MANILA - Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Samuel Martires on Wednesday publicly apologized to ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno for making her feel she was "faith-shamed" during oral arguments on the quo warranto case against her.

Martires, who faced the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for his public interview for the Ombudsman post, however, stressed he did not faith-shame his former colleague but was merely following up on a question raised by another magistrate, Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr.

• READ: Justice Martires' separate opinion on Sereno ouster
• Sereno wants SC Justice Martires to inhibit in quo warranto case

Martires is among 10 candidates for the top anti-graft office post in light of the retirement of Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales on July 26.

During the JBC interview, he explained that his line of questioning during the oral arguments was intended to defend Sereno.

Martires made his comment after a group of Catholic priests, pastors, and theological teachers formally opposed his Ombudsman bid, citing the said incident, among others.

• Priests, evangelicals challenge Martires' probity in Ombudsman application

“It was not meant to shame a person. I have never faith shamed a person in my life, never shamed a woman. And if that person referred to is Maria Lourdes Sereno, I apologize to her," Martires said.

"It was not meant to shame her. My intention was to actually defend her that there is nothing wrong for a person to invoke God, to speak about God every minute of his life,” Martires said.

As early as 2012, Martires said he defended Sereno to Manila Times Senior Reporter Jomar Canlas who was then running a story on her supposed “failed” psychiatric and psychological test results when she applied for the Chief Justice post.

Sereno obtained the grade of “4” in the mental tests, the second to the lowest mark.

• Faith-shaming? Sereno blasts release of her psychological test results

“I argued with Jomar Canlas that the psychiatrist [was] wrong, that probably the psychiatrist [was] the one suffering from some kind of mental illness and not Maria Lourdes Sereno," he said.

“Why did I ask that question again during the oral arguments? That was a follow-up to the question of Justice [Presbitero] Velasco, who, when he was asking [petitioner Solicitor General Jose Calida] mentioned about bipolar disorder and he was smiling,” Martires said.

Martires added he was “wondering” why Sereno asked for his inhibition, but not Velasco’s.

Sereno had cited the alleged "faith-shaming" in asking Martires to recuse from proceedings on the quo warranto case Solicitor General Jose Calida filed against her.

• Sereno wants SC Justice Martires to inhibit in quo warranto case

He declined, along with five other magistrates Sereno asked to inhibit.

• 'Baseless': Why 6 justices rejected Sereno's inhibition plea

Martires eventually voted with the majority in the historic 8-6 ruling that led to Sereno's ouster.

• Supreme Court rules CJ Sereno ouster final

“I’d like to thank these Catholic priests for filing this opposition, they’re just making me strong… I know them, actually. In Tagalog, I’ve always been telling my relatives, ‘Huwag kayo nakikisawsaw sa mga bagay na hindi niyo alam (Don't meddle with matters you don't understand).’”

Martires also shed light on an admonition the high court meted on him and his former colleagues at the Sandiganbayan for “delaying” the execution of a sentence against one Pacifico Velasco, who was convicted for graft.

Velasco questioned his conviction before the high court but the SC said in the absence of a restraining order, the Sandiganbayan should have executed the conviction and penalty.

“I think the Supreme Court was wrong in that case because there was no more proceeding to talk of. In criminal cases, the proceedings start with the arraignment of accused until the promulgation of the decision," Martires said.

“Since it was in the execution stage, the Supreme Court cannot issue a TRO because there is no proceeding to speak of,” he added.

Martires said this was one gray area the high court must carefully review since judgments and penalties such as imprisonment executed by lower courts minus a final ruling from the high court on appeal can never be recovered.

“Let’s say we sent the accused to the New Bilibid Prison and after 10 years of service of sentence it was the time that the Supreme Court reverses the Sandiganbayan, can we undo that execution of judgment that we have done?” he asked.

Martires is President Rodrigo Duterte’s first appointee to the SC.

Before his appointment to the Sandiganbayan in 2005, he was presiding judge of the Agoo Regional Trial Court Branch 32.

In 2011, Martires penned the anti-graft court’s decision dismissing a graft case against then Davao City Mayor Duterte over the demolition of a P2-million canal project of his political rival Prospero Nograles.

The other applicants for the Ombudsman post are Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III, Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Efren De La Cruz, Former Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice and Ombudsman Special Prosecutor Edilberto Sandoval, Judge Carlos Espero II, and lawyers Edna Batacan, Rey Nathaniel Ifurung, Rainier Madrid, Felito Ramirez, and Rex Rico.