Revelation: Our Petition to SC for Cudia
Revelation: Our Petition to SC for Cudia
Now that it has been announced by the mainstream media although too late and probably now mooted because the graduation of the Siklab Diwa Class 2014 of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) and there has been no action yet, I shall now break my promise to keep silent on the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus connected thereto.
That petition was filed by me along with Renato P. Cudia last March 10 (2014) on behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia, who has become the center of the controversy after he was found guilty in a questionable verdict issued by the PMA's Honor Committee on the charge that the graduating cadet violated the Honor Code of the cadets.
The petition looks moot and moribund now (15 March 2014) because its objective is to seek the Supreme Court's order to include Cadet Cudia in the list of graduates of the Siklab Diwa Class. But this cannot physically be possible now (15 March 2014) considering that today is a Saturday and the SC has no session as against the fact that on 16 March 2014 the PMA is set to hold its commencement exercises for this year.
Atty. Persida R. Acosta was right in telling me that the SC acts so slow. Anyway, if only for a lesson learned, this is too steep a price to pay as tuition.
In all likelihood, however, even if the PMA graduation set for 16 March 2014 is all gone I still believe that the Supreme Court will take head on the case if only to settle once and for all the contentious issue on the legality and procedures of the Honor Code of the cadets of the PMA that is capable of repeating every now and then. Cases of this kind, even if the controversy is lost, are still decided by the Highest Court for the concerned to have a guidance when similar incident occurs again.
True, not one case challenging the constitutionality of the Honor Code and the Honory System has gone to the Supreme Court of the Philippines. I believe that this is the first time. It will become a seminal case if the SC will take it on.
For a backgrounder, this petition was filed upon the contention that the Honor Committee implementing the Honor Code has no legal authority.
It is our contention that there is no law or rule or policy creating that.
It is also our contention that the cadets themselves have no right to evict anyone of them from the PMA because it is the people's funds that are used to school them, train them in the profession of arms, and make them as the finest leaders of the military organization that will defend the people.
So that it is our argument that irrespective of the guilt finding by the Honor Committee a concerned cadet cannot be prejudiced without the consent of the people.
Now, assuming that the Honor Code and the Honor System are supported by any legal authority, de facto or de jure, the decision of the Honor Committee in finding Cadet Cudia guilty is illegal, null and void. It is so because we found that the verdict was 8-1, eight voted that Cudia was guilty and one voted that he was not guilty. Under the rules of the Honor System, only a unanimous vote of guilty can a guilty verdict be authorized. Our basis in saying that the 8-1 verdict is our evidence consisting of the affidavit of Navy Commander Junjie Tabuada that he was told by Cadet First Class Lagura that the latter voted not guilty but the latter was subjected to a secret room to pressure him into changing his vote to 9-0.
Whatever it takes, below is pasted the entire copy of the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, to wit:
Republic of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
FIRST
CLASS CADET ALDRIN
JEFF
P. CUDIA of the Philippine
Military
Academy represented here
by
his father RENATO P. CUDIA
who
also acts on his own behalf
and
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING,
Petitioners,
-
versus - G.R.
No. _____________
THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE
PHILIPPINE
MILITARY ACADEMY
(PMA),
THE HONOR COMMITTEE (HC)
OF
2014 OF THE PMA and HC MEMBERS,
and
the CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS
BOARD
(CRAB),
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------------x
Petition
for Certiorari,
Prohibition
and Mandamus
with
Application
for Extremely Urgent TRO
The
petitioners, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully file this Petition for
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.
The
Parties
1.
The petitioners are
as follows:
a. First Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeffrey P. Cudia, who can be served
with processes of this Court at the Holding Room of the Philippine Military Academy at Fort
Gregorio Del Pilar, Loakan Road, Baguio City.
He is supposed to be a member of the Siklab Diwa Class 2014 of the PMA and is
supposed to graduate and receive his academic honors as Salutatorian of the
Class 2014, the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy cadet graduate, and a
commission as Ensign of the Philippine Navy this 16 March 2014 commencement
exercises of the Philippine Military Academy had it not to the controversy that
has become an issue of high national interest now.
