Cadet 1CL Cudia, Et. Al v PMA, Et. Al.

8/19/2019 Cadet 1CL Cudia, Et. Al v PMA, Et. Al.

1/80

First Class Cadet Aldrin Jef P. Cudia o thePMA, represented by his ather Renato P.Cudia, who also acts on his own behal, and

Berteni Cataluna Causing s. !he "uperintendent o the PMA, !he #onorCo$$ittee %#C& o '()* and #C Me$bersand the Cadet Reiew and Appeals Board%CRAB&

++

Filipina P. Cudia, in behal o Cadet First

Class Aldrin Jef P. Cudia

-.R. o. '))/0' February '*, '()1


2/80

• Petitioners 2led the Petition or Certiorari,Prohibition and Manda$us with application or

e+tre$ely urgent !R3 0 days prior to thegraduation cere$onies o the PMA

• Ater the denial o the !R3, Filipina Cudia, $othero Cadet Cudia 2led a $otion or leae tointerene and thereater 2led a $aniestation toad$it the Final 4nestigation Report o theCo$$ission on #u$an Rights

• Cadet ) C5 Cudia %Cadet Cudia& was a $e$ber o"i6lab 7iwa Class o '()* o the PMA who wassupposed to graduate with acade$ic honors andto be co$$issioned as an ensign o the Philippineay


3/80

Facts• !he schedule or Cadet Cudia8s class are as ollows9

%*th period& )9/( : /9(( PM : 3R*/'

%1th period& /9(1 : *9(1 PM : ;-*)'

• 3n the oe$ber )*, '()/, the 3perations Research%3R*/'& class o 7r. Costales, to which Cadet Cudiabelonged to, had a lesson e+a$ination. 1 days ater, CadetCudia, along with so$e o his class$ates, was issued a

7elinponclari2ying, he was told that the basis o the punish$entwas 7r. Costales8 account o what happened. According toher, she neer dis$issed her class late.


4/80

Facts

• Cadet Cudia was adised to put his intention to

appeal and re


5/80

Facts

• Cadet Cudia erbally applied or and was granted an

e+tension o ti$e to answer the charge against hi$because 7r. Costales was on e$ergency leae bythe #C, chaired by Cadet Mogol.

• Based on a te+t $essage and personal

correspondence with 7r. Costales, Cadet Cudia

con2r$ed that when Ma=or #indang conronted 7r.Costales o what happened, they were not in thesa$e ti$e reerence.

• Cadet Cudia then sub$itted his letter o e+planation

on the #onor Report. 4t alleges the ollowing9• !he 3R*/' had an 5; that day

• @hen the 2rst bell rang %)*911& he sub$itted his paper

• #e and Cadet Archangel as6ed regarding thedeductions in their preious 5;


6/80

Facts• 7r. Costales answered their


7/80

Facts• !he case was or$alied and a or$al inestigation

ensued. Cadet Cudia was inor$ed o the charges against

hi$ to which he pled ot -uilty. ' hearings wereconducted where the persons inoled stood as witnesses.

• !he oting done through secret ballot resulted to an D)ote in aor o a guilty erdict. 3n alleged orders byCadet Mogol, oting $e$bers o the #C went inside a

cha$ber or urther deliberation. @hen they ca$e out, thePresiding 3?cer announced the E( -uilty erdict. CadetCudia was inor$ed o the sa$e.

• Cadet Cudia 2led an appeal %parties difer in opinion as tothe resolution o the sa$e&

• !he #ead


8/80

Facts

• Meanwhile, #C orwarded the For$al 4nestigation

Report to the "taf Judge Adocate %"JA& or reiew whoound the report to be legally in order. "aid report wasa?r$ed by Col. Brigue, Co$$andant o the Cadetsand reco$$ended to ice Ad$iral Abogado, then PMA"uperintendent, the separation ro$ the PMA o CadetCudia or iolation o the First !enet o the #onor Code

%5ying&

• "pecial 3rder o. '0 was issued placing Cadet Cudiaon inde2nite leae o absence and barring hi$ ro$uture appoint$ent andGor ad$ission as cadet, a$ongothers.

