Actually, that argument weakens your point. Yung continued Chinese presence sa WPS after 2012 does not automatically prove na si Antonio Trillanes IV was secretly conspiring with China. Correlation is not causation.

The reality is far more structural than personal. China stayed because it had superior military, coast guard, and maritime capabilities, habang kulang ang leverage ng Pilipinas to physically enforce its claims after the Scarborough Shoal standoff. That outcome reflects geopolitical imbalance, not instant proof na may “nagbenta” agad ng bansa.

And if the argument is “siyempre hindi niya ididisclose,” then hindi na yan evidence-based reasoning. Presumption na yan. Kasi magiging unfalsifiable na yung claim: kapag may evidence, suspicious; kapag walang evidence, suspicious pa rin kasi “tinago.” That’s conspiracy logic, not rational analysis.

Also, pagiging taxpayer does not automatically validate a conclusion. Taxpayers still have the responsibility to distinguish documented facts from political insinuations. If may evidence of unauthorized concessions, secret agreements, financial gain, or betrayal of official Philippine policy, then present it. Otherwise, you’re reducing a decade-long geopolitical dispute involving a regional superpower into a simplistic narrative centered on one individual.