MANILA, Philippines–Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling that affirmed the decision of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) dismissing him from the academy for violating its Honor Code.
In a 28-page motion for reconsideration, Cudia, through the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) insisted that his right to due process was violated when he was barred from joining the graduation rights of Siklab Diwa in 2014 and ordered his dismissal from the academy.
Cudia was dismissed after he was found guilty of lying about his reason for being late in a class.
He filed an appeal but it was dismissed by the PMA and the Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) while a meeting with the President also did not bore fruit as the latter only directed then AFP Chief of Staff Emmanuel Bautista to conduct a review of the case.
Cudia then filed a petition with the high court but the tribunal affirmed the decision of the PMA.
In his appeal, Cudia said the high court gave more weight to the academic freedom of the PMA over his constitutional rights.
“We seek not to deprive the PMA of academic freedom; we, in fact, recognize the same. But, it is one thing to say that the PMA enjoys said freedom to establish a disciplinary system and impose disciplinary action against an alleged erring cadet; quite another to conclude that in the process, a cadet did not suffer serious transgressions of his constitutional rights,” he appealed.
“After all, this Honorable Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings, even in a military academy, must be conducted within the bounds of procedural due process. Truly, it cannot be used as a tool in violating the constitutional and human rights of a person,” added the petition.
Cudia pointed out that he was prohibited from confronting the witnesses against him and he was barred from presenting evidence in his behalf.
“It bears noting that, during the Honor Committee investigation consisting of his co-cadets, Cadet Cudia was merely asked what his plea would be, with no proof that he was actually allowed to witness anyone testify against him,” the motion said, adding that the same goes true with the hearings conducted by the CRAB and the fact-finding board.