• ice Ad$iral Abogado approed the reco$$endationto dis$iss Cadet Cudia

• Cadet Cudia8s sister Annaee posted his plight in herFB account.


9/80

Facts

• "pouses Cudia gae a letter to Ma=. -en. 5ope, the new

PMA "uperintendent as6ing or the recognition o the D)oting o the #C. !he latter reerred the $atter to theCadet Reiew and Appeals Board %CRAB&

• Alleged "pecial 3rder o. ) was issued directing all PMAcadets to ostracie Cadet Cudia by not tal6ing to hi$ and

separating hi$ ro$ all actiitiesGunctions o the cadets

• Cudia a$ily engaged the serices o PA3

• CRAB conducted a reiew o the case and inor$ed CadetCudia that pending the approal o his re


10/80

Facts

• "pouses Cudia 2led a letterco$plaint beore the C#RCAR or the alleged iolation o the hu$an rights oCadet Cudia %right to due process, education, andpriacy o co$$unication&

• PA3 $oed or additional ti$e to 2le Cadet Cudia8sappeal and sub$it eidence and wrote AFP Chie o

"taf -en. Bautista to aorably act on Cadet Cudia8sre


11/80

Facts• "pecial 3rder o. *D was issued directing the

creation o a FactFinding BoardG4nestigation Body

co$posed o the CRAB Me$bers and PMA senioro?cers to conduct a deliberate inestigationregarding the Appeal Me$orandu$ o Cadet Cudia

• C#RCAR issued its preli$inary 2ndings

reco$$ending the ollowing9• !o uphold and respect the D) ot -uilty ote

• !o o?cially pronounce Cadet Cudia as ot -uilty

• !o restore Cadet Cudia o his rights and entitle$ents duringgraduation

• For the PMA to ully cooperate with the C#R inestigation

• !he Cudia a$ily had a $eeting with PresidentA


12/80

Facts• !he President tas6ed -en. Bautista to handle the

reinestigation o the case

• !he AFP-#H upheld the decision o the PMACRAB denying the appeal or reinestigationI FactFinding BodyG4nestigating Body denied CadetCudia8s appeal

• !he C#R, on the other hand, ound that there hadbeen iolations o the rights o Cadet Cudia

• Pending resolution o the case, the 3?ce o thePresident a?r$ed the 2ndings o the AFP Chie o

"taf and the CRAB


13/80

4"">;"


14/80

4ssues

PR3C;7>RA5). @hether or not petition or $anda$us is

proper

'. @hether or not the Principle o ;+haustiono Ad$inistratie Re$edies was iolated

/. @hether or not the court can interere with$ilitary afairs


15/80

4ssues

">B"!A!4;). @3 a Cadet relin


16/80

4ssues

">B"!A!4;g& #C e+ecutie sessionGcha$bering

*. @3 Cudia8s state$ents constituted lying

1. @3 dis$issal ro$ PMA is an un=ust andcruel punish$ent

0. @3 the C#R 2ndings should be binding


17/80

PR3C;7>RA5


18/80

). @3 Manda$us is

Proper

PR3C;7>R


19/80

Petitioners

Respondents

PR3C;7>RA5 @3 Manda$us is Proper

• @hile one o the prayers sought or can no longer be granted,the court $ay still grant the other relies prayed when there is aiolation o a constitutional right %4n -arcia !he FacultyAd$ission Co$$ittee&

• Petition or $anda$us is i$proper since it does not lie to

co$pel the peror$ance o a discretionary duty• 4t is also 3! PR3P;R because the relie sought by petitioners

were either already rendered $oot and acade$ic or alls withinthe puriew o acade$ic reedo$

PR3C;7>R


20/80

R>54-


• MA7AM>" is 4MPR3P;R

• "ection /, Rule 01 o the Rules o Court

A Petition or Manda$us $ay be 2led when any tribunal,corporation, board, o?cer or person unlawully neglects theperor$ance o an act which the law specially en=oins as a dutyresulting ro$ an o?ce, trust or station. 4t $ay also be 2led when

any tribunal, corporation, board, o?cer or person unlawullye+cludes another ro$ the use and en=oy$ent o a right or o?cewhich such other is entitled.

