The Liberal Party may have won the argument it wanted to make, but it appears to have missed the point Senator Robin Padilla was actually raising.

Padilla, sitting as a senator-judge in the impeachment trial, was not necessarily saying that an alias magically makes the use of public funds legitimate. He was pointing to something much simpler—and much more human—when your personal safety is at risk, using an alias can be a matter of protection.

That should not be difficult to understand. Security personnel, intelligence operatives and others whose work places their lives in danger do not necessarily walk around advertising their real identities. Sometimes, anonymity is precisely what keeps them—and their families—safe.

And this is particularly relevant when talking about the people who put themselves between Vice President Sara Duterte and those who might wish to harm her. These are people whose job is to protect someone whose position makes her a high-profile security target. Their identities, movements and personal information can become vulnerabilities.

In such circumstances, using an alias or code name is hardly an extraordinary concept. Yet the Liberal Party’s response appears to reduce Padilla’s argument to a question of whether aliases were used in connection with confidential funds. That is missing the bigger picture.

The issue should not simply be “they used aliases, therefore something must be wrong.” The better questions are:

Why were the aliases used?

Who were the people behind them?

What were their actual functions?

And were the transactions they acknowledged legitimate and properly supported?

An alias, by itself, proves none of these things. Our history itself is filled with Filipinos who used aliases while fighting for the country. Jose Rizal was “Dimasalang.” Marcelo del Pilar was “Plaridel.” Emilio Jacinto was “Pingkian.” Andres Bonifacio was “Agapito Bagumbayan.”

Of course, historical aliases and modern financial documents are not identical circumstances. But Padilla’s broader point remains valid—there are legitimate reasons why a person may not want his real identity publicly exposed, particularly when his work involves personal risk.

The irony is that those who spend their careers protecting others may themselves need protection from being identified.That is why the debate should be anchored on evidence, not on the mere presence of an alias.

If there is proof that an alias was deliberately used to conceal a fictitious recipient, fabricate a transaction or facilitate the misuse of public money, then by all means, expose it and hold those responsible accountable. But if the only argument is that an alias exists, that is not enough.

We should be careful not to turn every security precaution into a presumption of guilt. The people assigned to protect the Vice President did not choose a dangerous job so they could become public personalities.

Their job is precisely to remain behind the scenes—to make sure that the person they are protecting gets home safely. So perhaps the Liberals should listen again to what Padilla was saying. He was not necessarily defending an alias. He was reminding everyone that sometimes, people hide their names because revealing them can put their lives at risk.

And when it comes to security personnel, that is not a loophole. That is the job.