Cudia Consti

7/25/2019 Cudia Consti

1/64

The Facts

Cadet 1CL Cudia was a member of Siklab DiwaClass of 2014 of the PMA, thecountrys premiere military academy located at ort !re"orio del Pilar in#a"uio City$ %e belon"ed to the &A' Company and was the (eputy #aron of

his class$ As claimed by petitioners and petitioner)inter*enor +hereinaftercollecti*ely called &petitioners,' unless otherwise indicated, he wassupposed to "raduate with honors as the class salutatorian, recei*e thePhilippine -a*y .aber as the top -a*y cadet "raduate, and be commissionedas an ensi"n of the Philippine -a*y$

/n -o*ember 14, 201, the combined classes of the -a*y and Air orce 1CLcadets had a lesson eamination +L on /perations 3esearch +/342 under(r$ Maria Monica C$ Costales +(r$ Costales at the PMA 3oom$ Per publishedschedule from the %ead5uarters Academic !roup, the 4 thperiod class in/342 was from 160)600 p$m$ +10%)1700%, while the 7 thperiod class in

-!412 was from 607)4607 p$m$ +1707%)1807%$

i*e days after, Professor 9uanita #eron" +Prof$ #eron" of the 7 thperiod classissued a (elin5uency 3eport +(3 a"ainst Cadet 1CL Cudia because he was&[l]ate for two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class x x x$'1:Cadets 1CL -arciso,Arcan"el, Miranda, Pontillas, (ia;, /tila, and (ela Cru; were also reportedlate for actical /?cers$>hey were lo""ed and transmitted to the Company >actical /?cers +C! foreplanation of the concerned cadets$ >wo days later, Cadet 1CL Cudia

recei*ed his (3$

n his planation of 3eport dated (ecember =, 201, Cadet 1CL Cudiareasoned out that6 &" came #irectl$ from !%4&2 Class' e were #ismisse# abit late b$ our instructor Sir $'1@chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

/n (ecember 1@, 201, Maor 3ommel (ennis %indan" +Ma$ %indan", theC>/ of Cadet 1CL Cudia, meted out to him the penalty of 11 demerits and 1tourin" hours$ mmediately, Cadet 1CL Cudia clarihe latter told him that the basis of the punishment wasthe result of his con*ersation with (r$ Costales, who responded that she

ne*er dismissed her class late, and the protocol to dismiss the class 10)17minutes earlier than scheduled$ Bhen he epressed his intention to appealand see reconsideration of the punishment, he was ad*ised to put there5uest in writin"$ %ence, that same day, Cadet 1CL Cudia addressed his3e5uest for 3econsideration of Meted Punishment to Ma$ #enamin L$Leander, .enior >actical /?cer +S!, assertin"6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary


2/64

stron"ly belie*e that am not in control of the circumstances, our 4 thperiodclass ended 1700% and our 7thperiod class, which is -!412, started 1700%also$ mmediately after 4thperiod class, went to my net class without anyintention of bein" late .ir$20

A day after, Ma$ Leander instructed Ma$ %indan" to "i*e his comments on

the re5uest of Cadet 1CL Cudia and to indicate if there were other cadetsbelon"in" to the same section who were also late$

/n (ecember 2=, 201, Ma$ %indan" submitted his reply to Ma$ Leanderpointin" out that, based on his in*esti"ation, the 4 thperiod class was notdismissed late$ As a result, Ma$ Leander sustained the penalty imposed$Petitioners alle"ed that Cadet 1CL Cudia came to now of the denial of hisre5uest only on 9anuary 24, 2014 upon in5uiry with Ma$ Leander$

.e*eral days passed, and on 9anuary :, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia was informedthat Ma$ %indan" reported him to the %C21for *iolation of the %onor Code$

>he %onor 3eport stated6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

Lyin" that is "i*in" statement that per*erts the truth in his written appeal,statin" that his 4thperiod class ended at 1700% that made him late in thesucceedin" class$22

Dpon asin" the %C Chairman, Cadet 1CL Mie Anthony P$ Mo"ol +Ca#et 1C*ogol, as to what Ma$ %indan" meant in his 3eport, Cadet 1CL Cudialearned that it was based on Ma$ %indan"s con*ersations with theirinstructors and classmates as well as his statement in the re5uest forreconsideration to Ma$ Leander$ %e then *erbally applied for and was"ranted an etension of time to answer the char"e a"ainst him because (r$

Costales, who could shed li"ht on the matter, was on emer"ency lea*e$

/n 9anuary 1, 2014, (r$ Costales sent tet messa"es to Cadet 1CL Cudia,con*eyin"6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

!ud pm cdt cudia$ Mam belandres "a*e me b"round na$ .he told me its areport dated no*ember$ Bhen ma hindan" as me, no time referens$+04627611 P$M$

All the while thot he was referin" to dismisal durin" last day last december$Bhc i told, i wud presume they wil


3/64

.ir,

Be had an L that day +14 -o*ember 201 in /342 class$ Bhen the


4/64

" agree an# consi#er that because Ca#et C-D". is un#er m$ instructionto wait/ an# the other ca#ets still ha0e business with me/ it isreasonable enough for him to sa$ that !ur class was #ismisse# a bitlate (#ealing with matter of secon#s or a minute ,articularl$ 43

secon#s to 1 minute an# & secon#s)

.n# with concern to (sic) !%4&2 class/ " can sa$ it en#e# on time(135)'

(signe#)*' C!S.ESw6 attache# certi7cation

7$ was transparent and honest in eplainin" the 2)minute delay and didnot attempt to conceal anythin" that happened or did$

8$ urthermore, CP> (DLABA- PA, the >actical /?cer of %awCompanyF,G and had a con*ersation with re"ards +sic to the samematter for which he can "i*e important points of my case$

:$ Cadet 1cl (AI &(' Co can also stand as a witness that waited for Ms$Costales$24

/n 9anuary 17, 2014, the %C constituted a team to conduct a preliminary

in*esti"ation on the reported honor *iolation of Cadet 1CL Cudia$ >he otrotCompany was desi"nated as the in*esti"atin" team and was composed ofCadet 1CL %asi"an as Presidin" /?cer, and Cadets 1CL Mo"ol, 1CL3a"uindin, 2CL !umilab, 2CL .aldua, CL speo, and CL Poncardas asmembers$27.oon after, the team submitted its Preliminary n*esti"ation3eport recommendin" that the case be formali;ed$

>he formal in*esti"ation a"ainst Cadet 1CL Cudia then ensued$ >he Presidin"/?cer was Cadet 1CL 3hona J$ .al*acion, while the nine +@ *otin" memberswere Cadets 1CL 9airus /$ antin, 1CL #ryan .onny .$ Arle"ui, 1CL Jim Adrian3$ Martal, 1CL 9eanelyn P$ Cabrido, 1CL .hu)Aydan !$ Ayada, 1CL (alton 9ohn

!$ La"ura, 2CL 3enato A$ CariKo, 9r$, 2CL Arwi C$ Martine;, and 2CL -ioAn"elo C$ >arayao$28Actin" as recorders tased to document the entireproceedin"s were 4CL 9ennifer A$ Cuarteron and CL Leoncio -ico A$ de 9esus$2:>hose who obser*ed the trial were Cadets 1CL #almeo, (a")uman,%asi"an, 3a"uindin, Paulino, Arcan"el, and -arciso Cadets 2CL 9ocson and.aldua, 9r$ and Cadet CL Dma"uin"$2=chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