He is being represented in this
petition by his father Renato P. Cudia because his signature cannot be
immediately available when there is an extreme urgency to file this petition
because the cadet is in Baguio City.
It is undertaken nevertheless that as
soon as physically possible his verification and certificate of non-forum
shopping for this petition will be submitted.
b. Renato P. Cudia, a
resident of Block 3, Lot 10, Mt. View Subdivision, Gatiawin, Arayat, Pampanga,
is the father of Cadet Cudia.
Renato is a former soldier being a
member of the Philippine Navy elite unit called Special Warfare Group (SWAG)
assigned for many years in Mindanao.
Later he has become an overseas
Filipino worker (OFW) for many years just to raise money for the education of
all his children in Arayat, Pampanga; and
c. Berteni Cataluña
Causing, who can be served with processes of this Court at Unit 1, No. 2368
Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila.
He is a practicing lawyer by
profession.
He is joining this petition under a
separate verification and certificate of non-forum shopping as a petitioner for
being a taxpayer having Tax Identification Number 914-839-837-000. This is
because he stands to be prejudiced because the money of the people through the
government has been dispensed with in the schooling for four (4) years of Cadet
Cudia that if he is not allowed to graduate from the PMA and not be
commissioned to the Philippine Navy an estimated amount of Two Million Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱2,500,000.00) in the government’s funds that were
consumed in Cadet Cudia’s schooling will be wasted while at the same time the
government, the State, and its People will be deprived of the services of Cadet
Cudia.
2.
The respondents
that can be served with copies of the orders and other processes at the PMA,
Fort Gregorio Del Pilar, Loakan Road, Baguio City, are as follows:
a. The
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) is
being impleaded as a respondent because this institution preparing its students
called cadets to become regular leaders of the various branches of service of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines is consenting to and approving the illegal
and unconstitutional acts of the Honor Committee, and the PMA is headed by
the Commandant and Assistant Commandant, the Superintendent and the Assistant
Superintendent; the service of copies and orders therefor can be sent to the
PMA Office of the Commandant or Superintendent at its headquarters at the PMA,
Fort Gregorio Del Pilar, Loakan Road, Bagiuo City;
b. The
Honor Committee of 2014
composed of cadets chosen from each class of the year 2014 (the 4th
class who are freshmen, the 3rd class who are the sophomore, the 2nd
class as the junior and the 1st class as the senior) and the members of the Honor Committee of
2014, led by Honor Committee Chariman First Class Cadet Mogol who served in the proceedings against Cadet
Cudia are being impleaded in their personal and official capacities for
committing the acts that are the subject matters of this petition for
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, service of copies and orders of this
petition intended for the Honor Committee and its members can be coursed
through the PMA Office of the Commandant; and
c. The
CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD (CRAB)
created by the PMA to conduct the re-investigation ordered by the Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines General Emmanuel Bautista; the
service of copies and orders therefor can be sent to the PMA Office of the
Commandant or Superintendent at its headquarters at the PMA, Fort Gregorio Del
Pilar, Loakan Road, Bagiuo City;
The Antecedents
3.
On 23 September
2013, somebody among fellow cadets filed a report for cheating against 1st
Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia.
4.
Cadet Cudia was
accused of an honor violation for sorting Naval Science examination papers for
their extra instruction that night during their examinations as ordered to him
by superiors.
5.
Cadet Cudia had no
other choice but to obey.
6.
Cadet Cudia was
defended by classmates and he was given a “Not Guilty” verdict in October.
7.
In November of the
same year, another honor violation report was filed against Cudia.
8.
This time the honor
violation report was filed by the Honor Committee chairman himself.
9.
The Honor Committee
chairman accused Cadet Cudia of “cheating
and conniving (with)” by giving solutions to his Navy classmates who,
except for Cudia, usually retake the examinations because they often fail the
exams in Navy Science 432.
10.
One of those who
re-took the exam was the Honor Committee chairman.
11.
Cadet Cudia often perfected
all the exams of the subject.
12.
