleas and judgments can be digitally certified without fear of alteration.
These efforts have a common goal: to create an immutable chain of trust over how the government handles documents. But they also share a common challenge: Blockchain records must be legally recognized as official, audit-admissible, and court-admissible documents, not merely digital copies of written documents.
Until that recognition is made explicit, with a clear basis in law, these ledgers cannot have legal significance. If a dispute arises between a contractor and the DPWH, or if a plaintiff challenges the court record, it remains uncertain whether the blockchain entry itself is an “official record” or merely a certified digital copy. Without formal recognition, the technology may promise integrity while still relying on paper for legitimacy.
Legally, some grounds already exist. The Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (RA 8792) recognizes electronic records and signatures, giving agencies the authority to digitize official transactions. However, this law even predates blockchain. It only validates the data message, but not the distributed ledger (blockchain) it is intended to store.
In fact, RA 8792 opens the door, but agencies like the DPWH, SEC, and the Supreme Court still have to cross the threshold by formally declaring blockchain entries as official government records that are audit-admissible, court-admissible, and covered by public sector accountability laws. To be safe, I believe we should codify the use of blockchain ledgers for government records.
RA 8792 could serve as a starting point for legal recognition of blockchain-based systems. This may be the legal key that unlocks digital transformation, but I do not think it can be the definitive framework governing it. The law did not anticipate decentralized verification or consensus mechanisms involving networked computers as data repositories.
Furthermore, it does not appear that RA 8792 automatically confers “official record” status on blockchain entries for audit or evidence purposes. And while RA 8792 authorizes e-transactions, it does not create a central body to coordinate blockchain deployment across agencies. It also lacks provisions for energy resilience, cyber security and connectivity for digital operations and continuous availability of power.
For blockchain to work in governance, there must be formal recognition of blockchain entries as government records under evidence, audit, and record-retention laws. The SEC appears to be emphasizing this principle by giving blockchain-verified documents the same effect as notarized filings. A dedicated national law could institutionalize this approach so that agencies do not have to rely on piecemeal circulars for different agencies.
Legal recognition through legislation will protect agencies and assure citizens and investors that what they see on any official blockchain ledger is binding, acceptable, and enforceable. Without this, blockchain risks becoming a transparency showcase rather than a true governance system.
Another concern is that blockchain systems demand reliable power, secure data centers, and persistent network access. Yet many regional government offices still suffer from unstable electricity and poor connectivity. Do we have the trustless infrastructure needed to effectively and efficiently employ blockchain technology in public administration?
A blockchain-based filing system or project ledger may not function if the servers hosting it go dark during a brownout, or if provincial data centers fail to synchronize data due to limited bandwidth. In the private sector, downtime is a nuisance. But in government, it can stop transactions, delay payments, or even block justice.
The bigger risk is that we are building important digital platforms on fragile physical foundations. Blockchain may promise indestructible records, but only if power and connectivity are equally reliable. The ledger may secure the data, but who secures the grid?
Every aspect of blockchain operation depends on uninterrupted power. As more government functions move online, from procurement to business registration to court records management, public sector performance will increasingly depend on the reliability of the energy sector and the strength of its digital backbone. Energy and IT security are prerequisites for governance integrity.
I am also concerned that DPWH, SEC, SC, and possibly other agencies are adopting blockchain independently, without any unified plan. This risks creating separate chains that cannot communicate with each other, or that operate with parallel but incompatible standards. A law on blockchain governance should therefore provide a national framework with unified standards and clear public oversight.
Such a framework should include a needs assessment to determine where blockchain truly adds value; standards for verification, interoperability, cybersecurity, and data sovereignty; compliance with procurement and privacy laws; Legal basis for recognizing blockchain-recorded data as official and enforceable; Promote greater investment in energy efficiency, data centers and reliable networks to complement blockchain adoption; and, integration and interoperability between agencies with a single point of monitoring for governance, audit and maintenance.
The use of blockchain-secured records points toward a digital republic that could make corruption harder and accountability easier. But policymakers first need to understand what the technology actually does. Without clear legal authority, blockchain records are merely digital references. And without reliable power and connectivity, they will remain government electronic filing systems, which, ironically, oftenFloridaine.
Marvin is the former managing editor of Tort businessworldand former chairman of the Philippine Press Council
matort@yahoo.com