>he


5/64

until early mornin" the net day$ Cadet 1CL Cudia was informed of thechar"e a"ainst him, as to which he pleaded &-ot !uilty$' Amon" those whotestihis is when was reported for &Late for two +2 minutes in n"412

class', my eplanation on this delin5uency report when recei*ed it, is that&/ur class was dismissed a +little bit late and came directly from 4 th periodclass$$$ etc'$ Jnowin" the fact that in my delin5uency report, it is stated that-!412 classes started 1700% and am late for two minutes, it is lo"icalenou"h for +sic to interpret it as & came 1702% durin" that class'$ >his isthe eplanation that came into my mind that time$ +" 8ust cannot recall theexact wor#s " use# in ex,laining that #elin+uenc$ re,ort/ but what " want tosa$ is that " ha0e no intention to be late$ n my statements, con*ey mymessa"e as &since was not the only one left in that class, and the instructoris with us, used the term &CLA..', used the word &(.M..(' because was under instruction +to wait for her to gi0e the section gra#e by the

instructor, Ms$ Costales$ >he other cadets +1CL M3A-(A, 1CL A3CA-!Lstill ha*e 5ueries and business with her that made me decide to use theword &CLA..', while the others who dont ha*e 5ueries and business withher +e6 1CL -A3C./ and 1CL (AI were also around$

-ote6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

he four name# ca#ets were also re,orte# late$


6/64

%eference9 :ara 1;1'' (ea0ing the Classroom :rior to Dismissal ime)(Sec:% s2?)

"t is state# in this reference that Ca#ets shall not linger in the ,lace of

instruction after the section has been #ismisse#' Eruly, the class -(( 1700% but due too?cial purpose +instruction b$ *s' Costales to wait and the conNict inacademic schedule +to which " am not in control of the circumstances/ 4th:Dclass 1&&5A135 an# 3th:D class 135A1B5, and since Ms$ Costales,

my other classmates, and were there, used the word &CLA..'$

1@ (ecember 201

was informed that my delin5uency report was awarded, 11 (emerits and 1>ourin" hours$ -ot because dont want to ser*e punishment, but because now did nothin" wron", obeyed instruction, and belie*in" that my reasonis ustihese statements are supplementary to my eplanation in my delin5uencyreport, in here, specihinin" that he already understood what wantto say, immediately made an appeal that day statin" the words that usedin ha*in" con*ersation with him$2@

Attached to the written appeal was a Certi


7/64

1$ >hat Cadet M3A-(A, A3CA-!L, FandG -A3C./ was +sic with CadetCD(A in main" 5uery about their latest "rades in /342 andHorresults of D1 outside the ACA(. o?ce$ >he followin" facts mayeplain their 5ueries on 14 -o*ember2016chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

a$ >hat held my class in the PMA room instead of room 104$

b$ >hat /342 releases "rades e*ery Bednesday and cadets areinformed durin" >hursday, either in class or posted "rades in thebulletin board +"rades released was FsicG based on the pre*iousLs6 latest L before D was (ecision >rees$

c$ >hat D papers were already checed but not yet recorded dueto +sic other cadets ha*e not taen the D$ Cadets were allowedto *erify scores but not to loo at the papers$

d$ Last 2 9anuary 2014, Captain (ulawan clarihat the statements of the three +cadets are all the same and consistent, thusF,G honor that astrue$

2$ As to the aspect of dismissin" late, could not really account for the

specio this date, FcannotG reallyrecall an account that is more than two +2 months earlier$ Accordin" tomy records, there was a lecture followed by an L durin" + sic on 14-o*ember 201$ >o determine the time of my dismissal, maybe it canbe *eriactics !roup +5 conducted an informal re*iew to chec the


8/64

Commandant, Assistant Commandant, and .>/ that the class started notearlier than scheduled$

Meantime, on ebruary 4, 2014, the /C of the %C forwarded the ormaln*esti"ation 3eport to the .taO 9ud"e Ad*ocate +S. for re*iew$ >he net

day, the .9A found the report to be le"ally in order$

/n ebruary =, 2014, Colonel 3o;;ano ($ #ri"ue; +Col' FrigueG, theCommandant of Cadets, a?rmed the %C wo days later, ice Admiral Abo"ado appro*ed the recommendation todismiss Cadet 1CL Cudia$

/n ebruary 1, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia submitted a letter to the /?ce ofthe Commandant of Cadets re5uestin" for reinstatement by the PMA of hisstatus as a cadet$4chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

our days passed, Anna*ee P$ Cudia +.nna0ee, the sister of Cadet 1CL

Cudia, posted his pli"ht in her aceboo account$ >he day after, the .pousesCudia "a*e a letter to Maor !eneral /scar Lope; +*a8' en' o,eG, the newPMA .uperintendent, asin" to reco"ni;e the =)1 *otin" of the %C,7copies ofwhich were furnished to the AP Chief of .taO and other concerned militaryo?cials$ .ubse5uently, Ma$ !en$ Lope; was directed to re*iew Cadet 1CLCudias case$ >he latter, in turn, referred the matter to the Cadet 3e*iew andAppeals #oard +C%.F$

/n ebruary 1@, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia made his personal appeal letter toMa$ !en$ Lope;$ /n e*en date, the AP Chief of .taO ordered arein*esti"ation followin" the *iral aceboo post of Anna*ee demandin" the

inter*ention of the military leadership$

Petitioners claim that, on ebruary 21, 2014, .pecial /rder -o$ 1 was issueddirectin" all PMA cadets to ostraci;e Cadet 1CL Cudia by not talin" to himand by separatin" him from all acti*itiesHfunctions of the cadets$ t is saidthat any *iolation shall be a &Class 1' oOense entailin" 47 demerits, @0 hourstourin", and @0 hours con


9/64

news report, PMA .poesperson Maor A"nes Lynette lores +*a8' >loresconhe C3A# conducted a re*iew of the case based on the followin"6 +a letter ofappeal of the .pouses Cudia dated ebruary 1=, 2014 +b directi*e from theAP)!% to rein*esti"ate the case and +c "uidance from Ma$ !en$ Lope;$

/n ebruary 28, 2014, #ri"adier !eneral Andre M$ Costales, 9r$ +#ri"$ !en$Costales, 9r$, the C3A# Chairman, informed Cadet 1CL Cudia that, pendin"appro*al of the latters re5uest for etension, the C3A# would continue tore*iew the case and submit its recommendations based on whate*ere*idence and testimonies recei*ed, and that it could not fa*orably considerhis re5uest for copies of the %C minutes, rele*ant documents, and *ideofoota"es and recordin"s of the %C hearin"s since it was neither the

appropriate nor the authori;ed body to tae action thereon$@

.ubse5uently,upon *erbal ad*ice, Cadet 1CL Cudia wrote a letter to Ma$ !en$ Lope;reiteratin" his re5uest$40chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

>wo days after, the .pouses Cudia


10/64

/n March 10, 2014, Anna*ee sou"ht the assistance of PA/ Chief PublicAttorney Persida $ 3ueda)Acosta$4/n the other hand, the C3A# submitted areport to the AP)!% upholdin" the dismissal of Cadet 1CLCudia$44chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

/n March 11, 2014, PA/ recei*ed a letter from Ma$ !en$ Lope; statin" thedenial of Cadet 1CL Cudias re5uests for etension of time to


11/64


12/64


13/64


14/64


15/64

Callawa$, 71@ $ 2d 1=4 F1@:7G and !rloH 0' illoughb$, 47 D. = F1@7G$>hus, this /?ce re"arded the he %onor Committee, the Cadet 3e*iew and Appeals #oard and thePhilippine Military Academy *iolated their own rules and principles asembodied in the %onor Code

