The quiet, often opaque world of high judiciary politics was violently illuminated this week when a retired Supreme Court Justice took the extraordinary step of publicly defending a colleague whose reputation had been targeted by relentless political attacks. Former Ombudsman Samuel Martires—a man whose tenure was often marked by controversial and heavily scrutinized decisions—has been the subject of fierce criticism, facing allegations of political favoritism, most notably stemming from his reversal of a dismissal order against a sitting senator. However, the narrative of political opportunism was instantly shattered by a single, terrifying revelation from the very top of the legal establishment.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Noel Tijam emerged from his usual quiet retirement to issue a blistering public defense of Martires, transforming the political argument from a debate over policy into a deeply personal testament to courage and integrity. Justice Tijam’s objective was clear: to counter the narrative that Martires is merely a political pawn and to firmly establish his reputation as a fearless magistrate who has literally risked his life for the sake of judicial righteousness.

Tijam’s initial defense was a powerful affirmation of character, asserting that Justice Martires is a “God-fearing, upright, principled magistrate.” He emphasized that Martires is a “peacemaker, but he does not run away from a righteous fight.” This description, drawn from years of shared experience across the judiciary—in the lower courts, the Sandiganbayan, and finally the Supreme Court—carried immense weight. Tijam aimed to remind the public that Martires’ career was built on a foundation of duty and uncompromised adherence to the rule of law, qualities that are often forgotten or deliberately obscured in the heat of political battle.

But it was the subsequent detail revealed by Justice Tijam that sent a shockwave across the political and media landscape, validating the gravity of Martires’ principled stand. Tijam publicly recounted a terrifying event from Martires’ past: when Martires was serving as an RTC judge in La Union, he was shot at and survived a clear assassination attempt along Marcos Highway toward Baguio. This singular, chilling fact immediately reframed the context of Martires’ judicial service. A man who has looked down the barrel of a gun because of his duty is not one easily swayed by political pressure or personal gain.

The revelation of this assassination attempt serves as the definitive counter-evidence against critics who accuse Martires of weakness or compromise. It suggests that any decision Martires makes, however controversial, is rooted in a deep, personal commitment to justice, even when that commitment invites profound danger. Tijam pointed to the incident as proof that Martires has been and remains a target because of his refusal to bend to improper influence. The shocking memory of a targeted attack immediately silences accusations that the former Ombudsman is merely a tool of power; rather, it suggests he is a man who has faced—and survived—the ultimate challenge to his independence.

This extraordinary revelation comes at a crucial time when Martires’ tenure as Ombudsman is under fire for several actions, including the controversial reversal of the dismissal order against Senator Joel Villanueva. Critics have painted this and other decisions as proof of political subservience, launching aggressive accusations of “secret decisions” and political puppetry. The political attacks, often originating from powerful sectors, rely heavily on insinuating Martires lacks the moral fortitude to resist influence.

Tijam’s intervention, however, shifts the debate from the specifics of the Villanueva case to the fundamental question of Martires’ character. How can a man who survived being shot at for his judicial integrity be easily dismissed as a political pawn? The public support for Martires online was immediate and fierce, with thousands expressing solidarity. Comments highlighted Martires’ history of dignity, contrasting him sharply with his unnamed critics, who were accused of having “inverted brains.” The sentiment was clear: “You cannot put a good man down.”

Adding philosophical depth to the controversy is the enduring judicial debate over how the law should be applied. Martires, in previous public forums, has been known to articulate a distinction between “law breaking” and “law bending,” arguing that while breaking the law is fundamentally wrong, interpreting the law flexibly (bending it) for justice is sometimes necessary. This distinction has been seized upon by critics who accuse him of manipulating legal technicalities for political expediency.

However, Martires’ supporters, including Justice Tijam, view this philosophy as evidence of sophisticated judicial wisdom, emphasizing that he believes “even stupid people have the right to air publicly their opinion,” underscoring a commitment to democratic values and free expression. The revelation of the assassination attempt thus serves to validate Martires’ ethical position: his “law bending,” if any, is seen not as a concession to power, but as a fearless pursuit of a morally correct outcome.

The episode serves as a powerful reminder of the profound dangers inherent in maintaining judicial integrity in a high-stakes political environment. Justice Tijam also subtly highlighted this peril by referencing the tragic fate of a female municipal trial court judge who was killed in a vehicular accident while commuting on a motorcycle—an image used to underscore the simple, honest, and often vulnerable lives led by magistrates who resist corruption. The courage of judges like Martires, who survive such attacks, stands as a stark contrast to the shadowy forces that seek to undermine the judiciary.

In the end, the defense of former Ombudsman Samuel Martires transcends a mere political squabble. Justice Tijam’s shocking revelation of the assassination attempt transforms Martires into a powerful symbol of unyielding courage. It fundamentally re-establishes his reputation not through self-promotion or political maneuvering, but through the irrefutable evidence of physical sacrifice made in the line of duty. The battle over his legacy continues, yet the narrative is now anchored by a simple, terrifying truth: Martires is a man who has stared down corruption’s ultimate threat and lived to continue the fight. The nation watches, reminded that the greatest acts of integrity often occur in the face of the greatest danger.