• For $anda$us to lie, the acts sought to be en=oined $ust be a$inisterial act o duty. 4n that, the tribunal, corporation, board,

o?cer or person $ust hae no choice to peror$ the actspeci2cally

• An act is said to be $inisterial i the act should be peror$edunder a gien state o acts, in a prescribed $anner, inobedience to the $andate o a legal authority, without regard

to or the e+ercise o the entity8s own =udg$ent upon thepropriety or i$propriety o the act done

PR3C;7>R


21/80

R>54-


• 4n the case at hand, the relies sought by the petitioners do notinclude $inisterial acts o the o?cials co$plained o, rather,said acts are discretionary on their part. At the sa$e ti$e,petitioners should hae a clear legal right to the thingde$anded, and there should be an i$peratie duty on the parto respondents to peror$ the act sought to be $andated

R;54;F" "3>-#!

MOOT AND ACADEMIC

• Concerning his inclusion in the list o graduates and the yearboo6

• Concerning his prayer to be allowed to ta6e part in the

co$$ence$ent e+ercise

WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM (standards must bemet, po!"!es are to be pursued and d!s"ret!on !s o# t$e essen"e%

• Concerning the awarding o his acade$ic honors

ENTITIE&' DUT RE)UIRED THE E*ERCI&E OF DI&CRETION+UD-MENT • Concerning the relies sought against the ad$inistratie bodies


22/80

'. @3 Principle o ;+haustiono Ad$inistratie Re$edies was

iolated

PR3C;7>R 3n ;+haustion o Ad$inistratie


23/80

Petitioners

Respondents

PR3C;7>RA5

3n ;+haustion o Ad$inistratieRe$edies

•

Petitioners already consider the President to hae efectielydenied the appeal. 7espite the a$ily8s eforts to see6reconsideration ro$ the AFP 3?cials and the President, saideforts were still in ain

• Rule on e+haustion o ad$inistratie re$edies is not absolute

• Court $ust decline =urisdiction oer the petition pending the

Presidential resolution o Cdt Cudia8s appeal since the Presidentcan still oerturn the decision o the PMA.

• !he 2ling o the case while the an appeal is pending beore the3?ce o the President is an irresponsible de2ance

PR3C;7>R 3n ;+haustion o Ad$inistratie


24/80

R>54-

PR3C;7>RA5


• !he 7octrine o ;+haustion o Ad$inistratie Re$edies @A"

3! 435A!;7

• 7octrine o ;+haustion o Ad$inistratie Re$edies courts, or reasons o law, co$ity, and conenience, should notentertain suits unless the aailable ad$inistratie re$edies hae 2rstbeen resorted to and the proper authorities, who are co$petent to act

upon the $atter co$plained o, hae been gien the appropriateopportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, i any, co$$itted inthe ad$inistratie oru$.

• !he sa$e ad$its o so$e e+ceptions %Buena Benito&

). @hen there is a iolation o due process

'. @hen the issue inoled is purely a legal R 3n ;+haustion o Ad$inistratie


25/80

R>54-

PR3C;7>RA5


0. @hen the respondent is a depart$ent secretary whose acts as an

alter ego o the President bear the i$plied and assu$ed approalo the latterI

. @hen to re


26/80

/. @3 the Court can

interere with Military afairs

PR3C;7>R Court8s 4ntererence in Military


27/80

Petitioners

Respondents

PR3C;7>RA5

Court s 4ntererence in MilitaryAfairs

•

!he Court is part o the "tate8s chec6 and balance $achinery$andated by Article D o the )ED Constitution to ensure that nobranch o goern$ent or any o its o?cial acts without or ine+cess o =urisdiction or with grae abuse o, discretiona$ounting to lac6 or e+cess o =urisdiction

• Judicial power is e+ercised to deter$ine whether the AFP and the

$e$bers o the court $artial acted with grae abuse odiscretion in their $ilitary inestigation

• Courts cannot interere with $ilitary afairs because it would pose substantialthreat to $ilitary discipline

• @hile Philippine courts hae the power o =udicial reiew in cases attended withgrae abuse o discretion a$ounting to lac6 or e+cess =urisdiction, policyconsiderations call or the widest latitude o deerence to $ilitary afairs

