SC affirms dismissal of Cadet Cudia | Inquirer News

SC affirms dismissal of Cadet Cudia

/ 02:15 PM February 24, 2015

Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia. PHOTO FROM FACEBOOK

Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia. PHOTO FROM FACEBOOK

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the decision of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in dismissing Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia in 2014 for violating the honor code.

In its ruling, the high court, through Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta said the PMA did not violate petitioner’s [Cudia] due process rights when it enforced its rules on discipline, consisting of its Honor Code for lying.

Article continues after this advertisement

The high court defined the PMA’s Honor Code as a “set of basic and fundamental ethical and moral principles…the minimum standard for cadet behavior and…the guiding spirit behind each cadet’s action.”

FEATURED STORIES

“As the primary training and educational institution of the AFP (Armed Forces of the Philippines), it certainly has the right to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of its rules and regulations, which are the Honor Code and the Honor System in particular,” high court’s Information Chief Theodore Te said at a press conference.

Cudia was dishonorably discharged for lying about his reason on being tardy in one class.

Article continues after this advertisement

“It is the cadet’s responsibility to maintain the highest standard of honor (and)…(t)hroughout the cadet’s stay in the PMA, he or she is absolutely bound by it,” Te said quoting the high court’s ruling.

Article continues after this advertisement

The high court also pointed out that they respect the PMA’s ruling “by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdictions, the factual findings of administrative tribunals are ordinarily accorded respect if not finality by the Court, unless such findings are not supported by evidence or vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedure which led to the findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest.

In this case, the high court said they do not see any reason to deviate from the PMA’s findings.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: honor code, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.