Is it eithical for judges to decline to handle cases due to threats?

Yesterday Quezon City Regional Trial Court judge Luisito Cortez inhibited himself from handling the Ampatuan case because he was concerned about threats to himself and his family.The vast majority of practicing lawyers, prosecutors, and judges feel that judge Cortez's act of declining to handle the case sent the wrong signal to the public. Threats to one's life is not one of the grounds for inhibition or refusal to handle a case. Under judicial ethics the judge must perform his duties, regardless of the risks. He must show the public that he has faith in, and will abide by, the rule of law. To refuse to handle a case based on perceived threats is not only cowardly, it sends the wrong signal that the rule of law does not prevail and that the judicial system does not work in the face of violence and lawlessness. It also means that the law cannot prevail against criminality, which is wrong. Lawyers undergo risks and receive threats regularly. It is part of the profession. But the legal profession should transcend this kind of behavior in that we must persist in showing the world that in spite of the pervasiveness of criminality around us, the long arm of justice and righteousness shall always prevail. Threats should not stop us from being professionals, and acting like professionals.Numerous judges and justices have undergone much more sufferings in countries such as Colombia, Iraq, and Afghanistan where the threats are much worse than here. In those countries bombings of courts and assassinations of judges are routine, and yet the courts continue to function. The inhibition of Judge Luisito Cortez has shamed the entire judiciary and legal profession. He has made a mockery of the sacrfices of those who previously had laid down their lives for democracy and the rule of law. He should resign.