Following the
instructor’s wishes, Cadet Cudia announced to his Navy classmates how to get
the GIVEN of the exam problems and what scale should be used.
13.
Then one of his
classmates asked how to get the GIVEN and Cudia answered to the extent of
getting the GIVEN and what scale should be used.
14.
The Honor Committee
chairman asked a clarification and benefited from Cadet Cudia.
15.
After that
incident, the Honor Committee chair himself filed an honor violation report
against Cadet Cudia and another classmate.
16.
The instructor
defended Cadet Cudia so that when Cadet Cudia came back in January 2014 Cadet
Cudia was handed a “not guilty” verdict.
17.
On 7 January 2014,
Maj. Dennis Hindang, the tactical officer of Cudia at “Alfa” company, filed the
third honor violation report.
18.
Hindang accused
Cadet Cudia of “perverting the truth”
in his appeal from a delinquency report (DR by brevity) filed on 19 November
2013 by Professor Juanita Berong.
19.
In that DR Berong
said: “Late for two (2) minutes in his
Eng 412 class o/a 14 1500H – 1600H Nov 2013.”
20.
Basing his logic on
the declaration of Berong in the DR where she said Cadet Cudia was “late for
two minutes for the 1500H class,” Cadet Cudia stated that his class in the
prior period also ended at 1500H.
21.
The class of Cadet
Cudia with Professor Berong was the 5th period.
22.
The contention of
Maj. Hindang was that Cadet Cudia lied in stating that the 4th
period class scheduled for 1330H up to 1500H ended at 1500H.
23.
Major Hindang
contended that this was a lie because he assumed that the 4th period
class was dismissed by their professor, Dr. Maria Monica C. Costales, 15
(fifteen) minutes before 1500H, as it was their protocol to dismiss class 15
minutes before 1500H, which is 3:00 p.m. in layman’s time expression.
24.
Major Hindang in
his statements assumed that Cadet Cudia went somewhere, making him late to his
5th period class.
25.
On 19 December 2013
Hindang issued Cudia a punishment of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours due to
the cadet’s explanation to Berong’s DR.
26.
Cadet Cudia’s
explanation to Berong’s DR was this: “Our
class was dismissed a (little) bit late and I came directly from 4th period
class…..etc”.
27.
The other
classmates of Cadet Cudia who were also late were punished only with 8 demerits
and 8 touring hours and the punishment was handed to them only in January of
2014 while Cudia’s punishment was handed much earlier on 19 December 2013.
28.
That his classmates
served as his witnesses before they received and explained their respective DRs.
29.
Anyway, after
receiving the 7 January 2014 charge filed by Maj. Hindang, Cadet Cudia asked
the Honor Committee chairman what their tactical officer meant by the
charge.
30.
The chairman of the
Honor Committee told Cadet Cudia that Major Hindang based the charges on
conversations with professors and classmates and on Cudia’s written request for
reconsideration from the 11 demerits and 13 touring hours.
31.
Cadet Cudia then
asked for an extension of time to answer the charge because Dr. Costales was on
leave.
32.
On 13 January 2014,
Dr. Costales sent a text message and stated that she thought all the while that
Major Hindang was asking her about the time of dismissal in December 2013 and
that she answered she presumed the cadets finished early because it was a group
work.
33.
To the honor
violation case filed by Major Hindang, this was what Cadet Cudia answered:
“Sir,
“We had an LE (long examination) that
day (14 November 2013) in OR432 class. When the first bell rang (1455), I stood
up, reviewed my paper and submitted it to my instructor, Ms. Costales. After
which, I and Cadet 1cl Arcangel asked for some query with regard to the
deductions of our previous LE. Our instructor gladly answered our question. She
then told me that she will give the copy of our section grade, so I waited at
the hallway outside the ACAD5 office, and then she came out of the room and
gave me a copy of the grades. Cadet Arcangel, Cadet Narciso and I immediately
went to our 5th period Class which is ENG412.”
34.
On 21 January 2014,
after having already served 9 hours of the 13 hours of touring, the “guilty”
verdict was handed out by the Honor Committee.
35.