$ >he %onor Committee, the Cadet 3e*iew and Appeals #oard and thePhilippine Military Academy, in decidin" Cadet irst Class Aldrin 9eOCudias case, "rossly and in bad faith, misapplied the %onor Code so asto defy the 1@=: Constitution, notwithstandin" the un5uestionable factthat the former should yield to the latter$


16/64

B%>%3 >% P%LPP- ML>A3R ACA(MR, >% %/-/3 C/MM>> A-(>% CA(> 3B A-( APPAL. #/A3( C/MM>>( !3A A#D. /(.C3>/- - %/L(-! >%A> CA(> 3.> CLA.. AL(3- 9 P$ CD(AL(, >%3#R /LA>-! >% %/-/3 C/(

B%>%3 >% 3.DL> / >% AC>)-(-! -.>!A>/--(P-(->LR C/-(DC>( #R >% C/MM../- /- %DMA- 3!%>. . /.DC% !3A> B!%> A-( P3.DA. -A>D3 >%A> >%. %/-/3A#LC/D3> MAR %/-/3, DP%/L( A-( 3.PC>7:

/n the other hand, in support of their prayer to dismiss the petition,respondents presented the issues below6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

P3/C(D3AL !3/D-(.

$

>% MA-(AMD. P>>/- P3AR-! >%A> CA(> CD(A # -CLD(( - >%L.> / !3A(DA>. / .JLA# (BA CLA.. / 2014 A-( # ALL/B( >/>AJ PA3> - >% C/MM-CM-> T3C.. %A. AL3A(R #-3-(3( M//>$

$

>% ..D. 3A.( - >% P>>/-. A3 AC>DALLR AC>DAL B%C% A3#R/-( >% .C/P / A P>>/- /3 C3>/3A3, P3/%#>/- A-(MA-(AMD.$

$

MA-(AMD. (/. -/> L >/ C/MPL 3.P/-(->. >/ !3A-> >%3L. P3AR( /3$

$

> . P3MA>D3 >/ -/J 9D(CAL 3(3.. P-(-! >% (C./- />% P3.(-> /- CA(> CD(A. APPAL$

$

B>% D>M/.> (D 3.PC>, >% %/-/3A#L C/D3> MD.> T3C.CA3DL 3.>3A-> A-( 33A- 3/M D-(DLR /3 P3MA>D3LR->33-! B>% L!>MA> ML>A3R MA>>3.$


17/64


18/64


19/64

authority, without re"ard to or the eercise of Fthe tribunal or corporationVsGown ud"ment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done$U >hetribunal, corporation, board, o?cer, or person must ha*e no choice but toperform the act specihis is opposed to adiscretionary act whereby the o?cer has the choice to decide how or when

to perform the duty$81

chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

n this case, petitioners pray for, amon" others6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

Also, after due notice and hearin", it is prayed of the Court to issue a W%t #$Ma!&a'usto6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

1$ direct the PMA to include Cadet Cudia in the list of "raduates of .ilab(iwa Class of 2014 of the PMA, includin" inclusion in theyearboochanrobleslaw

2$ direct the PMA to allow Cadet Cudia to tae part in the commencementeercises if he completed all the re5uirements for his baccalaureatede"reechanrobleslaw

$ direct the PMA to award unto Cadet Cudia the academic honors hedeser*es, and the commission as a new Philippine -a*yensi"nchanrobleslaw

4$ direct the %onor Committee to submit to the C3A# of the PMA all itsrecords of the proceedin"s taen a"ainst Cadet Cudia, includin" the*ideo foota"e and audio recordin"s of the deliberations and *otin", for

the purpose of allowin" the C3A# to conduct intelli"ent re*iew of thecase of Cadet Cudiachanrobleslaw

7$ direct the PMAs C3A# to conduct a re*iew #e no0oof all therecords (th#ut %e)u%!"Cadet Cudia to submit new e*idence if itwas physically impossible to do sochanrobleslaw

8$ direct the PMAs C3A# to tae into account the certi


20/64

=$ direct the %onor Committee in case of remand of the case by the C3A#to allow Cadet Cudia a representation of a counsel$82

.imilarly, petitioner)inter*enor sees for the followin"reliefs6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

A$

#$ a Brit of Mandamus be issued commandin"6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

a$ >he PMA, %onor Committee, and C3A# to respect and uphold the = !uilty) 1 -ot !uilty *ote

b$ >he PMA, %onor Committee, and C3A# to o?cially pronounce CadetCudia as -ot !uilty of the char"e he powers to confer de"rees at the PMA, "rant awards, andcommission o?cers in the military ser*ice are discretionary acts on the partof the President as the AP Commander)in)Chief$ #orrowin" the wordsof arcia6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

>here are standards that must be met$ >here are policies to be pursued$(iscretion appears to be of the essence$ n terms of %ohfeldVs terminolo"y,what a student in the position of petitioner possesses is a pri*ile"e rather

than a ri"ht$ .he Fin this case, Cadet 1CL CudiaG cannot therefore satisfy theprime and indispensable re5uisite of aman#amusproceedin"$87

Certainly, mandamus is ne*er issued in doubtful cases$ t cannot be a*aileda"ainst an o?cial or "o*ernment a"ency whose duty re5uires the eercise ofdiscretion or ud"ment$88or a writ to issue, petitioners should ha*e a clearle"al ri"ht to the thin" demanded, and there should be an imperati*e dutyon the part of respondents to perform the act sou"ht to bemandated$8:chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary


21/64

>he same reasons can be said as re"ards the other reliefs bein" sou"ht bypetitioners, which pertain to the %C and the C3A# proceedin"s$ n theabsence of a clear and unmistaable pro*ision of a law, a mandamus petitiondoes not lie to re5uire anyone to a speci


22/64


23/64


24/64


25/64

o?cials acts without or in ecess of urisdiction or with "ra*e abuse ofdiscretion amountin" to lac or ecess of urisdiction$ >hey assert thatudicial non)interference in military aOairs is not deemed as absolute e*en inthe D$.$ >hey cite Schlesingerand :arker, which were in*oed byrespondents, as well as Furns 0' ilson=1and 5armon 0' Frucker,=2wherein

the D$.$ .upreme Court re*iewed the proceedin"s of military tribunals onaccount of issues posed concernin" due process and *iolations ofconstitutional ri"hts$ Also, in *agno 0' De =illa=decided by this Court,petitioners note that Be, in fact, eercised the udicial power to determinewhether the AP and the members of the court martial acted with "ra*eabuse of discretion in their military in*esti"ation$

Petitioners contentions are tenable$

Admittedly, the Constitution entrusts the political branches of the"o*ernment, not the courts, with superintendence and control o*er the

military because the courts "enerally lac the competence and epertisenecessary to e*aluate military decisions and they are ill)e5uipped todetermine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion uponmilitary authority mi"ht ha*e$=4-e*ertheless, for the sae of bre*ity, Be rulethat the facts as well as the le"al issues in the D$.$ cases cited byrespondents are not on all fours with the case of Cadet 1CL Cudia$ nstead,what applies is the 1@:7 D$.$ case of.n#rews 0' Jnowlton,=7which similarlyin*ol*ed cadets who were separated from the Dnited .tates MilitaryAcademy due to %onor Code *iolations$ ollowin" asson 0'rowbri#ge=8and5ago,ian 0' Jnowlton,=:Andrews re)a?rmed the power ofthe district courts to re*iew procedures used at the ser*ice academies in the

separation or dismissal of cadets and midshipmen$ Bhile it reco"ni;ed the&constitutional permissibility of the military to set and enforce uncommonlyhi"h standards of conduct and ethics,' it said that the courts &ha*eepanded at an accelerated pace the scope of udicial access for re*iew ofmilitary determinations$' Later, in Jolesa 0' ehman,==it was opined that ithas been well settled that federal courts ha*e urisdiction Uwhere there is asubstantial claim that prescribed military procedures *iolates oneVsconstitutional ri"hts$U #y 1@=, the D$.$ Con"ress e*entually made maorre*isions to the Dniform Code of Military 9ustice +DCM9 by epresslypro*idin", amon" others, for a direct re*iew by the D$.$ .upreme Court ofdecisions by the militarys hi"hest appellate

authority$=@chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

*en without referrin" to D$.$ cases, the position of petitioners is stillformidable$ n this urisdiction, .ection 1 Article of the 1@=: Constitutionepanded the scope of udicial power by mandatin" that the duty of thecourts of ustice includes not only &to settle actual contro*ersies in*ol*in"ri"hts which are le"ally demandable and enforceable' but also &to determinewhether or not there has been a "ra*e abuse of discretion amountin" to lac