• A $ilitary constitutes a specialied co$$unity goerned by a separate disciplinero$ that o the ciilian

• !he disciplinary rules and procedure necessarily i$posed in the PMA $ust haediferent standard o conduct co$pared with ciilian institutions

PR3C;7>R Court8s 4ntererence in Military


28/80

R>54-

PR3C;7>RA5

Court s 4ntererence in MilitaryAfairs

• Court can interere with Military afairs

• Article D o the )ED Constitution e+panded the scope o =udicialpower by including that it has the power to deter$ine whetheror not there has been a grae abuse o discretion a$ounting tolac6 or e+cess o =urisdiction on the part o any branch orinstru$entality o the -oern$ent een i the latter does not

e+ercise =udicial,


29/80

">B"!A!4;


30/80

4ssues

">B"!A!4;

). @3 a Cadet relin


31/80

4ssues

">B"!A!4;g& #C e+ecutie sessionGcha$bering

*. @3 Cudia8s state$ents constituted lying

1. @3 dis$issal ro$ PMA is an un=ust andcruel punish$ent

0. @3 the C#R 2ndings should be binding


32/80

). @3 a Cadet relin


33/80

Petitioners

Respondents

">B"!A!4;

Cadet s relin!, itdoes not include the surrender o the right to due process

• "tandard rights applicable to a cadet is not the sa$e as that o

a ciilian because the or$er8s right hae already beenrecalibrated to best sere the $ilitary purpose and necessity

• As a $ilitary student aspiring to a co$$issioned post, CdtCudia oluntarily gae up certain ciil and political rights whichthe rest o the ciilian population en=oys

">B"!A!4 Cadet8s relin


34/80

R>54-

">B"!A!4;

Cadet s relin


35/80

'. @3 PMA e+ercised Acade$ic

Freedo$

">B"!A!4PMA8 A d i F d


36/80

Petitioners

">B"!A!4; PMA8s Acade$ic Freedo$

•

!here is no law proiding that a guilty 2nding by the #C $ay beused by the PMA to dis$iss or reco$$end the dis$issal o acadet

• !he #onor Code iolation is not a$ong those listed as =usti2cations or the attrition o cadets considering that the

#onor Code and the #onor "yste$ do not state that a guiltycadet is auto$atically ter$inated or dis$issed ro$ serice

• Acade$ic reedo$ is not absolute and cannot be e+ercised inblatant disregard o the right to due process and theConstitution



37/80

Respondents


•

PMA $ay i$pose disciplinary $easures and punish$ents as itdee$s 2t and consistent with the peculiar needs o theAcade$y

• PMA has regulatory authority to ad$inistratiely dis$iss erringcadets pursuant to C.A. o. ) and although the law grants the

President the authority to ter$inate a cadet8s appoint$ent, thepower $ay be delegated to the PMA "uperintendent

• As an acade$ic institution, the PMA has the inherent right topro$ulgate reasonable nor$s, rules and regulations that is $aydee$ necessary or the $aintenance o school discipline

%"ection /%'&, Article )0 o the )ED Constitution&• !he PMA is an institution that en=oys acade$ic reedo$

guaranteed by "ection 1%'&, Article )0 o the )ED Constitution.

• Conco$itant with such reedo$ KAcade$icL is the right andduty to instill and i$pose discipline upon its students %Miria$

College Foundation CA



38/80

R>54-


• !he Philippine Military Acade$y is $erely e+ercising its Acade$ic

Freedo$• "choolstudent relationship is contractual in nature and reciprocal

• Contra"tua in the sense that a student8s enrol$ent is not only se$ester induration but or the entire period he or she is e+pected to co$plete it and

that the sa$e is i$bued with public interest because priority to

• Re"!pro"a in that the school underta6es to proide students with education

su?cient to enable the$ to pursue higher education or a proession and thatthe students agree to abide by the acade$ic reniersity

