CUDIA v.

PMA

FACTS: Petitioner, Cadet First Class Cudia, was a member of the Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the
Philippine Military Academy. He was supposed to graduate with honors as the class salutatorian, receive
the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy Cadet graduate and be commissioned as an ensign of the
Navy.

Petitioner was issued a Delinquency Report (DR) because he was late for two minutes in his English
class, other cadets were also reported late for 5 minutes. The DRs reached the Department of Tactical
Officers and were logged and transmitted to the Company of Tactical Officers (TCO) for explanation.

Cudia incurred the penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours. Several days after, Cudia was reported to
the Honor Committee (HC) per violation of the Honor Code. Lying that is giving statements that perverts
the truth in his written appeal stating that his 4th period class ended at 3:00 that made him late for the
succeeding class. Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the honor report.

The HC constituted a team to conduct the preliminary investigation on the violation, it recommended the
case be formalized. Cudia pleaded not guilty. The result was 8-1 guilty verdict and upon the order of the
Chairman, the HC reconvened in the chambers, after, the Presiding Officer announced a 9-0 guilty
verdict.

The HC denied Cudia’s appeal. The Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) conducted a formalreview and
checking of findings. Special orders were issued placing Cudia on indefinite leave of absence and
pending approval of separation from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Cudia submitted a letter to the
Office of the Commandant of Cadets requesting his re-instatement.

Thematter was referred to Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) and it upheld the decision. Cudia
wrote a letter to President Aquino but the President sustained the findings of the CRAB.CHR-CAR issued
a resolution finding probable cause for Human Rights Violations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the PMA has the right to promulgate rules necessary for the maintenance of
school discipline.

RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court held that The power of the school to impose disciplinary measures
extends even after graduation for any act done by the student prior thereto. In University of the Phils.
Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals,127 We upheld the university's withdrawal of a doctorate degree
already conferred on a student who was found to have committed intellectual dishonesty in her
dissertation. Thus:

Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning. This is nothing new. The 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution likewise provided
for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions
of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School
of Theology, it is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus given "a wide sphere
of authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such institution of higher learning can decide
who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and
distinction of being its graduates.

Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university
has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This freedom of a
university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, .as the Court of Appeals held. For it is
precisely the "graduation" of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of
private respondent’s case began before her graduation. If she was able to join the graduation ceremonies
on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations conducted before the Board of Regents
finally decided she should not have been allowed to graduate.