26/64


27/64

Ca#etKs relin+uishment of certain ci0il liberties

3espondents assert that the standard of ri"hts applicable to a cadet is notthe same as that of a ci*ilian because the formers ri"hts ha*e already been

recalibrated to best ser*e the military purpose and necessity$ >hey claim thatboth u#ani an# t' Col' Ja,unan/ r' 0' en' De =illa@7reco"ni;ed that, to acertain de"ree, indi*idual ri"hts of persons in the military ser*ice may becurtailed by the rules of military discipline in order to ensure its eOecti*enessin ful


28/64

for him, his subordinates, and his peers$ >o be part of the Cadet Corpsre5uires the surrender of some basic ri"hts and liberties for the "ood of the"roup$'100chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

t is clear, howe*er, from the teachin"s of assonand 5ago,ian, which were

adopted by.n#rews, that a cadet facin" dismissal from the military academyfor misconduct has constitutionally protected pri*ate interests +life, liberty, orproperty hence, disciplinary proceedin"s conducted within the bounds ofprocedural due process is a must$101or that reason, the PMA is not immunefrom the strictures of due process$ Bhere a personVs "ood name, reputation,honor, or inte"rity is at stae because of what the "o*ernment is doin" tohim, the minimal re5uirements of the due process clause must besatishe cases of u#aniand Ja,unan/ r'are inapplicable as they do notspecihey ar"ue that %onor Code *iolation is not amon" thoselisted as ustio them, the %onor Code and %onor.ystem are &"entlemans a"reement' that cannot tae precedence o*erpublic interest Q in the defense of the nation and in *iew of the tapayersmoney spent for each cadet$ Petitioners contend that, based on the Ci*ilCode, all written or *erbal a"reements are null and *oid if they *iolate thelaw, "ood morals, "ood customs, public policy, and public safety$


29/64

n opposition, respondents claim that the PMA may impose disciplinarymeasures and punishment as it deems oun#ation/ "nc' 0' Court of .,,eals,10=it was held that concomitantwith such freedom is the ri"ht and duty to instill and impose discipline uponits students$ Also, consistent with "sabelo/ r' 0' :er,etual 5el, College of%iGal/ "nc'[email protected] #e *anila -ni0ersit$ 0' Ca,ulong,110the PMA has thefreedom on who to admit +and, con*ersely, to epel "i*en the hi"h de"reeof discipline and honor epected from its students who are to form part ofthe AP$

or respondents, Cadet 1CL Cudia cannot, therefore, belatedly assail the

%onor Code as basis of the %Cs decision to recommend his dismissal fromthe PMA$ Bhen he enlisted for enrolment and studied in the PMA for fouryears, he new or should ha*e been fully aware of the standards of disciplineimposed on all cadets and the correspondin" penalty for failin" to abide bythese standards$

n their 3eply, petitioners counter that, as shown in "sabelo/ r'and.teneo,academic freedom is not absolute and cannot be eercised in blatantdisre"ard of the ri"ht to due process and the 1@=: Constitution$ Althou"hschools ha*e the prero"ati*e to choose what to teach, how to teach, and whoto teach, the same does not "o so far as to depri*e a student of the ri"ht to

"raduate when there is clear e*idence that he is entitled to the same since,in such a case, the ri"ht to "raduate becomes a *ested ri"ht which taesprecedence o*er the limited and restricted ri"ht of the educationalinstitution$

Bhile both parties ha*e *alid points to consider, the ar"uments ofrespondents are more in line with the facts of this case$


30/64

Be ha*e ruled that the school)student relationship is contractual in nature$/nce admitted, a students enrolment is not only semestral in duration butfor the entire period he or she is epected to complete it$111An institution oflearnin" has an obli"ation to aOord its students a fair opportunity tocomplete the course they see to pursue$112.uch contract is imbued with

public interest because of the hi"h priority "i*en by the Constitution toeducation and the "rant to the .tate of super*isory and re"ulatory powerso*er all educational institutions$11chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

>he school)student relationship has also been held as reciprocal$ &FtG hasconse5uences appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such ind Q it"i*es rise to bilateral or reciprocal ri"hts and obli"ations$ >he schoolundertaes to pro*ide students with education su?cient to enable them topursue hi"her education or a profession$ /n the other hand, the studentsa"ree to abide by the academic re5uirements of the school and to obser*eits rules and re"ulations$'114chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

Academic freedom or, to be precise, the institutional autonomy ofuni*ersities and institutions of hi"her learnin",117has been enshrined in our

Constitutions of 1@7, 1@:, and 1@=:$118n arcia, this Court espoused theconcurrin" opinion of D$.$ .upreme Court 9ustice eli ranfurter in SweeG$0' ew 5am,shire,11:which enumerated &the four essential freedoms' of auni*ersity6 >o determine for itself on academic "rounds +1 who may teach,+2 what may be tau"ht, + how it shall be tau"ht, and +4 who may beadmitted to study$11=An educational institution has the power to adopt andenforce such rules as may be deemed epedient for its "o*ernment, this

bein" incident to the *ery obect of incorporation, and indispensable to thesuccessful mana"ement of the colle"e$11@t can decide for itself its aims andobecti*es and how best to attain them, free from outside coercion orinterference ecept when there is an o*erridin" public welfare which wouldcall for some restraint$120ndeed, &academic freedom has ne*er been meantto be an unabrid"ed license$ t is a pri*ile"e that assumes a correlati*e dutyto eercise it responsibly$ An e5ually tellin" precept is a lon" reco"ni;edmandate, so well epressed in Article 1@ of the Ci*il Code, that e*ery Wpersonmust, in the eercise of his ri"hts and in the performance of his duties, actwith ustice, "i*e e*eryone his due, and obser*e honesty and "oodfaith$'121chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

>he schools power to instill discipline in their students is subsumed in theiracademic freedom and that &the establishment of rules "o*ernin" uni*ersity)student relations, particularly those pertainin" to student discipline, may bere"arded as *ital, not merely to the smooth and e?cient operation of theinstitution, but to its *ery sur*i*al$'122As a #ohemian pro*erb puts it6 UAschool without discipline is lie a mill without water$U nsofar as the waterturns the mill, so does the schoolVs disciplinary power assure its ri"ht to


31/64


32/64


33/64


34/64

:roce#ural safeguar#s in a stu#ent #isci,linar$ case

3espondents stress that uGman 0' ational -ni0ersit$1=is more appropriatein determinin" the minimum standards for the imposition of disciplinary

sanctions in academic institutions$ .imilarly, with the "uideposts setin.n#rews, they belie*e that Cadet 1CL Cudia was accorded due process$