After learning of
the guilty verdict, Cadet Cudia went to a member of the Honor Committee to ask
what the grounds of the verdict were and he learned from that member the
initial voting was 8-1, which meant 8 members voted Cudia was “guilty” and 1
voted “not guilty.”
36.
Because the
committee cannot accept the vote, the honor committee chairman ordered its
members to go to the secret room for the “chambering” where the lone dissenter
was compelled to change vote.
37.
After the
chambering, the 9-0 vote was announced, which meant 9 voted “guilty” while none
voted “not guilty.”
38.
One vote of “not
guilty” is sufficient to acquit because the procedure requires unanimous vote
of 9-0 by the honor committee members of nine cadets.
39.
Cadet Cudia filed
on 24 January 2014 an appeal to the Honor Committee incorporating therein the
certificate signed by Dr. Maria Monica C. Costales, the Professor of the 4th
period class for the subject named as OR 432.
40.
A copy of the
appeal to the Honor Committee was obtained by Rappler.com is attached hereto as
ANNEX “A” series.
41.
This was downloaded
from Rappler.com’s website where it is posted as “exclusive” at this link: http://www.rappler.com/nation/51485-copy-written-appeal-of-cadet-jeff-cudia.
42.
On it was attached
a separate certification signed by Professor Costales, as ANNEX “B” of this petition.
43.
This appeal was
declared dead on arrival
because the Honor Committee snubbed the same by “majority rule” without even
giving a chance to be deliberated upon.
44.
Meanwhile, the
Honor Committee forwarded its “guilty” verdict to the leadership of the PMA.
45.
Shortly before Vice
Admiral Edgar Abogado retired on 15 February 2014 as a military officer and as
the Superintendent of the PMA, he approved the recommendation to separate Cadet
Cudia from the service.
46.
Cadet Cudia was
subsequently separated to the Holding Room of the PMA.
47.
It shows that the
“guilty” verdict of the honor committee is being used by the PMA as sufficient
valid cause to terminate a cadet from the military service and the academy
because of the automatic recommendation for approval done by the former
Superintendent.
48.
As a last-ditch
effort Cadet Cudia made his personal appeal letter dated 19 February 2014 to
the new Superintendent of the PMA, Major General Oscar Lopez but this has not
yet been submitted because he is waiting until now for PMA to allow him access
to the documents and recordings of the trial, including the video footage.
49.
On the same day of
19 February 2014, prompted by viral posts on Facebook demanding the
intervention of the military leadership in the case of Cadet Cudia, the Chief
of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, ordered a reinvestigation.
50.
The petitioners
have no access to the copies of the orders but relied only on the report of
Rappler.com about the said reinvestigation order, a hard copy copied from its
specific website into a word file is attached hereto as ANNEX “C.”
51.
The source of this
word document is the website http://www.rappler.com/nation/50988-pma-cadet-case.
52.
Without giving due respect
to the order of reinvestigation, the Honor Committee acted to preempt the Chief
of Staff by issuing Special Order No. 1 on 21 February 2014 directing all
cadets to ostracize him by not talking to him and by separating him from all
activities/functions of the cadets and any violation therein shall be a “class
1” offense which means, 45 demerits, 90 hours touring and 90 hours confinement.
53.
This Special Order
No. 1 on ostracism also effectively prohibited cadets who are witnesses to the
proceedings, including the 8-1 voting, to speak out on what transpired during
the hearing because another “class 1” offense will be awarded to any cadet who
breaches confidentiality on the honor case which may result to the cadets being
“turned back” for excessive demerits.
54.
This Special Order
No. 1 on ostracism was issued also to preempt the counter-complaint filed by Cadet
Cudia on 14 February 2014 against (nine) 9 members of the Honor Committee for manipulating
the voting by means of compelling the lone dissenter to change the vote, but
nothing happened until now about this counter-complaint.
55.
In fact, the PMA
mentioned this counter-complaint to the media only too late in the day.
56.
Cadet Cudia was not
given a copy of Special Order No.1 on ostracism and he learned of that only
from the media.
57.
