Fanciful reflections on what will happen next in our worsening elitist politics isn’t troubling on this day after the Christmas festivities where nothing much preoccupies us.

Quickly then:

On balance, the mutual-destruction politics of our country’s two top leaders and former strongman Rodrigo Duterte’s fate are of equal merit.

But, for now, the former strongman’s fate probably invites more interesting speculative scenarios than how President Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte will mutually destroy each other.

As is well known by now, the House Quad Committee last week endorsed the filing of appropriate charges against the “perpetrators of crimes against humanity,” namely, Duterte and some of his close cohorts.

Reacting to the House’s endorsement, President Marcos directed the Department of Justice to thoroughly weigh its recommendations.

As I write this, Duterte hasn’t issued a personal statement regarding the House’s explosive call.

Unexpectedly, some in Duterte’s immediate circle generally welcomed the prospects of the former leader subjecting himself to local legal processes and the courts, although Senator Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa quickly denounced the House recommendation, saying it is meant to obliterate him and Duterte.

Speculations subsequently followed the Duterte camp’s somewhat positive tact.

Foremost among these conjectures revolves around the idea that with Duterte subjecting himself to local legal processes, he buys time to stave off whatever the International Criminal Court (ICC) has in store for him in its “formal investigation” of his regime’s drug war.

The conjectures also consider the fact Duterte that has often stated he’ll submit only to local courts should there be an investigation into the drug war.

Some legal and political experts speculate the obvious derailing of the ICC’s existential threat is a plausible game-winning gamble.

It nonetheless is still a risky gamble — a point emphasized by former senator Leila de Lima, one of Duterte’s fiercest critics.

De Lima, in one of her appearances at the Quadcomm’s public hearings, pointed out a political observer, stated that since Duterte’s “case in the ICC has progressed so much, government has the power under RA 9851 to allow the ICC to proceed with the charges.”

De Lima specifically mentioned Section 17 of RA 9851 which reads: “In the interest of justice, the relevant Philippine authorities may dispense with the investigation or prosecution of a crime punishable under this act if another court or international tribunal is already conducting the investigation or undertaking the prosecution of such crime. Instead, the authorities may surrender or extradite suspected or accused persons in the Philippines to the appropriate international court, if any, or to another state pursuant to the applicable extradition laws and treaties.”

Still, legal niceties and maneuverings probably stump most of us who aren’t lawyers.

But Duterte foregrounding local laws nonetheless doesn’t mean matters won’t careen into politics, thereby warning us that we should put up our guard against the intrusion of politics.

To wit, juridical processes and possible courtroom trials involving high-profile political personages will always be in some sense political and can become explicitly politicized.

Which now gives us a running context on speculations regarding what will likely occur should there be a trial involving Duterte.

One likely occurrence, for instance, is that even if Duterte submits himself to trial, there is no simple guarantee he won’t use the same trial as a powerful stage for political theatrics.

It is highly possible that Duterte and his supporters will play by the evidentiary rules one minute and denounce the trial as systematically rigged the next. Duterte’s probable staged eruptions from the dock and the jeers and cheers from his supporters can hamper or undermine the proceedings.

So much so that with Duterte and his supporters accusing the judicial process of systemic distortion and politicizing what is by law incontestable they could turn the tables on their accusers.

Now, all this is possible due to the unavoidable risk that in a politicized trial it would be near impossible to exclude politicized social forces from imposing themselves on the court.