). @ho $ay teach

'. @hat $ay be taught

/. #ow it shall be taught*. @ho $ay be ad$itted to study

•. A schools8 power to instill discipline in their students is subsu$ed intheir acade$ic reedo$ and that the establish$ent o rules goerninguniersitystudent relations, particularly those pertaining to studentdiscipline, $ay be regarded as ital, not $erely to the s$ooth and

e?cient operation o the institution, but to its ery surial



39/80

R>54-


• #3@ 4! "#A55 B; !A>-#! : establish$ent o educational

institution reB"!A!4PMA8 A d i F d


40/80

R>54-


• @hile it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue

their education, an educational institution is also entitled to pursueits acade$ic reedo$ and see to it that the sa$e is not =eopardied

• !he PMA, as the pri$ary training and educational institution o theAFP, has the right to ino6e acade$ic reedo$ in the enorce$ento its internal rules and regulations %#onor Code and #onor "yste$&

• !he #onor Code set the basic and unda$ental and ethical and$oral principle binding a cadet during his stay at the PMA

• !he #onor Code and "yste$ could be =usti2ed as the pri$ary $eanso achieing the cadet8s character deelop$ent and as ways bywhich the Acade$y has chosen to identiy those who are de2cient inconduct

• Acade$y8s disciplinary syste$ as a whole is characteried ascorrectional and education in nature rather than being legalistic andpunitie : the purpose is to teach the cadets to be prepared toaccept ull responsibility or all that they do or ail to do and to placeloyalty to the serice aboe selinterest or loyalty to riends orassociates


41/80

/. @3 7ue Process was

iolated

">B"!A!4Right to 7ue Process


42/80

Petitioners

Respondents

">B"!A!4; Right to 7ue Process

•

#C, the CRAB and the PMA ell short in obsering the i$portantsaeguards laid down in Ang !ibay C4R and on Judge7a$es 44 which set the $ini$u$ standards to satisy thede$ands o procedural due process in the i$position odisciplinary sanctions

• -u$an > is $ore appropriate in deter$ining the $ini$u$

standards or the i$position o disciplinary sanctions inacade$ic institutions

• @ith the guideposts set in Andrews, Cdt Cudia was accordeddue process

">B"!A!4Right to 7ue Process


43/80

R>54-

; Right to 7ue Process

• Cdt Cudia was accorded due process

• Although both Ang !ibay and -u$an essentially deal with thereB"!A!4Right to 7ue Process


44/80

R>54-


• 7ue Process in disciplinary cases inoling students does not entail

proceedings and hearings si$ilar to those prescribed or actions andproceedings in courts o =usticeI it $ay be su$$ary, crosse+a$ination is not an essential part o the inestigation or hearingand re


45/80

R>54-


• !he Ne+ibility which is inherent in the concept o 7ue Process o 5aw

precludes the dog$atic application o speci2c rules deeloped inone conte+t to entirely distinct or$s o goern$ent actionI thecourt $ust careully deter$ine and balance the nature o priateinterest afected and o the goern$ent interest inoled, ta6ingaccount o history and the precise circu$stances surrounding thecase at hand

• 7ue process only re


46/80

/%a& @3 Cdt Cudia was denied

the Right to Counsel

">B"!A!4%R7P& Right to Counsel


47/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; %R7P& Right to Counsel

• Respondents should be co$pelled to gie Cdt Cudia the right to berepresented by a counsel during the proceedings beore the CRAB or #C, ire$andedI @hile the CRAB allows hi$ to be represented by a PA3 5awyer,the counsel was only $ade an obserer without any right to interene

• Cdt Cudia was not su?ciently gien the opportunity to see6 a counsel andwas not een as6ed i he would li6e to hae one. Following -u$an, theerring student has the right to answer the charges against hi$ or her withthe assistance o counsel, i desired

• Right to counsel is not i$peratie in ad$inistratie inestigations or noncri$inal proceedings %5u$i


48/80

R>54-

; %R7P& Right to Counsel

• !here was 3 435A!43 o the Right to Counsel

• !here is nothing in the )ED Constitution which says that a party in anonlitigation proceeding is entitled to be represented by counselIassistance o a lawyer, while desirable, is not indispensable %5u$i


