MANILA, Philippines — Senator-judge Bam Aquino on Wednesday drew a sharp distinction between his late uncle, former senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., using an alias during his return to the Philippines and the controversial aliases appearing in acknowledgment receipts tied to Vice President Sara Duterte’s confidential funds.
During the ongoing impeachment trial of Duterte, Senator-judge Robin Padilla raised Ninoy’s use of the name “Marcial Bonifacio” while discussing whether aliases could legitimately be used in confidential activities.
Bam Aquino confirmed that his uncle indeed traveled under the assumed name but stressed that the circumstances were entirely different.
“Si Ninoy Aquino po, ang kanyang alias ay Marcial Bonifacio, para makauwi siya sa Pilipinas nung nasa Boston siya. Pero wala naman ho siyang confidential funds—wala ho siya sa mga ARs na confidential funds,” Aquino said.
In English, Aquino’s point was that Ninoy used the alias as part of a security measure for his return from exile—not as a name attached to a confidential-fund disbursement.
Why Ninoy used “Marcial Bonifacio”
Historical accounts confirm that Ninoy used the assumed identity Marcial Bonifacio during his journey back to the Philippines in August 1983.
Former Philippine vice consul Jose Ampeso previously recounted that Ninoy sought two passports while in US exile—one bearing his real name and another carrying the assumed identity. Contemporary and historical accounts have likewise documented that Ninoy traveled with a passport using the name Marcial Bonifacio before boarding the flight that brought him back to Manila.
The name itself carried symbolic meaning: “Marcial” was associated with martial law, while “Bonifacio” referred to Fort Bonifacio, where Ninoy had been detained after the declaration of martial law.
Ninoy returned to the Philippines on August 21, 1983, after years of exile in the United States. He was assassinated shortly after arriving at what was then Manila International Airport, an event that became a major turning point in the country’s political history.
The issue now before the impeachment court
The current controversy is different.
During the impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte, lawmakers and prosecutors have questioned unusual names appearing in acknowledgment receipts associated with confidential-fund transactions.
Among the names previously discussed in hearings were “Piattos,” “Bacon,” “Heart” and “Keso.” Questions have centered on whether such names represented genuine recipients and whether the money was actually distributed for legitimate confidential activities.
A Commission on Audit witness previously told the impeachment court that checking whether the names appearing on the documents corresponded to actual individuals was not part of the audit being conducted.
COA officials have also explained that the applicable Joint Circular does not expressly state that aliases are either permitted or prohibited. The more fundamental requirement, according to testimony cited during the proceedings, is that the money must actually reach a real person and be used for the confidential activity identified in the supporting documents.
That distinction is crucial.
Using an alias is not, by itself, the same thing as proving that a confidential-fund transaction was fraudulent. The unresolved question is whether the individuals represented by the names actually existed, received the money and performed or participated in the activities for which the funds were supposedly disbursed.
Aquino presses for accountability
Bam Aquino has repeatedly questioned how unusual names in the confidential-fund documents were handled and whether the Office of the Vice President conducted any internal verification.
During an earlier hearing, a former OVP special disbursing officer testified that no internal investigation had been conducted to establish the identities behind suspicious or unusual names in the documents.
Aquino indicated that the Senate would seek the master list containing the actual identities behind the names once the relevant witness appears before the impeachment court.
COA officials have also said that a possible fraud audit remains under consideration, although the agency has noted the sensitive nature and volume of the documents involved.
The bigger question
The exchange between Bam Aquino and Robin Padilla therefore goes beyond Ninoy Aquino’s historic use of a pseudonym.
The central issue in the impeachment proceedings is not simply whether aliases can exist. It is whether confidential public funds were properly disbursed, whether the recipients were real individuals, and whether the expenditures corresponded to legitimate confidential activities.
Ninoy’s use of “Marcial Bonifacio” occurred in the context of a politically sensitive return from exile in 1983. The names being scrutinized in the current impeachment proceedings appear in government financial documentation involving confidential funds.
Those are two very different circumstances.
And as the impeachment trial continues, the question that could carry the greatest weight may no longer be “Can an alias be used?”
It may be: Who was actually behind the names—and where did the money go?
Leave a Reply