The Philippine Senate just concluded its first hearing and deliberation on the proposed ₱500-million “Blockchain the Budget” Bill (Senate Bill No. 1330), igniting heated discussions and debate among the Web3 community.

Independent technologists and builders in the Web3 space are speaking out—not against blockchain itself, but against how it’s being approached in law. One of the voices from within the local development ecosystem is Eliezer Rabadon, a longtime blockchain engineer and education lead at Blockchain Council PH. For Rabadon, the primary concern is not whether blockchain can help improve transparency, but how it’s being framed and implemented.

“A lot of the criticisms are rooted in concerns about vendor lock-in, lack of neutrality, and unclear technical direction,” Rabadon says. “If the bill isn’t designed well, it could lead to monopolies or biased implementations that benefit a few players.”

A Call for Technical Clarity and Neutrality

While the bill emphasizes blockchain use for budget transparency, it remains vague on technical details. That, Rabadon warns, leaves too much room for misuse or misinterpretation.

“We need more than policy language,” he explains. “There should be a reference architecture or whitepaper at the very least—something the whole ecosystem can review, critique, and improve.”

He also recommends a Request for Proposal (RFP)-style framework for government adoption to ensure transparency and fairness in selecting vendors or solutions.

“That way, the process uses open standards and avoids locking into a single provider. The public needs assurance that the system will be open, interoperable, and community-vetted.”

₱500M Budget: Necessary or Overkill?

On the controversial half-a-billion-peso budget allocation proposed under the bill, Rabadon remains pragmatic.

“₱500M sounds massive on paper, but it depends entirely on how it’s spent,” he says. “If it goes toward building sustainable infrastructure—security audits, capacity-building, transparency tools—then it could be justified. But if it’s just for one-off pilots or consultancy, that’s a red flag.”

He stresses that budget transparency must apply to the implementation itself, not just to the system it aims to build.

Recommended Revisions to the Bill

Asked what changes he would propose to make the legislation more robust and future-ready, Rabadon outlines four key pillars:

1. Neutrality Clause
   No single vendor or platform should dominate the implementation.
2. Open Standards & Interoperability
   Systems must be cross-compatible and vendor-agnostic.
3. Transparency on Budget & Execution
   The public should see exactly how funds are allocated and spent.
4. Technical Working Group
   Involve builders, auditors, and civic stakeholders—not just policymakers.

“The bill can’t just be a buzzword law,” he adds. “It has to be functional, future-proof, and truly Filipino-led.”

Rabadon’s remarks highlight a grounded view that balances blockchain’s promise with an awareness of its limitations and risks.

His views align with a broader sector of local builders who want the Philippine government to adopt a measured, inclusive, and technically sound approach to digital public infrastructure. For them, the concern is not whether blockchain has value, but whether the systems being proposed actually serve the public good without hidden costs.

“The best thing the government can do is open the door to collaborative development where policy, tech, and civil society co-design the systems that will affect us all.”

‍

‍