CUDIA V.

PMA
[GR. No. 211362; February 24, 2015]
Facts:
• Cadet 1CL Cudia was a member of the class of 2014 in the PMA and was supposed to graduate as the class
salutatorian.
o In November of 2013, he was 2 minutes late for his English class.
o He told the professor that the previous professor dismissed the class early. The previous professor denied this
and claimed he dismissed the class 10-15 minutes before the bell (as was standard).
o He was found to be lying and after which, he claimed instead he was waiting for a report from the professor
for his grades.
• The Honor Committee conducted a preliminary investigation for violation of the honor code.
Cudia plead not guilty. A vote occurred wherein 8 voted guilty and 1 voted not guilty (one vote of not guilty is
enough to find the accused not guilty), but after this vote, the committee met in a closed door session wherein
they clarified the reasons for the not guilty vote, after which the member changed his vote to guilty.
o He was dismissed from the PMA, but his sister had posted on social media the situation which went viral. He
appealed his case to the Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) with PAO preparing his appeal
memorandum.
o On consultation with CHR, CHR declared that he was denied due process.
• He filed this petition for mandamus with the SC after the president, Noynoy Aquino accepted the ruling of
the CRAB denying his appeal.
Issue/s:
1.) WON the Cudia relinquished certain civil liberties upon entering the PMA.
2.) WON the honor code can cause the termination of a cadet.
3.) WON procedural due process was violated.
4.) WON findings of the CHR are binding.
Held: Cudia is not entitled to reinstatement and cannot graduate.
1.) Cudia did not relinquish civil liberties upon entering the PMA. It has been held that a cadet facing dismissal
has constitutionally protected private interests, hence procedural due process is required. The PMA is
not immune from the structure of due process.
2.) The school-student relationship is contractual in nature. Academic freedom is enshrined in our
constitution, providing for the right to decide on academic freedoms the following:
• Who may teach
• What may be taught
• How it shall be taught
• Who may be admitted to study
Academic freedom subsumes the school’s right to discipline students. The honor code is a primary means
of achieving the cadets’ character development and as ways by which the academy has chosen to identify those
who are deficient in conduct.
3.) NO. Procedural due process was followed. Based on jurisprudence, the minimum requirements are:
• Student must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them.
• They shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired.
• They shall be informed of the evidence against them.
• They shall have the right to adduce evidence.
• The evidence must be duly considered.

All the above were followed by the honor code committee. Changing the vote from 8-1 to 9-0, causing his
dismissal was not a deviation of the standard procedure, as it has been done in the past to clarify the reasons
behind a not guilty vote in case of 8-1 or 7-2 votes, so no bad faith can be attributed.
Cudia was allowed to have counsel assist him in preparing the appeal memoranda, even if he was not allowed
to be represented by counsel (PAO in a non-intervening role), counsel assisted in preparing his defense, and
that satisfies due process. The court in this case also held that due to the stature of Cudia, he was aware of the
possible ramifications of his actions and need not be represented by counsel since he was assisted by one.
4.) The CHR is merely a recommendatory body and binds no one.