Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
RULING:
I.
Mandamus is not proper.
Mandamus will not prosper in this case. Cudias prayer that PMA should be compelled to
reinstate him as well as to give him his supposed academic awards is not proper. The Courts,
even the Supreme Court, cannot compel PMA to do so because the act of restoring Cudias rights
and entitlements as a cadet as well as his awards is a discretionary act. Mandamus cannot be
availed against an official or government agency, in this case PMA, whose duty requires the
exercise of discretion or judgment. Further, such act which PMA was sought by Cudia to perform
is within PMAs academic freedom as an educational institution and such performance is
beyond the jurisdiction of courts.
Certiorari is allowed.
The petition for certiorari is allowed because the issue herein is whether or not PMA and its
responsible officers acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Cudia. Under the
Constitution, that is the duty of the courts to decide actual controversies and to determine
whether or not a government branch or instrumentality acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Thus, PMA cannot argue that judicial intervention into military affairs is not proper as a matter
of policy. Suffice it to say that judicial non-interference in military affairs is not an absolute rule.
On the civil liberties of PMA cadets
One of the arguments raised by PMA is that cadets, when they enrolled in the PMA, have
surrendered parts of their civil and political liberties. Hence, when they are disciplined and
punished by the PMA, said cadets cannot question the same, much less, question it in the courts.
in short, they cannot raise due process.
On this, the SC held that such argument is wrong. It is true that a PMA cadet, by enrolling at
PMA, must be prepared to subordinate his private interests for the proper functioning of the
educational institution he attends to, one that is with a greater degree than a student at a civilian
public school. However, a cadet facing dismissal from PMA, whose private interests are at stake
(life, liberty, property) which includes his honor, good name, and integrity, is entitled to due
process. No one can be deprived of such without due process of law and the PMA, even as a
military academy, is not exempt from such strictures. Thus, when Cudia questioned in court the
manner upon which he was dismissed from the PMA, such controversy may be inquired upon
by the courts.
(Authors note: PMA, in essence, raised that due process, as contemplated by the Constitution, is
not needed in dismissing a cadet yet, as can be seen in the below discussion, PMA presented
evidence that due process was, in fact, complied with.)
II. Yes. It is within PMAs right to academic freedom to decide whether or not a cadet is still
worthy to be part of the institution. Thus, PMA did not act with grave abuse of discretion when
it dismissed Cudia. In fact, Cudia was accorded due process. In this case, the investigation of
Cudias Honor Code violation followed the prescribed procedure and existing practices in the
PMA. He was notified of the Honor Report submitted by his TO. He was then given the
opportunity to explain the report against him. He was informed about his options and the entire
process that the case would undergo. The preliminary investigation immediately followed after
he replied and submitted a written explanation. Upon its completion, the investigating team
submitted a written report together with its recommendation to the HC Chairman. The HC
thereafter reviewed the findings and recommendations. When the honor case was submitted for
formal investigation, a new team was assigned to conduct the hearing. During the formal
investigation/hearing, he was informed of the charge against him and given the right to enter his
plea. He had the chance to explain his side, confront the witnesses against him, and present
evidence in his behalf. After a thorough discussion of the HC voting members, he was found to
have violated the Honor Code. Thereafter, the guilty verdict underwent the review process at the
Academy level from the OIC of the HC, to the SJA (Staff Judge Advocate), to the Commandant
of Cadets, and to the PMA Superintendent. A separate investigation was also conducted by the
HTG (Headquarters Tactics Group). Then, upon the directive of the AFP-GHQ (AFP-General
Headquarters) to reinvestigate the case, a review was conducted by the CRAB. Further, a Fact-
Finding Board/Investigation Body composed of the CRAB members and the PMA senior officers
was constituted to conduct a deliberate investigation of the case. Finally, he had the opportunity
to appeal to the President. Sadly for him, all had issued unfavorable rulings. And there is no
reason for the SC to disturb the findings of facts by these bodies.
Academic freedom of the PMA
Cudia would argue that there is no law providing that a guilty finding by the HC may be used
by the PMA to dismiss or recommend the dismissal of a cadet from the PMA; that Honor Code
violation is not among those listed as justifications for the attrition of cadets considering that the
Honor Code and the Honor System (manner which PMA conducts investigation of Honor Code
violations) do not state that a guilty cadet is automatically terminated or dismissed from service.
Such argument is not valid. Even without express provision of a law, the PMA has regulatory
authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. Further, there is a law (Commonwealth Act
No. 1) authorizing the President to dismiss cadets. Such power by the President may be delegated
to the PMA Superintendent, who may exercise direct supervision and control over the cadets.
Further, as stated earlier, such power by the PMA is well within its academic freedom. Academic
freedom or, to be precise, the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions of higher
learning has been enshrined in the Constitution.
The essential freedoms of academic freedom on the part of schools are as follows;
a. the right to determine who may teach;
b. the right to determine what may be taught;
c. the right to determine how it shall be taught;
d. the right to determine who may be admitted to study.
The Honor Code is just but one way for the PMA to exercise its academic freedom. If it determines
that a cadet violates it, then it has the right to dismiss said cadet. In this case, based on its findings,
Cudia lied which is a violation of the Honor Code.
But Cudias lie is not even that big; is dismissal from the PMA really warranted?
The PMA Honor Code does not distinguish between a big lie and a minor lie. It punishes any
form of lying. It does not have a gradation of penalties. In fact, it is the discretion of the PMA as
to what penalty may be imposed. When Cudia enrolled at PMA, he agreed to abide by the Honor
Code and the Honor System. Thus, while the punishment may be severe, it is nevertheless
reasonable and not arbitrary, and, therefore, not in violation of due process -also considering that
Cudia, as a cadet, must have known all of these.