ALDRIN JEFF CUDIA VS.

SUPER
INTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
MILITARY ACADEMY
Fredric Lean Ajesta – LLB 1-D
Contents
■ Principles of the case
■ Facts of the case
■ Issues
■ Due Process (as used in the case)
■ Academic Freedom
■ Petitioner, Cudia, is a cadet of PMA

■ Examination on Operations Research (OR) subject during 1:30 – 3:00

PM

■ Query on teacher – complied with teacher’s request – Late for next

class

■ Teacher reported petitioner for being late – Cudia explained that his
OR teacher dismissed the “class” late – His act was reviewed by the
Tactical Officer (TO)

■ TO concluded that Cudia lied. – such misaction is subject to demerits

■ Cudia made a written appeal, as suggested by the TO, to the Senior
Tactical Officer (STO), arguing that he was late because the previous
class ended at 3:00 and his next class starts at 3:00

■ TO counter-argues OR did not end beyond 3:00, and next class started
3:05
– PMA EXAM RULE: once exam is submitted, you are excused
(which means: dismissed “Individually” not as a class)

■ TO adds that Petitioner could have INSTEAD told what literally

happened instead of “lying” – the STO sustained TO’s decision
■ TO reports to Honor Committee (HC)
– HC is in charge of violations against Honor Code of PMA

■ Composing 9 cadets, they investigated the case and conducted

hearings

■ The result was an 8-1 vote of “guilty” against petitioner

– A dissenting vote usually means acquittal of cadet

■ HC conducted “chambering”
– Dissenter is made to explain why he voted in such a way

■ Vote became a unanimous 9-0 of guilty against petitioner

■ Petitioner then appealed to the HC chairman – denied

■ Dismissal Order was issued

■ Petitioners et. al. requested for re-investigation

■ Case is referred to CRAB – Cadet Review and Appeals Board

■ Subsequently, petitioners brought the case to CHR – which ruled

favorably
– They alleged here that there was a “violation of due process”
■ CRAB, on the other hand, ruled against. – Affirmed by Chief of Staff

■ Although CHR ruled in favor, it is only “recommendatory”

■ Petitioner brought the case to SC

– Certiorari, Mandamus, and Prohibition

■ PMA argues that the court avoid interfering with military findings and
operations
WON:

■ Cudia’s petitions are correct and allowed

■ Dismissal of petitioner by PMA was valid

■ Mandamus cannot be used
– Reinstatement of petitioner and restoration of supposed
academic awards is PMA’s academic jurisdiction

■ Certiorari is allowed
– Matters on “grave abuse” are justiciable

■ Civil and political liberties cannot be surrendered

■ The dismissal of petitioner is valid on the grounds of
– Academic Freedom and Due Process

■ Academic freedom to:

– Determine who will teach
– What may be taught
– How it shall be taught
– Who may be ADMITTED
■ The entire procedures were in conformity with due process – No grave
abuse of discretion was committed by the PMA
■ The investigation was done with due process – as prescribed by PMA
– He was notified of his honor report by TO
– Given the opportunity to explain the report
– Informed of the procedures
– An investigation on appeal
– The case was subject to hearings
– Reviewed in the higher offices of the AFP
– Given the opportunity to appeal to the president
■ PMA has the authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets.

■ Other than it’s constitutional basis; Common Wealth Act. 1

■ The Honor Code punishes any form of lying, and the penalty is upon
the discretion of the PMA.

When petitioner enrolled in the PMA, he agreed to abide with this

Honor Code and its system. No matter the severity of the punishment, it
is reasonable and not arbitrary. He was given the right to due process,
and he should have known all of these upon becoming a cadet.