/n the other hand, petitioners ar"ue that the %C, the C3A# and the PMA fellshort in obser*in" the important safe"uards laid down in.ng iba$ 0'C"%1@and on 0' u#ge Dames "",140which set the minimum standards tosatisfy the demands of procedural due process in the imposition ofdisciplinary sanctions$ or them, uGmandid not entirely do away with thedue process re5uirements outlined in.ng iba$as the Court merely statedthat the minimum re5uirements in the uGmancase are morea,ro,os$

3espondents ri"htly ar"ued$

.teneo #e *anila -ni0ersit$ 0' Ca,ulong141already settled the issue as it heldthat althou"h both.ng iba$and uGmanessentially deal with there5uirements of due process, the latter case is morea,ro,ossince itspeci


35/64

accept as ade5uate to support a conclusion$'14:chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

Bhat is crucial is that o?cial action must meet minimum standards offairness to the indi*idual, which "enerally encompass the ri"ht of ade5uatenotice and a meanin"ful opportunity to be heard$14=As held in De a Salle

-ni0ersit$/ "nc' 0' Court of .,,eals614@

-otice and hearin" is the bulwar of administrati*e due process, the ri"ht towhich is amon" the primary ri"hts that must be respected e*en inadministrati*e proceedin"s$ >he essence of due process is simply anopportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrati*e proceedin"s, anopportunity to eplain ones side or an opportunity to see reconsideration ofthe action or rulin" complained of$ .o lon" as the party is "i*en theopportunity to ad*ocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, itcannot be said that there was denial of due process$

A formal trial)type hearin" is not, at all times and in all instances, essential todue process Q it is enou"h that the parties are "i*en a fair and reasonableopportunity to eplain their respecti*e sides of the contro*ersy and topresent supportin" e*idence on which a fair decision can be based$ &>o beheard' does not only mean presentation of testimonial e*idence in court Qone may also be heard throu"h pleadin"s and where the opportunity to beheard throu"h pleadin"s is accorded, there is no denial of due process$170

>he PMA %onor Code eplicitly reco"ni;es that an administrati*e proceedin"conducted to in*esti"ate a cadets honor *iolation need not be clothed withthe attributes of a udicial proceedin"$ t articulates that Q

>he .pirit of the %onor Code "uides the Corps in identifyin" and assessin"misconduct$ Bhile cadets are interested in le"al precedents in casesin*ol*in" %onor *iolations, those who hold the .pirit of the %onor Code darenot loo into these precedents for loopholes to ustify 5uestionable acts andthey are not to interpret the system to their own ad*anta"e$

>he .pirit of the %onor Code is a way for the cadets to internali;e %onor in asubstanti*e way$ >echnical and procedural mis"i*in"s of the le"al systemsmay a*ert the true essence of impartin" the .pirit of the Code for the reasonthat it can be used to mae unlawful attempt to "et into the truth of mattersespecially when a cadet can be compelled to surrender some ci*il ri"hts and

liberties in order for the Code and .ystem to be implemented$ #y *irtue ofbein" a cadet, a member of the CCAP becomes a subect of the %onor Codeand .ystem$ Cadets actions are bound by the eistin" norms that arelo"ically applied throu"h the Code and .ystem in order to reali;e theAcademys mission to produce leaders of character Q men of inte"rity andhonor$171


36/64

/ne of the fundamental principles of the %onor .ystem alsostates6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

2$ >he %onor .ystem correlates with le"al procedures of the states

9ustice .ystem but it does not demean its .pirit by reducin" the Codeto a systematic list of eternally obser*ed rules$ Bheremisinterpretations and loopholes arise throu"h le"alism and itstechnicalities, the obecti*e of buildin" the character of the cadetsbecomes futile$ Bhile, "enerally, Public Law penali;es only the faultyacts, the %onor .ystem tries to eamine both the action and theintention$172

Lie in other institutions of hi"her learnin", there is a*ersion towards undueudiciali;ation of an administrati*e hearin" in the military academy$ t hasbeen said that the mission of the military is uni5ue in the sense that its

primary business is to


37/64

be applied unde*iatin"ly to any "i*en set of facts$ /n the contrary, it is aNeible concept which depends upon the*ala!c!" #$ +a%#us $act#%s,!clu&!" the !atu%e #$ the %+ate %"ht #% !te%est that sth%eate!e&, the e-te!t t# (hch the %#cee&!" s a&+e%sa%al !cha%acte%, the se+e%t a!& c#!se)ue!ces #$ a! act#! that '"ht

*e ta/e!, the *u%&e! that (#ul& *e '#se& * %e)u%!" use #$ all#% a%t #$ the $ull a!#l #$ t%al0te %#ce&u%es, a!& thee-ste!ce #$ #the% #+e%%&!" !te%ests, such as the !ecesst $#%%#'t act#! ! the c#!&uct #$ c%ucal 'lta% #e%at#!s. The $ullc#!te-t 'ust the%e$#%e *e c#!s&e%e& ! each case$17:+mphasissuppliedasson, which was cited by 5ago,ian, broadly outlined the minimumstandards of due process re5uired in the dismissal of a cadet$>hus6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

FBGhen the "o*ernment aOects the pri*ate interests of indi*iduals, it may not

proceed arbitrarily but must obser*e due process of law$ -e*ertheless,the Neibility which is inherent in the concept of due process of lawprecludes the do"matic application of speci


38/64

&e$e!se$ or the "uidance of the parties the rudiments of a fairhearin" in broad outline are plain$ The Ca&et 'ust *e a%se& #$ thesec1c cha%"es a"a!st h'. He 'ust *e "+e! a! a&e)uate##%tu!t t# %ese!t hs &e$e!se *#th $%#' the #!t #$ +e( #$t'e a!& the use #$ (t!esses a!& #the% e+&e!ce.Be do not su""est,

howe*er, that the Cadet must be "i*en this opportunity both when demeritsare awarded and when dismissal is considered$ The hea%!" 'a *e%#ce&u%all !$#%'al a!& !ee& !#t *e a&+e%sa%al.17=+mphasissuppliedn.n#rews, the D$.$ Court of Appeals held that assonand 5ago,ianaree5ually controllin" in cases where cadets were separated from the militaryacademy for *iolation of the %onor Code$ ollowin" the two pre*ious cases, itwas ruled that in order to be proper and immune from constitutionalinhe %Cthereafter re*iewed the hereafter, the"uilty *erdict underwent the re*iew process at the Academy le*el Q from the

/C of the %C, to the .9A, to the Commandant of Cadets, and to the PMA.uperintendent$ A separate in*esti"ation was also conducted by the %>!$>hen, upon the directi*e of the AP)!% to rein*esti"ate the case, a re*iewwas conducted by the C3A#$ urther, a act)indin" #oardHn*esti"ation #odycomposed of the C3A# members and the PMA senior o?cers was constitutedto conduct a deliberate in*esti"ation of the case$ inally, he had theopportunity to appeal to the President$ .adly for him, all had issuedunfa*orable rulin"s$


39/64

t is well settled that by reason of their special nowled"e and epertise"ained from the handlin" of specihis is because while the C3A# allowedhim to be represented by a PA/ lawyer, the counsel was only made anobser*er without any ri"ht to inter*ene and demand respect of Cadet 1CLCudias ri"hts$18Accordin" to them, he was not su?ciently "i*en theopportunity to see a counsel and was not e*en ased if he would lie toha*e one$ %e was only properly represented when it was already nearin""raduation day after his family sou"ht the assistance of the PA/$ Petitionersassert that uGmanis specihe Court disa"rees$