49/80

/%b& @3 reusal to produce therecords o the case is

tanta$ount to iolation o 7ue

Process

">B"!A!4 %R7P& Right to the Records o the


50/80

Petitioners

Respondents

;% & g o e eco ds o e

Case

• !he denial o the re


51/80

R>54-

;% & g

Case

• Reusal o the deendants to produce the records o the case is

not tanta$ount to iolation o 7ue Process

• !he court $ay re


52/80

/%c& @3 Cdt Cudia was

3stracied

">B"!A!4%R7P& 3stracis$ in PMA


53/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; %R7P& 3stracis$ in PMA

• !he issuance o "pecial 3rder o. ) which directed the ostracis$o Cdt Cudia let hi$ without any opportunity to securestate$ents o his own witnesses

• "aid order was recognied by so$e leaders o the PMA in newsreports

• 4 it were issued by the Cadets the$seles, the PMA would haealready repri$anded the$ but no eent as to that efect e+isted

• either the petition nor the petitionininterention attached a ullte+t copy o said alleged "pecial 3rder o. ), hence, attribution othe sa$e to the PMA is i$proper and $isplaced since 3stracis$ hasalready been absolutely dis$issed as an acade$ysanctionedactiity consistent with the trend in 4nternational #u$anitarian 5awwhich the PMA included in its curriculu$

• Cadets could not hae ostracied Cdt Cudia as he was in the

#olding Center

">B"!A!4%R7P& 3stracis$ in PMA


54/80

R>54-

; %R7P& 3stracis$ in PMA

• either the petition nor the petitionininterention attached a

ull te+t copy or een a pertinent portion o the alleged orderIbeing hearsay, its e+istence and contents are o doubtuleracity, hence, a de2nite ruling on the $atter can neer begranted

• Cdt Mogol see$ingly ad$itted that they issued said "pecial

3rder o. ) during the C#R hearing, i true, the sa$e can nolonger be countenanced

• 3stracis$ practically denies the accused cadet8s protectedrights to present witnesses and eidence in his or her behaland to be presu$ed innocent until 2nally proen otherwise in aproper proceeding


55/80

/%d& 5ate and ague 7ecisions

">B"!A!4%R7P& 5ate and ague 7ecisions


56/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; %R7P& 5ate and ague 7ecisions

• Cdt Cudia as 6ept in the dar6 as to the charge against hi$ andthe decisions arried at by the #C, the CRAB, and the PMA

• !here was no written decision urnished to hi$ and, i any, theinor$ation was un=ustly belated on the =usti2cations or thedecisions were ague

• ;en as to what eidence was weighed in the pro$ulgation othe decision, Cdt Cudia was 6ept in the dar6

• PMA has a practice o orally declaring the #C 2ndings so as to

protect the integrity o the erring cadet and guard thecon2dentiality o the #C proceedings pursuant to the #onor"yste$

">B"!A!4%R7P& 5ate and ague 7ecisions


57/80

R>54-

; %R7P& 5ate and ague 7ecisions

• Petitioner contentions hae no leg to stand on

• @hile constitutionally $andated that no decision shall berendered by any court without e+pressing therein clearly anddistinctly the acts and the law on which it is based, the sa$ecannot be applied in the present case

• either -u$an nor Andrews re


58/80

/%e& @3 there was blind

adoption o the #C 2ndings

">B"!A!4; %R7P& Blind Adoption o #C 2ndings


59/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; %R7P& Blind Adoption o #C 2ndings

• Pursuant to "ections /( and /) o C.A. o. ), only PresidentA


60/80

R>54-

; %R7P& Blind Adoption o #C 2ndings

• !here was no blind adoption o the #C 2ndings

• !he #C has a li$ited role o inestigating and deter$iningwhether or not the alleged ofender has actually iolated the#onor CodeI !he results o its proceedings are purelyreco$$endatory and hae no binding efect

• 4t is not re


61/80

">B"!A!4;

%R7P& 7is$issal Proceedings as"h i l


62/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; "ha$ !rial

• !he proceedings beore the #C were a sha$ because the people behind

Cdt Cudia8s charge, inestigation and coniction were the ones who hadthe intent to deceie and who too6 adantage o the situation.

