Case Title: Aldrin Cudia vs Superintendent of PMA

G.R. No.: 211362

Main Topic: Due Process of Law
Other Related Topic:
Date: February 24, 2015

DOCTRINES
Due Process of Law
FACTS
• Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa
Class of 2014. On November 14, 2013, Cudia’s class had a lesson examination in their
Operations Research (OR) subject the schedule of which was from 1:30pm to 3pm.

• However, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia made a query to their OR teacher.
Said teacher, then asked Cudia to wait for her. Cudia complied and as a result, he was
late for his next class (English). Later, the English teacher reported Cudia for being late.

• In his explanation, Cudia averred that he was late because his OR class was dismissed a
bit late. The tactical officer (TO) tasked to look upon the matter concluded that Cudia
lied when he said that their OR class was dismissed late because the OR teacher said she
never dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was meted with demerits and touring hours
because of said infraction.

• Cudia did not agree with the penalty hence he asked the TO about it. Not content with
the explanation of the TO, Cudia said he will be appealing the penalty he incurred to the
senior tactical officer (STO). The TO then asked Cudia to write his appeal.

• In his appeal, Cudia stated that his being late was out of his control because his OR class
was dismissed at 3pm while his English class started at 3pm also. To that the TO replied:
that on record, and based on the interview with the teachers concerned, the OR teacher
did not dismiss them (the class) beyond 3pm and the English class started at 3:05pm,
not 3pm; that besides, under PMA rules, once a student submitted his examination
paper, he is dismissed from said class and may be excused to leave the classroom,
hence, Cudia was in fact dismissed well before 3pm; that it was a lie for Cudia to state
that the class was dismissed late because again, on that day in the OR class, each
student was dismissed as they submit their examination, and were not dismissed as a
class; that if Cudia was ordered by the teacher to stay, it was not because such
transaction was initiated by the teacher, rather, it was initiated by Cudia (because of his
query to the teacher), although there were at least two students with Cudia at that time
querying the teacher, the three of them cannot be considered a “class”; Cudia could just
have stated all that instead of saying that his class was dismissed a bit late, hence he
lied. The STO sustained the decision of the TO.
 • Later, the TO reported Cudia to the PMA’s Honor Committee (HC) for allegedly violating
the Honor Code. Allegedly, Cudia lied in his written appeal when he said his class was
dismissed late hence, as a result, he was late for his next class.

• The Honor Code is PMA’s basis for the minimum standard of behavior required of their
cadets. Any violation thereof may be a ground to separate a cadet from PMA.

• Cudia submitted an explanation to the HC. Thereafter, the HC, which is composed of
nine (9) cadets, conducted an investigation. After two hearings and after the parties
involved were heard and with their witnesses presented, the HC reconvened and the
members cast their vote. The initial vote was 8-1: 8 found Cudia guilty and 1 acquitted
Cudia. Under PMA rules (Honor System), a dissenting vote means the acquittal of Cudia.
However, they also have a practice of chambering where the members, particularly the
dissenter, are made to explain their vote. This is to avoid the “tyranny of the minority”.
After the chambering, the dissenter was convinced that his initial “not guilty vote” was
improper, hence he changed the same and the final vote became 9-0. Thus, Cudia was
immediately placed inside PMA’s holding center.

• Cudia appealed to the HC chairman but his appeal was denied. Eventually, the
Superintendent of the PMA ordered the dismissal of Cudia from the PMA.

• Cudia and several members of his family then sent letters to various military officers
requesting for a re-investigation. It was their claim that there were irregularities in the
investigation done by the HC. As a result of such pleas, the case of Cudia was referred to
the Cadet Review and Appeals Board of PMA (CRAB).

• Meanwhile, Cudia’s family brought the case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
where it was alleged that PMA’s “sham” investigation violated Cudia’s rights to due
process, education, and privacy of communication.

• Eventually, the CRAB ruled against Cudia. This ruling was affirmed by the AFP Chief of
Staff. But on the other hand, the CHR found in favor of Cudia.

• PMA averred that CHR’s findings are at best recommendatory. Cudia filed a petition
forcertiorari,prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court.
• PMA opposed the said petition as it argued that the same is not proper as a matter of
policy and that the court should avoid interfering with military matters.
ISSUES
Whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cudia in
utter disregard of his right to due process and in holding that he violated the Honor Code
through lying.
 HELD
Yes. It is within PMA’s right to academic freedom to decide whether or not a cadet is still
worthy to be part of the institution.

RATIONALE
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 Cudia’s 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 Cudia’s 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.