Consistent with umi+ue#and era, there is nothin" in the 1@=: Constitutionstatin" that a party in a non)liti"ation proceedin" is entitled to berepresented by counsel$ >he assistance of a lawyer, while desirable, is not


40/64

indispensable$ urther, in %emolona 0' Ci0il Ser0ice Commission,188the Courtheld that &a party in an administrati*e in5uiry may or may not be assisted bycounsel, irrespecti*e of the nature of the char"es and of the respondentVscapacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish theperson bein" in*esti"ated with counsel$' %ence, the administrati*e body is

under no duty to pro*ide the person with counsel because assistance ofcounsel is not an absolute re5uirement$

More in point is the opinion in asson, which Be adopt$>hus6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

>he re5uirement of counsel as an in"redient of fairness is a function of all ofthe other aspects of the hearin"$ Bhere the proceedin" is non)criminal innature, where the hearin" is in*esti"ati*e and not ad*ersarial and the"o*ernment does not proceed throu"h counsel, where the indi*idualconcerned is mature and educated, where his nowled"e of the e*ents

should enable him to de*elop the facts ade5uately throu"h a*ailablesources, and where the other aspects of the hearin" taen as a whole arefair, due process does not re5uire representation by counsel$18:

>o note, D$.$ courts, in "eneral, ha*e declined to reco"ni;e a ri"ht torepresentation by counsel, as a function of due process, in military academydisciplinary proceedin"s$18=>his rule is principally moti*ated by the policy ofUtreadin" li"htly on the military domain, with scrupulous re"ard for the powerand authority of the military establishment to "o*ern its own aOairs withinthe broad con


41/64

counsel, a PA/ lawyer to be eact, when the C3A# re*iewed andrein*esti"ated the case$ >he re5uirement of due process is already satis


42/64

ha*e them eamined is tantamount to the denial of his ri"ht to proceduraldue process$ >hey are mistaen$

n this case, petitioners ha*e not particularly identi


43/64

pro*ided for in the %onor Code %andboo$ Althou"h within the PMAcompound, the %oldin" Center is oO)limits to cadets who do not ha*e anybusiness to conduct therein$ >he cadets could not also ostraci;e him durin"mess times since Cadet 1CL Cudia opted to tae his meals at the %oldin"Center$ >he circumstances obtainin" when .pecial /rder -o$ 1 was issued

clearly foreclose the possibility that he was ostraci;ed in common areasaccessible to other cadets$ %e remained in the %oldin" Center until March18, 2014 when he *oluntarily left the PMA$ Contrary to his claim, "uests werealso free to *isit him in the %oldin" Center$

%owe*er, petitioners swear that Cadet 1CL Cudia suOered from ostracism inthe PMA$ >he practice was somehow reco"ni;ed by respondents intheir Consoli#ate# Commentand by PMA .poesperson Ma$ lores in a newsreport$ >he C%3 liewise conhe %onor Code and %onor .ystem %andboo pro*ides that, in case a


44/64

cadet has been found "uilty by the %C of *iolatin" the %onor Code and hasopted not to resi"n, he or she may stay and wait for the disposition of thecase$ n such e*ent, the cadet is not on full)duty status and shall be billetedat the %>! %oldin" Center$1::.imilarly, in the D$.$, the purpose of oardersBard' is to 5uarter those cadets who are under"oin" separation actions$

Permitted to attend classes, the cadet is se5uestered therein until


45/64

the inte"rity of the errin" cadet and "uard the conhe %onor Code and %onor.ystem %andboo also has no written rule on the matter$ *en if thepro*ision applies, nowhere does it demand that a point)by)pointconsideration and resolution of the issues raised by the parties arenecessary$1=0Bhat counts is that, albeit furnished to him late, Cadet 1CL

Cudia was informed of how it was decided, with an eplanation of the factualand le"al reasons that led to the conclusions of the re*iewin" body, assurin"that it went throu"h the processes of le"al reasonin"$ %e was not left in thedar as to how it was reached and he nows eactly the reasons why he lost,and is able to pinpoint the possible errors for re*iew$

.s to the blin# a#o,tion of the 5C 7n#ingsQ

Petitioners assert that, conformably with .ections 0 and 1 of C$A$ -o$ 1,only President A5uino as the Commander)in)Chief has the power to appointand remo*e a cadet for a *alidHle"al cause$ >he law "i*es no authority to the

%C as the sole body to determine the "uilt or innocence of a cadet$ t alsodoes not empower the PMA to adopt the "uilty


46/64

and well)"rounded suspicion that the C3A# ne*er undertoo an in)depthin*esti"ationHre*iew the hey assert that the hi"her authorities of the PMAdid not merely rely on the he %onor Committee, actin" on behalf of the Cadet Corps, has a limited roleof in*esti"atin" and determinin" whether or not the alle"ed oOender hasactually *iolated the %onor Code$1=1t is "i*en the responsibility ofadministerin" the %onor Code and, in case of breach, its tas is entirely

in*esti"ati*e, eaminin" in the


47/64

the .9A, the Commandant of Cadets, and the PMA .uperintendent re*iewedthe %C !$>hen, upon the directi*e of the AP)!% to rein*esti"ate the case, a re*iewwas conducted by the C3A#$ inally, a act)indin" #oardHn*esti"atin" #odycomposed of the C3A# members and the PMA senior o?cers was constituted

to conduct a deliberate in*esti"ation of the case$ >he #oardH#ody actuallyheld hearin"s on March 12, 1, 14 and 20, 2014$ nstead of commendation,petitioners he C3A# conferences were merely used to formali;e hisdismissal and the PMA ne*er really intended to hear his side$ or petitioners,these are manifestations of PMAs clear resol*e to dismiss him no matterwhat$

or their part, respondents contend that the C%3s alle"ation that Ma$%indan" acted in ob*ious bad faith and that he failed to dischar"e his duty tobe a "ood father of cadets when he &pa*ed the road to FCadet 1CL CudiasGsham trial by the %onor Committee' is an unfounded accusation$ >hey notethat when Ma$ %indan" was "i*en the (3 of Cadet 1CL Cudia, he re*oedthe penalty awarded because of his eplanation$ %owe*er, all re*ocations ofawarded penalties are subect to the re*iew of the .>/$ >herefore, it was atthe instance of Ma$ Leander and the established procedure followed at the


48/64

PMA that Ma$ %indan" was prompted to in*esti"ate the circumstancessurroundin" Cadet 1 CL Cudias tardiness$ 3espondents add that bad faithcannot liewise be imputed a"ainst Ma$ %indan" by referrin" to the actionstaen by Ma$ 9eyll (ulawan, the C>/ of Cadets 1CL -arciso and Arcan"elwho also arri*ed late for their net class$ Dnlie the other cadets, Cadet 1CL

Cudia did not admit his bein" late and eOecti*ely e*aded responsibility byascribin" his tardiness to (r$ Costales$

As to the C%3s


49/64

issue may be clarihe A?da*it of Commander 9unie #$ >abuada eecuted on March 8, 2014


50/64

was submitted by petitioners since he purportedly recalled Cadet 1CL La"uratellin" him that he was pressured to chan"e his &not "uilty' *ote after the*otin" members were &chambered$' n the sworn statement, Commander>abuada said6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

1$ >hat after CDT 2CL CUDIAFwasG con*icted for honor *iolation, FcannotG remember eactly the date but sometime in the mornin" of2rdor 24thof 9anuary 2014, was in my o?ce he %C, the C3A#, and the PMA *iolated their own rules and principles asembodied in the %onor Code$ #ein" a clear de*iation from the establishedprocedures, the second deliberation should be considered null and *oid$