• Clear $aniestations o PMA8s clear resole to dis$iss Cdt Cudia are asollows9 !here was no su?cient proper notice was gien to the Petitionerso the scheduled CRAB hearing, during one o petitionerinteror8s isit,she was adised by Brig. -en. Costales to conince her son to resign and

i$$ediately leae the PMA and Cdt Cudia8s sister was told that ourbrother, he liedO

• Bad aith cannot be i$puted against Ma=. #indang by reerring tothe actions ta6en by the C!3 o the other cadets who were gien7Rs because unli6e the other cadets, only Cdt Cudia did notad$it his being late and efectiely eaded responsibility byascribing his tardiness to 7r. Costales

• !here was no reason or ill$otie on the part o the PMA topreent Cdt Cudia ro$ graduating because the Acade$y does

not stand gain anything ro$ said dis$issal

">B"!A!4;

%R7P& 7is$issal Proceedings as"h ! i l


63/80

R>54-

; "ha$ !rial

• 4n the absence o speci2cs and substantial eidence, the Court

cannot easily gie credence to a baseless insinuation

• For lac6 o actual proo o bad aith and ill$otie, the Court shallrely on the nontoleration clause o the #onor Code which proidesthat @e do not tolerate those who iolate the Code

• Cadets are presu$ed to be characteristically honorable, they

cannot oerloo6 or arbitrarily ignore the dishonorable action o theirpeers, seniors or subordinates : such acts which were peror$ed bythe Cadets who$ Petitioners are charging will ill$otie

• Assu$ing or the sa6e o argu$ent that indeed the indiidualsi$puted hae a grudge against Cdt Cudia and were bent on causing

the latter8s downall, their nearious conduct would still beinsigni2cant since the #C, the CRAB and the FactFindingBoardG4nestigating Body are collegial bodies. #ence, the clai$ thatthe proceedings conducted were $erely a sha$ because theindiiduals participated in it results in i$plying the e+istence oconspiracy, distrusting the co$petence, independence, and

integrity o the other $e$bers who constituted the $a=ority


64/80

/%g& #C e+ecutie

sessionGcha$bering

">B"!A!4;

%R7P& #C ;+ecutie" i GCh b i


65/80

Petitioners

; "essionGCha$bering

• !here was an irregular ad$inistratie hearing in the case because ' oting

rounds too6 place and no record o the change was $entioned in the #Cor$al report

• Co$$aner !abuado8s a?dait efected that it was Cdt 5agura who was thelone dissenter in the 2rst oting but was pressured to change his answerduring the cha$bering %e+ecutie session&

• !here is nothing in the procedure that per$its the #C Chair$an to order thecha$bering o a $e$ber who oted contrary to the $a=ority and sub=ects hi$or her to reconsider in order to reNect a unani$ous ote

• !he re


66/80

Respondents


• !he Honor Code sets the standard or a cadet8s $ini$u$ ethical and

$oral behaior and does not change while Honor &.stem is a set orules or the conduct o the obserance and i$ple$entation o the#onor Code and $ay undergo necessary ad=ust$ents as $ay bewarranted by the incu$bent $e$bers o the #C in order to be $oreresponsie to the $oral training and character deelop$ent

•

#istorically, a nonunani$ous guilty erdict auto$atically ac


67/80

R>54-


• !he ;+ecutie "ession was not irregular

• !he #onor Code proides the ollowing or the $anner ooting9

Ater a thorough discussion and deliberation, the presiding $e$ber othe Board will call or the $e$bers to ote whether the accused is ->45!or 3! ->45!. A unani$ous ote %E otes& o ->45! decides that a cadetis ound guilty o iolating the #onor Code

• 4t readily appears that the #C practice o conducting e+ecutiesession and cha$bering is not all prohibited as they are gienleeway on the oting procedures in actual cases. @hat isi$portant is that, in the end, there $ust be unani$ous E otesin order to hold a cadet guilty o iolating the #onor Code

• 4nti$idation and orce is neer presu$ed, $ere allegation isde2nitely not eidence . 4t $ust be substantiated and proedbecause a person is presu$ed to be innocent o a cri$e orwrong and that o?cial duty has been regularly peror$ed


68/80

*. @3 Cudia8s "tate$ents

constituted lying

">B"!A!4;

