Aldrin Jeff Cudia vs The Superintendent of the Philippine Military

Academy [G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015]

~PMA, as an academic institution, has the right to remove erring cadets

under the principle of academic freedom
~But PMA must still observe due process in removing cadets
~PMA cadets are entitled to due process
~PMA cannot be compelled by mandamus to reinstate cadets separated
therefrom if due process was observed

Political Law Constitutional Law Academic Freedom

Remedial Law Mandamus Ministrant vs Discretionary Function

FACTS: Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military

Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class of 2014. On November 14, 2013,
Cudias 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 PMAs 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 PMAs 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 PMAs 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, Cudias family brought the case to the Commission on Human

Rights (CHR) where it was alleged that PMAs sham investigation
violated Cudias 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 CHRs findings are at best recommendatory. 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.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Cudias petitions is proper.

2. Whether or not the PMA can validly dismiss Cudia based on its findings.

HELD:

I.

Mandamus is not proper

Mandamus will not prosper in this case. Cudias prayer that PMA should
be compelled to reinstate him as well as to give him his supposed
academic awards is not proper. The Courts, even the Supreme Court,
cannot compel PMA to do so because the act of restoring Cudias rights
and entitlements as a cadet as well as his awards is a discretionary act.
Mandamus cannot be availed against an official or government agency, in
this case PMA, whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or
judgment. Further, such act which PMA was sought by Cudia to perform is
within PMAs academic freedom as an educational institution and such
performance is beyond the jurisdiction of courts.

Certiorari is allowed

The petition for certiorari is allowed because the issue herein is whether or
not PMA and its responsible officers acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it dismissed Cudia. Under the Constitution, that is the duty of the
courts to decide actual controversies and to determine whether or not a
government branch or instrumentality acted with grave abuse of
discretion. Thus, PMA cannot argue that judicial intervention into military
affairs is not proper as a matter of policy. Suffice it to say that judicial non-
interference in military affairs is not an absolute rule.

On the civil liberties of PMA cadets

One of the arguments raised by PMA is that cadets, when they enrolled in
the PMA, have surrendered parts of their civil and political liberties.
Hence, when they are disciplined and punished by the PMA, said cadets
cannot question the same, much less, question it in the courts. in short,
they cannot raise due process.

On this, the SC held that such argument is wrong. It is true that a PMA
cadet, by enrolling at PMA, 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. However, a cadet facing dismissal from PMA, whose private
interests are at stake (life, liberty, property) which includes his honor, good
name, and integrity, is entitled to due process. No one can be deprived of
such without due process of law and the PMA, even as a military
academy, is not exempt from such strictures. Thus, when Cudia
questioned in court the manner upon which he was dismissed from the
PMA, such controversy may be inquired upon by the courts.

(Authors note: PMA, in essence, raised that due process, as

contemplated by the Constitution, is not needed in dismissing a cadet yet,
as can be seen in the below discussion, PMA presented evidence that due
process was, in fact, complied with.)

II. Yes. It is within PMAs right to academic freedom to decide whether or

not a cadet is still worthy to be part of the institution. Thus, 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 Cudias
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 Cudias 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.