Petitioners further contend that the re5uirement of unanimous *ote in*ol*esa substanti*e ri"ht which cannot be unceremoniously chan"ed without a

correspondin" amendmentHre*ision in the %onor Code and %onor .ystem%andboo$ n their *iew, &chamberin"' totally defeats the purpose of *otin"by secret ballot as it "larin"ly destroys the *ery essence and philosophybehind the pro*isions of the %onor .ystem, which is to ensure that the *otin"member is free to *ote what is in his or her heart and mind and that no onecan pressure or persuade another to chan"e his or her *ote$ >hey su""estthat if one *otin" member ac5uits an accused cadet who is ob*iously "uiltyof the oOense, the solution is to remo*e him or her from the %C throu"h the


51/64

*ote of non)conhe *otin"

members only write either &"uilty' or &not "uilty' in the *otin" sheetswithout statin" their name or their usti


52/64

-a*al Barfare to as permission if it is possible not to attend the -a*yduty for the reason that will be attendin" our baseball "ame outside theAcademy$

12$ After was permitted not to attend my -a*y (uty and when was about

to eit out of the /?ce, C(3 9D-9 # >A#DA(A P-, our %ead(epartment -a*al Barfare /?cer, called my attention$ approached himand he said6 &>ala"an" nadali si Cudia ah$ Ano ba tala"a an" nan"yariE'At !DL>R'with a reser*ation in my mind that we will still be discussin" our *erdictsif we will arri*e at =)1 or :)2$ >hus, can still chan"e my *ote if may beenli"htened with the others usti


53/64

:$ listened to them and they listened to me, then saw thin"s thatenli"htened my confusions that time$ "a*e a thumbs)up si"n and asedfor another sheet of *otin" paper$ then chan"ed my *ote from &-/>!DL>R' to &!DL>R' and the *otin" members of the %onor Committeecame up with the R of LR-!$ After that, all persons inside the courtroom went bac tobarracs$

10$ 3i"ht after chan"ed to sleepin" uniform, was approached by Cdt9ocson and Cdt Cudia, in5uirin" and said6 &Fakit ka naman nag,alit ngbotoN' answered6 &asa ,rocess $an/ ma$ mali talaga sa rason mo$'>hey also ased who were inside the Chamber and mentioned only CdtArle"ui and Cdt Mo"ol$ >hat was the last time that Cdt Cudia and Cdt

9ocson taled to me$

11$ .ometime on 2rdor 24thof 9anuary 2014, went to the (epartment of-a*al Barfare to ased +sic permission if it is possible not to attend the-a*y duty for the reason that will be attendin" our baseball "ameoutside the Academy$

12$ After was permitted not to attend my -a*y (uty and when was aboutto eit out of the /?ce, C(3 9D-9 # >A#DA(A P-, our %ead(epartment -a*al Barfare /?cer, called my attention$ approached himand he said6 &alagang na#ali si Cu#ia ah' .no ba talaga ang nang$ariE'

At


54/64

"eneral statements lie he &was confuse# of the case' and &saw things thatenlightene# m$ confusions' could hardly su?ce to establish why he chan"edhis *ote$ inally, petitioners note the admission of Cadet 1CL La"ura durin"the C%3 in*esti"ation that he was the only one who was "i*en another ballotsheet while in the chamber and that he accomplished it in the barracs

which he only submitted the followin" day$ %owe*er, as the C%3 found, theannouncement of the @)0 *ote was done immediately after the %C came outfrom the chamber and before Cadet 1CL La"ura submitted his accomplishedballot sheet$

Be rule for respondents$

As to the manner of *otin" by the %C members, the %onor Code terselypro*ides6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

After a thorou"h discussion and deliberation, the presidin" member of the

#oard will call for the members to *ote whether the accused is !DL>R or-/> !DL>R$ A unanimous *ote +@ *otes of !DL>R decides that a cadet isfound "uilty of *iolatin" the %onor Code$1@=

rom the abo*e)5uoted pro*ision, it readily appears that the %C practice ofconductin" &eecuti*e session' or &chamberin"' is not at all prohibited$ >he%C is "i*en leeway on the *otin" procedures in actual cases tain" intoaccount the ei"ency of the times$ Bhat is important is that, in the end,there must be a unanimous nine *otes in order to hold a cadet "uilty of*iolatin" the %onor Code$

!rantin", for ar"uments sae, that the %C *iolated its written

procedure,1@@

Be still rule that there is nothin" inherently wron" with thepractice of &chamberin"' considerin" that the presence of intimidation orforce cannot automatically be inferred therefrom$ >he essence of secretballotin" and the freedom to *ote based on what is in the heart and mind ofthe *otin" member is not necessarily diluted by the fact that a secondHheG dissentin" *oter would ha*e to eplain his side andinsi"hts re"ardin" the case at hand$ >he other members, on the other

hand, would be "i*en the chance to eplain their *otes as well as theirinsi"hts to the dissentin" *oter$ >he decision to chan"e the *ote of thedissentin" *oter rests solely on his personal con*iction$ >hus, if he ForsheG opted not to chan"e hisHher *ote despite the discussion, his ForherG *ote is accorded respect by the %onor Committee$200

t is elementary that intimidation or force is ne*er presumed$ Mere alle"ationis de


55/64

person is presumed to be innocent of a crime or wron" and that o?cial dutyhas been re"ularly performed$201chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

>he oral and written statements of Cadet 1CL La"ura should settle the issue$#efore the act)indin" #oardHn*esti"atin" #ody and the C%3, he

consistently denied that he was pressured by the other *otin" members ofthe %C$ %is representation must be accepted as it is re"ardless of whether hehas satisfactorily elaborated his decision to chan"e his *ote$ #ein" the onewho was &chambered,' he is more credible to clarify the issue$ n case ofdoubt, Be ha*e to rely on the faith that Cadet 1CL La"ura obser*ed the%onor Code, which clearly states that e*ery cadet must be his or her owninal Authority in honor that he or she should not let other cadets dictate onhim or her their sense of honor$202Moreo*er, the Code implies that any personcan ha*e con


56/64

not eactly recall what happened in her class on -o*ember 14, 201$

urthermore, petitioners reasoned out that when respondents stated that-!412 class started at 607 p$m$, it pro*es that Cadet 1CL Cudia wasob*iously not late$ f, as indicated in his (elin5uency 3eport, he was late two

+2 minutes in his 1700)1800% class in -! 412, he must ha*e arri*ed 602p$m$ 3espondents, howe*er, claim that the class started at 607 p$m$ >hus,Cadet 1CL Cudia was not late$

3elati*e to his eplanation to the delin5uency report, petitioners were of the*iew that what appears to ha*e caused confusion in the minds ofrespondents is ust a matter of semantics that the entire incident was aproduct of inaccuracy, not lyin"$ t is malicious for them to insinuate thatCadet 1CL Cudia purposely used incorrect lan"ua"e to hide the truth$ Citin"Merriam Bebsters (ictionary, petitioners ar"ue that &dismiss' means topermit or cause to lea*e, while &class' refers to a body of students meetin"

re"ularly to study the same subect$ Accordin" to them, these two words donot ha*e de


57/64

Ls$ %ere, as Cadet Cudia stated in his 3e5uest for 3econsideration of MetedPunishment, &e ha# an E that #a$ (14 o0ember 21&) in !%4&2 class'hen the 7rst bell rang (1433)/ " stoo# u,/ re0iewe# m$ ,a,er an#submitte# it to m$ instructor/ *s' Costales' xxx' Clearly, at the time CadetCudia submitted his papers, he was already considered dismissed$ >hus, he

cannot claim that his F/342G class ended at 600 in the afternoon +1700%or &a bit late$'

