Cudia v.

Superintendent of the PMA

G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015

Facts:
Cadet 1Cl Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa class of 2014 of PMA who belonged to the “A” Company
and was the Deputy Baron of his class.

A Delinquency Report (DR) was issued aginst Cudia for being late in their English 412 class. When made
to explain, he stated that he came directly from OR 432 class and they were dismissed late by the
instructor. He was meted out a penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours, hence, clarified about his
violation. Maj. Hundiang replied that the basis of the punishment was the result of his conversation with
Dr. Costales, who reported the she never dismissed her class late. When requested for a reconsideration of
the meted punishment, said punishment was just sustained.
Cadet 1CL Cudia was informed that he was reported 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. He submitted an explanation to the HC.
Upon recommendation that the case be formalized, the formal investigation ensued. When he was
informed of the case against him, he pleaded “not guilty.” The result of the initial was 8-1 in favor of a
guilty verdict. Upon further deliberation, it was announce that the result was 9-0 for a guilty verdict.
Hence, Cudia who has already served nine touring hours was informed of the unanimous votes finding
him guilty of violating the Honor Code and was immediately placed in PMA Holding Center until
resolution of his appeal.
An appeal was filed by him. However, the Commandants of Cadets affirmed the HC findings and
recommended his separation from the PMA for violation of the First Tenet of the Honor Code. Special
Order No. 26 was issued placing him on indefinite leave of absence without pay and allowances pending
approval of his separation, barring him from future appointment and/or admission a cadet, and not
permitting him to qualify for any entrance requirements to the PMA.
Claim that there were irregularities in the investigation done by the HC, Cudia and his family requested
for a reinvestigation. As a result of such please, the case of Cudia was referred to the Cadet Review and
Appeals Board of PMA (CRAB) which ruled against Cudia. The ruling was affirmed by the AFP Chief of
Staff.
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. CHR’s ruling favored Cudia.

However, PMA averred that CHR’s findings are at best recommendatory.

The Office of the President sustained the findings of the AFP Chief of Staff and the CRAB.
Cudia filed a petition for certiorari, 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.

Issue:
Whether or not the dismissal of Cudia is in utter disregard of his right to due process.
Answer: NO

Ruling:
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. Thus PMS 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 Cadet Cudia’s Honor Code violation
followed the prescribed procedure and existing practices in the PMA. He was notified of the Honor
Report and was the given the opportunity to explain the report against him. He was also 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 for formal investigation, a new team was assigned to conduct the hearing. During the formal
investigation, 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, to the Commandant of the Cadets, and to the PMA Superintendent. A separate
investigation was also conducted by the HTG. Then, upon the directive of the AFP-GHQ 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.

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from
the Philippine Military Academy.

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 on 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.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the dismissal of Cadet Cudia.