Senate Bill No. 1330, popularly dubbed as “Blockchain the Budget Bill,” was filed on September 4, 2025 by Senator Bam Aquino. It proposes to mandate a blockchain system for recording, tracking, and auditing the national budget. Though the bill remains pending in committee, its introduction is already stirring heated debate over whether blockchain should be legislated as an essential tool for governance. 

Among the most notable voices raising caution is Ann Cuisia, a blockchain advocate and technology entrepreneur, whose long-standing involvement in digital finance and inclusion predates many of these pilots.

In a recent BusinessMirror op-ed, Cuisia outlines her reservations, not as a dismissal of blockchain, but as a critique of prescriptive policy; questioning how governments should approach innovation.

The Case for Technological Neutrality

Cuisia asserts that governments should define desired outcomes—such as transparency, accountability, and data security—rather than prescribing specific technologies like blockchain. Mandating blockchain in law, she argues, could inadvertently favor certain vendors or architectures, distorting market dynamics.

This point opens an important question: Should governments have full discretion in prescribing specific technologies for national systems? Even in the case of blockchain, despite being touted as a breakthrough for transparency and auditability. The rhetoric: is mandating it by law the best approach?

Cuisia warns that even well-intentioned mandates may backfire. Prescriptive policies can introduce “corruption vectors,” favoring certain vendors and approaches, regardless of merit. Her stance doesn’t reject blockchain outright, but she emphasizes that technology must prove itself through utility, not decree.

“I have the capability to deploy a blockchain system for national budget monitoring tomorrow,” Cuisia notes. “Yet I would refuse to do so if it were the result of a dictated policy. Because anyone who complies under such a mandate becomes complicit in eroding market integrity and technological neutrality.” Innovation, she argues, thrives best when multiple solutions compete to meet shared goals, not when a single technology is anointed by legislation. This, however, failed to recognize the absence of such competition in the first place, and how the very initiative in question seemed to be the first significant move stirring conversations among supporters and critics alike.

Who is Ann Cuisa?

Cuisia brings more than 25 years of experience in the IT and fintech space. As the CEO of TraXion, she was part of the first wave of Filipino blockchain ventures aiming to use decentralized systems for financial inclusion. TraXion’s front-facing business currently includes operating CTMs (Cash Teller Machines) to serve unbanked areas.

According to an article by Bitpinas back in 2018, the company launched the $TXN token during the 2018–2019 ICO boom and reportedly raised $2.6 million during its private sale phase. However, in an official statement from Ann Cuisa, most of the raised money has been refunded.

She also served in senior executive and digital transformation roles across both financial institutions and private companies. Recognized for her contributions in promoting financial technology and digital innovation in the Philippines, Cuisia has been a featured speaker in multiple fintech and blockchain forums, consistently advocating for responsible innovation, regulatory alignment, and inclusive financial systems.

The Risks of a Prescriptive Policy

Cuisia is also careful to acknowledge that the bill may have been introduced in good faith by policymakers advised by well-meaning technologists. However, she critiques the framing of blockchain as an absolute answer to government inefficiency and shouldn’t be normalized or validated by public applause:

“Blockchain is powerful—but it is not the be-all and end-all. What we need is outcome-based legislation: policies that enshrine transparency, auditability, and accountability as standards. Then let blockchain and other technologies compete to meet those standards.” She also added, “When the public endorses prescriptive policies, we normalize government intrusion into innovation. We erode neutrality, limit competition, and risk embedding favoritism into law.”

She also warns that legislating blockchain as the default solution introduces multiple risks: government overreach, market distortion, and even corruption—if technology mandates lead to preferred vendor arrangements. These are not unfounded fears. In global tech policy discourse, mandates have historically been criticized for locking public agencies into rigid, and sometimes inefficient, vendor ecosystems.

Far from dismissing the bill’s goals, she expressed preparedness to help refine it. In a separate statement shared via Peanut Gallery Media Network, Cuisia said:

“I hope to contribute to the refinement of the bill for more objective-based, rather than technology-based [legislation]. A draft of the refined version is already prepared, should our lawmakers be open to considering an alternative proposition.”

This is a notable expression of both willingness and capability to collaborate—emphasizing that the debate is not about resistance to blockchain, but about preserving competitive neutrality and institutional trust.

Cuisia also challenges one of the most common selling points of blockchain: immutability. While blockchain achieves this through cryptography and distributed consensus, she argues that traditional accounting systems already embody immutability through time-tested methods like double-entry bookkeeping. “To say ‘we must use blockchain because it is immutable’ misunderstands both history and technology,” she says.

Although technically correct, this framing on the other hand may overlook a key distinction: blockchain’s cryptographic immutability ensures that even system administrators cannot retroactively alter records without consensus. This differs from traditional systems, where backend access can still lead to potential manipulation.

Policy Requires Both Vision and Guardrails

Ultimately, Cuisia’s position brings valuable food for thought to a debate that’s just beginning to take shape. Her call for outcome-based legislation—policies that set standards for transparency and integrity without mandating a specific tool—is a constructive reminder that innovation thrives best under principled, not prescriptive, governance.

At the same time, public sector blockchain implementations like those with DBM, GoodGovChain, and DPWH show that the technology can demonstrate functional use, not just theoretical potential.

The policy challenge, then, is not whether blockchain should be used, but how its adoption can be incentivized without compromising neutrality or integrity.

As the debate continues, the success or failure of blockchain in public governance may not rest on mandates, but on how well its pioneers—and critics—help shape the standards that guide its use. This intensify the appeal for tech builders, public servants, and citizens to conduct due diligence and ignite better competition, as well as vigilant oversight to ensure that legislative moves that may resemble blockchain the budget bill won’t be tainted by corruption, favoritism, and disregard of public interest; not only when it gets implemented successfully, but all the way through the process of its deliberation.

‍