FIRST CLASS CADET ALDRIN JEFF P.

CUDIA OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY

ACADEMY, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER RENATO P. CUDIA, WHO ALSO
ACTS ON HIS OWN BEHALF, AND BERTENI CATALUA
CAUSING, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY
ACADEMY (PMA), THE HONOR COMMITTEE (HC) OF 2014 OF THE PMA AND
HC MEMBERS, AND THE CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
(CRAB), Respondents.
G.R. No. 211362 ; 24 February 2015 ; J. Peralta
SUMMARY: Petitioner Cudia was a cadet taking his military education at the Philippine
Military Academy (PMA). He was expelled from the PMA due to his violation of the First Tenet
of the PMAs Honor Code, particularly for Lying.
The administrative charge against Cudia arose following his arrival at his Eng412 class,
where he was reported late for two (2) minutes. In explaining this tardiness, Cudia stated
hence: I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed a bit late by our instructor
Sir. Cudias superiors reported him to the PMAs Honor Committee (HC) for an alleged
violation of the PMAs Honor Code. The superiors averred that Cudia lied in saying that his
class OR432 was dismissed late because the instructor in that previous class said herself
that she dismissed the class on time.
The HC organized a fact-finding committee and held formal hearings where Cudia was
present. The HC members voted via secret ballots 8-1, in favor of guilty. Per the Honor Code,
a UNANIMOUS VOTE is required to impose sanctions against the cadet. Hence, an executive
session or chambering was done by the HC, from which a unanimous 9-0 vote in favor of
guilty, imposing the penalty of expulsion.
The AFP Chief of Staff ordered a reinvestigation following a viral facebook post by Cudias
sister regarding Cudias plight. This order was addressed to the Cadet Review and Appeals
Board (CRAB). CRAB conducted its own investigation and in the end, affirmed the ruling of
the HC. The case was appealed to the Office of the President, which upheld the ruling of the
CRAB. Cudias family also submitted his case before the CHR, which found that Cudias
human rights were violated by the military and recommended Cudias reinstatement as a
Cadet and to reinstate his class salutatorian status.
Cudia filed petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for extremely
urgent temporary restraining order (TRO) following the CHRs findings, averring that he was
deprived of due process during the administrative proceedings against him.
PMA raises the following defenses: 1) that the Supreme Court cannot interfere with military
affairs; 2) that based on Academic Freedom, the PMA has the power to determine who to
teach and the power to discipline cadets; 3) that Cudia has necessarily and voluntarily
relinquished certain civil liberties by virtue of his entry into the PMA; 4) that due process was
observed in disciplining Cudia.
The SC upheld the ruling of the Office of the President, finding that Cudias expulsion was
warranted. The SC stated that Cudia did in fact lie when he explained why he was late for his
class. Cudia was guilty of quibbling which is tantamount to lying. Quibbling is defined as
such: A person can easily create a false impression in the mind of his listener by cleverly
wording what he says, omitting relevant facts, or telling a partial truth. When he knowingly
does so with the intent to deceive or mislead, he is quibbling. Because it is an intentional
deception, quibbling is a form of lying. The above definition can be applied in the instant
case. Here, instead of directly and completely telling the cause of his being late in the
ENG412 class of Prof. Berong, Cadet 1CL Cudia chose to omit relevant facts, thereby, telling

a half-truth There is manipulation of facts and presentation of untruthful explanation

constitutive of Honor Code violation.
DOCTRINES:
THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE POWER TO REVIEW THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CADET
HONOR COMMITTEE
The proceedings of the Cadet Honor Committee can, for purposes of the Due Process Clause,
be considered a governmental activity. [In the US Case of Andrews v. Knowlton,] The
relationship between the Cadet Honor Committee and the separation process at the
Academy has been sufficiently formalized, and is sufficiently interdependent, so as to bring
that committee's activities within the definition of governmental activity for the purposes of
our review. While the Academy has long had the informal practice of referring all alleged
violations to the Cadet Honor Committee, the relationship between that committee and the
separation process has to a degree been formalized.
Admittedly, the Constitution entrusts the political branches of the government, not the
courts, with superintendence and control over the military because the courts generally lack
the competence and expertise necessary to evaluate military decisions and they are illequipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military
authority might have. [Following American Jurisprudence,] it was opined that it has been well
settled that federal courts have jurisdiction "where there is a substantial claim that
prescribed military procedures violates one's constitutional rights."
In this jurisdiction, Section 1 Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution expanded the scope of
judicial power by mandating that the duty of the courts of justice includes not only to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable but also
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government
even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
No one is above the law, including the military. In fact, the present Constitution declares it as
a matter of principle that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.
Consistent with the republican system of checks and balances, the Court has been
entrusted, expressly or by necessary implication, with both the duty and the obligation of
determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed legislative or executive action.
THE PMA IS AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION WHICH ENJOYS ACADEMIC FREEDOM
The PMA is not different. As the primary training and educational institution of the AFP, it
certainly has the right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of its internal rules
and regulations, which are the Honor Code and the Honor System in particular.
The Honor Code is a set of basic and fundamental ethical and moral principle. It is the
minimum standard for cadet behavior and serves as the guiding spirit behind each cadets
action. It is the cadets responsibility to maintain the highest standard of honor. Throughout
a cadets stay in the PMA, he or she is absolutely bound thereto.
A CADET DOES NOT GIVE UP HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
Of course, a student at a military academy 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 It is clear, however, from
the teachings of Wasson and Hagopian, which were adopted by Andrews, that a cadet facing
dismissal from the military academy for misconduct has constitutionally protected private
interests (life, liberty, or property); hence, disciplinary proceedings conducted within the
bounds of procedural due process is a must.

PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN A STUDENT DISCIPLINARY CASE

Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong already settled the issue as it held that although
both Ang Tibay and Guzman essentially deal with the requirements of due process, the latter
case is more apropos since it specifically deals with the minimum standards to be satisfied in
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. That Guzman is the
authority on the procedural rights of students in disciplinary cases was reaffirmed by the
Court in the fairly recent case of Go v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran. [To wit Guzman, the
following are the requirements for due process:] (1) the students must be informed in writing
of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to
answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be
informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in
their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.