@3 Cudia8s state$ent constitutedl i


69/80

Petitioners

; lying

• Cdt Cudia did not lieI !here was no clear ti$e reerence as to when was

the actual dis$issal or what was the e+act ti$e o dis$issal : whether itshould be the dis$issal inside the roo$ or the dis$issal ater thesection grade was gien by 7r. Costales

• Cdt Cudia8s only business was to as6 7r. Costales a


70/80

Respondents

; lying

• Cdt Cudia was


71/80

R>54-

; lying

• Cudia8s state$ents constitute


72/80

">B"!A!4;

@3 Cudia8s state$ent constitutedlying


73/80

R>54-

; lying

• !he ter$ class does not include eery transaction and co$$unication

a teacher does with her students $ore so will the co$position o a ewstudents %at least *& would constitute a class

• Cdt Cudia8s deception beca$e $ore obious when co$pared to hise+planation, the other students who were also tendered with 7Rs wrotethat, we approached our instructor ater our class as their e+planation

• !he deter$ination o the ti$e o dis$issal o the 3R*/' class is noti$portant since 7r. Costales hersel, who stood witness or Cdt Cudia,ad$itted that the latter was already dis$issed when he passed his 5;and that she $erely responded to his re;. !he sa$e being cadetinitiated is oluntary and not part o the class ti$e

• !he case is not =ust a $atter o se$antics and a product o plain andsi$ple inaccuracy because it is apparent ro$ the acts that Cdt Cdiacunningly chose the words which led to the conusion and eentually tothe co$$ence$ent o the #C in


74/80

1. @3 dis$issal ro$ PMA is an

un=ust and cruel punish$ent

">B"!A!4;

7is$issal as an un=ust and cruelpunish$ent


75/80

Petitioners

Respondents

; punish$ent

• !here is no need to distinguish between a little lie and a huge

alsehood since Cdt Cudia did not lie at all

• Absent any intent to deceie and to ta6e undue adantage, thepenalty i$posed on hi$ is considered un=ust and cruel

• !he penalty is not co$$ensurate to the act that he is a graduatingcadet with honors and what he allegedly co$$itted does not a$ount

to an acade$ic de2ciency or an intentional and Nagrant iolation othe PMA nonacade$ic rules and regulations

• >nder the Cadet Corps Ar$ed Forces o the Philippine Regulation, a iolation othe Cadet #onor Code is considered -rae delin


76/80

R>54-

; punish$ent

• 7is$issal ro$ the PMA is 3! an un=ust and cruel punish$ent

• !he 2nding that Cdt Cudia in truth and in act lied and hisacceptance that iolation o the #onor Code warrants ulti$atepenalty o dis$issal ro$ the PMA, there is no $ore dispute toresole

• !he sanction is clearly set orth and Cdt Cudia, by contract,ris6ed this when he entered the Acade$y

• @hile the penalty is seere, it is neertheless reasonable andnot arbitrary and thereore, not in iolation o due process

• @hile separation is ad$ittedly a drastic and tragic conse


77/80

0. @3 the C#R 2ndings should

be binding

">B"!A!4; @3 C#R 2ndings should be binding


78/80

Petitioners

Respondents

;

• PMA turned a blind eye on the C#R8s reco$$endations

• C#R is a constitutional body $andated by the )ED Constitution toinestigate all or$s o hu$an rights iolations inoling ciil andpolitical rights, and to conduct inestigatie $onitoring o econo$ic,social, and cultural rights, particularly o ulnerable sectors o society

• C#R8s inestigation and reco$$endations are so persuasie that the

Court, on seeral occasions, gae its 2ndings serious consideration

• C#R is $erely a reco$$endatory body that is not e$poweredto arrie at a conclusie deter$ination o any controersy

">B"!A!4; @3 C#R 2ndings should be binding


79/80

R>54-

;

• Findings o act and conclusions o law o the C#R are $erely

reco$$endatory and, thereore, 3! B474-

• C#R8s constitutional $andate e+tends only to the inestigationo all or$s o hu$an rights iolations inoling ciil andpolitical rightsI

• 4t is only a act2nding body and not a court o =ustice or


80/80

!#A 3>O

Cadet 1CL Cudia, Et. Al v PMA, Et. Al.

Documents

Transcript of Cadet 1CL Cudia, Et. Al v PMA, Et. Al.