Secon#, Cadet Cudia was in control of the circumstances leadin" to histardiness$ After submittin" his paper, Cadet Cudia is free to lea*e and attendhis net class$ %owe*er, he initiated a con*ersation with (r$ Costalesre"ardin" their "rades$ %e was not under instruction by (r$ Costales to staybeyond the period of her class$

urthermore, durin" the in*esti"ation of the act)indin" #oardHn*esti"atin"#ody, (r$ Costales clari


58/64

to the core issue of whether lyin" is present in this case, all in*esti"atin" andre*iewin" bodies are in consonance in holdin" that Cadet 1CL Cudia in truthand in fact lied$

or purposes of emphasis thou"h, Be shall supplement some points$

As succinctly worded, the %onor Code of the Cadet Corps Armed orces ofthe Philippines +CCAP states6 &e/ the Ca#ets/ #o not lie/ cheat/ steal/ nortolerate among us those who #o$'

>he irst >enet of the %onor Code is &e #o not lie$' Cadets *iolate the %onorCode by lyin" if they mae an oral or written statement which is contrary towhat is true or use doubtful information with the intent to decei*e ormislead$207t is epected that e*ery cadets word is accepted withoutchallen"e on its truthfulness that it is true without 5uali


59/64

honor *iolation are6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

1$ >he act andHor omission, and2$ >he intent pertinent to it$cralawredntent does not only refer to the intent to *iolate the %onor Code, but intent

to commit or omit the act itself$20@

chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary>he basic 5uestions a cadet must always see to answer une5ui*ocallyare6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

1$ (o intend to decei*eE2$ (o intend to tae undue ad*anta"eEf a cadet can answer -/ to #/>% 5uestions, he or she is doin" thehonorable thin"$210chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

ntent, bein" a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but must

ordinarily be inferred from the facts, and therefore, can only be pro*ed byun"uarded epressions, conduct and circumstances "enerally$211n this case,Cadet 1CL Cudias intent to decei*e is manifested from the *ery act ofcapitali;in" on the use of the words ismiss' and &class$' >he truth of thematter is that the ordinary usa"e of these two terms, in the contet of aneducational institution, does not correspond to what Cadet 1CL Cudia istryin" to mae it appear$ n that sense, the words are not "eneric and ha*ede


60/64

paper is not part of the class time because the consultation, bein" cadet)initiated, is *oluntary$214chanrobles*irtuallawlibrary

Assumin", for the sae of ar"ument, that a new business was initiated by (r$Costales when Cadet 1CL Cudia was ased to stay and wait for the section

"rade, still, this does not ac5uit him$ !i*en such situation, a responsiblecadet who is fully aware of the time constraint has the last say, that is, topolitely decline the in*itation and immediately "o to the net class$ >his wasnot done by Cadet 1CL Cudia$ >hus, it cannot be said that he already lostcontrol o*er the circumstances$

t is apparent, therefore, that Cadet 1CL Cudia cunnin"ly chose words whichled to confusion in the minds of respondents and e*entually commenced the%C in5uiry$ %is case is not ust a matter of semantics and a product of plainand simple inaccuracy$ >here is manipulation of facts and presentation ofuntruthful eplanation constituti*e of %onor Code *iolation$

*idence of prior "ood conduct cannot clear Cadet 1CL Cudia$ Bhile his>ranscript of 3ecords +!% may reNect not only his outstandin" academicperformance but his ecellent "rade in subects on Conduct durin" his four)year stay in the PMA,217it does not necessarily follow that he is innocent ofthe oOense char"ed$ t is enou"h to say that &e*idence that one did or didnot do a certain thin" at one time is not admissible to pro*e that he did ordid not do the same or similar thin" at another time$'218Bhile the >/3 maybe recei*ed to pro*e his identity or habit as an eceptional PMA student, itdoes not show his speci


61/64

from the PMA$

/n their part, petitioners concede that if it is pro*en that a cadet breachedthe %onor Code, the oOense warrants his or her dismissal since such a policymay be the only means to maintain and uphold the spirit of inte"rity in the

military$21:

>hey maintain thou"h that in Cadet 1CL Cudias case there is noneed to distin"uish between a &little lie' and a &hu"e falsehood' since he didnot lie at all$ Absent any intent to decei*e and to tae undue ad*anta"e, thepenalty imposed on him is considered as unust and cruel$ Dnder thecircumstances obtainin" in this case, the penalty of dismissal is notcommensurate to the fact that he is a "raduatin" cadet with honors andwhat he alle"edly committed does not amount to an academic dehe hat a policy of admonitions orlesser penalties for sin"le *iolations mi"ht be more compassionate )) or e*enmore eOecti*e in achie*in" the intended result )) is 5uite immaterial to the5uestion of whether the harsher penalty *iolates due process$220

ature of the C5% >in#ings

Petitioners contend that the PMA turned a blind eye on the C%3srecommendations$ >he C%3, they note, is a constitutional body mandated bythe 1@=: Constitution to in*esti"ate all forms of human ri"hts *iolationsin*ol*in" ci*il and political ri"hts, and to conduct in*esti"ati*e monitorin" ofeconomic, social, and cultural ri"hts, particularly of *ulnerable sectors ofsociety$ urther, it was contended that the results of C%3s in*esti"ation and


62/64

recommendations are so persuasi*e that this Court, on se*eral occasions liein the cases of CruG 0' Sec' of En0ironment O atural %esources221and.nga#la# F :art$ 0' Commission on Elections,222"a*e its he he reason is thatthe C%3s constitutional mandate etends only to the in*esti"ation of allforms of human ri"hts *iolations in*ol*in" ci*il and political ri"hts$224As held

inCariPo 0' Commission on 5uman %ights227

and a number of subse5uentcases,228the C%3 is only a fact)he power to in*esti"ate is not the sameas adudication6chan3obles*irtualLawlibrary

>he most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way ofadudicati*e power is that it may in0estigate, i'e', recei*e e*idence and maeo beconsidered such, the faculty of recei*in" e*idence and main" factualconclusions in a contro*ersy must be accompanied by the authorityof a,,l$ing the law to those factual conclusions to the en# that thecontro0ers$ ma$ be #eci#e# or #etermine# authoritati0el$/ 7nall$ an##e7niti0el$/ sub8ect to such a,,eals or mo#es of re0iew as ma$ be ,ro0i#e#b$ law$ >his function, to repeat, the Commission does not ha*e$

FiGt cannot try and decide cases +or hear and determine causes as courts ofustice, or e*en 5uasi)udicial bodies do$ >o in*esti"ate is not to adudicate oradud"e$ Bhether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms ha*ewell understood and 5uite distinct meanin"s$

U"n0estigate,U commonly understood, means to eamine, eplore, in5uire ordel*e or probe into, research on, study$ >he dictionary de


63/64


64/64

WHEREFORE,the Petition is DENIED$ >he dismissal of Cadet irst ClassAldrin 9eO P$ Cudia from the Philippine Military Academy ishereby AFFIRMED$ -o costs$

SO ORDERED.

Sereno/ C' '/ Car,io/ =elasco/ r'/ eonar#oADe Castro/ Fersamin/ Del Castillo/

=illarama/ r'/ :ereG/ *en#oGa/ %e$es/ :erlasAFernabe, and eonen/ ',concur$cralawlawlibraryFrion/ ', on lea*e$ar#eleGa/ ', no part$

Documents

Cudia Consti