By Dhel Nazario
Senator‑judge Robin Padilla invoked Philippine history to justify the use of fictitious names in documents tied to the alleged disbursement of confidential funds during Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial on Wednesday, Aug. 26.
Padilla asked OVP Assistant Secretary Lemuel Ortonio if aliases were appropriate in handling confidential funds.
Ortonio declined to give a categorical answer, noting that such activities are sensitive and may require protecting the identities of individuals involved.
He also pointed out that the Joint Memorandum Circular governing confidential funds does not specify how names should appear in payment records.
Padilla then turned to prosecution lawyer Mae Divinagracia, citing how Filipinos historically used aliases during armed struggles.
He listed revolutionary names such as “Dimasalang,” “Maypagasa,” “Magdalo,” and “Lakambini,” arguing that aliases were vital in protecting those engaged in underground movements.
He referenced the Katipunan, the betrayal of Teodoro Patiño, and even former senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who used the alias “Marcial Bonifacio” while abroad.
Padilla insisted that both historical and insurgency contexts showed the importance of concealing identities in dangerous situations.
Divinagracia countered that internal armed conflict differs from conventional war, but Padilla maintained that both posed “clear and present danger.”
Senator‑judge Bam Aquino later clarified that while Ninoy Aquino did use an alias, it was not tied to confidential fund receipts, underscoring the distinction between historical examples and the current impeachment proceedings.