The disguised
justifications given why Special Order No. 1 on ostracism was issued were acts
of destroying the image of the PMA, refusal to accept the verdict of the Honor
Committee, and that Cadet Cudia’s sister, Annavee Cudia, divulged confidential
documents to the media.
58.
The petitioners
have no access with any copy of the Special Orders No. 1 on ostracism but this
was learned from another report of Rappler.com, a hard copy of which was
downloaded into a word file attached hereto as ANNEX “D,” taken from this particular website: http://www.rappler.com/nation/51241-pma-cadet-cudia-ostracism.
59.
The reinvestigation
has not yet completed its job as ordered by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and
yet only five (5) days separate from today up to the graduation day on 16 March
2014.
60.
The Cadet Review
and Appeals Board (CRAB) that was formed by the PMA following the order of
General Bautista will not act on the appeal of Cadet Cudia if Cudia cannot
submit new evidence.
61.
But how can Cadet
Cudia get new evidence when this Order of Ostrarcism that is not even found in
the honor manual punishes cadets who will testify on the truth?
62.
This behavior of
the CRAB is contrary to the appeals board of West Point where a review de novo of all evidence in the records
of the Honor Committee is to be done if an affected cadet asks for an appeal.
63.
If CRAB will stick
to its rule to act on the reinvestigation if there is NEW EVIDENCE on appeal, then
nothing will happen to the appeal of Cadet Cudia because the only new evidence
available for Cadet Cudia cannot be produced because of the confidentiality
rule and because of the ostracism order.
64.
Cadet Cudia’s new
evidence that are weighty are: (a) his fellow cadets who are not allowed to
talk or to testify or they face the harshness of the Honor Committee; (b) the
cadet who voted “not guilty” who is not also allowed to talk; and (c) the video
footage and audio recordings of the deliberations that are not allowed to be
produced to the CRAB because of the claim of confidentiality.
65.
On 8 March 2014,
Rappler.com posted its latest news about Cadet Cudia and it is entitled “Cudia’s name not on PMA graduating cadets
list?”
66.
A hard copy into a
word file was downloaded from that site, http://www.rappler.com/nation/52504-cudia-not-on-pma-graduating-list,
and is attached hereto as ANNEX “E”.
67.
In that story, it
was also told that he was not allowed to join the welcoming of graduating
cadets of Siklab Diwa Class 2014.
68.
Cadet Cudia has
been exempt from all final exams because he either perfected or got high scores
in all previous examinations in all subjects so that there is no reason for him
not to be allowed to graduate.
Cause for a Writ of
Prohibition
69.
There is no law
that sanctions that the finding of guilt by the honor committee may be used by
the PMA to dismiss or recommend the dismissal of the guilty cadet from the
military service or from the academy
70.
There is also no
law that prohibits the guilty cadet from participating in the graduation and
getting his academic and other honors, and from getting his commission as a new
ensign or second lieutenant of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
71.
So that even
assuming that Cadet Cudia was indeed guilty, he should be allowed to take part
in the commencement exercises and get his academic honors and commission as a
new Navy ensign from the traditional commencement speaker who is the President
of the Philippines.
72.
Even the website of
the PMA says nothing of separation from the service or prohibition from
attending the graduation ceremonies or from getting his academic honor and his
commission in case of the finding of guilt by the honor committee.
73.
A hard copy in word
file about what the PMA says of those found guilty of the Honor Code violation
is attached hereto as ANNEX “F,” taken
from this particular website: http://www.pma.ph/?pageid=HonorCode.
74.
It says that the
Honor Code and the Honor System are enforced in the PMA to imbibe into its
cadets the culture which adopts the motto: "We, the cadets, do not lie, cheat,
steal, nor tolerate among us those who do so."
75.
It also says that
any cadet found guilty shall be asked “to resign for the good of the service.”
76.
It does not say
that a guilty cadet is automatically terminated or dismissed from the service.
77.
The administration
of the Honor Code and Honor System is stated in the same website that it is an
undertaking among the cadets only yet the PMA as it appears is enforcing
without thinking the guilty verdict as a justification for the separation of a
cadet from the academy and the military service.
78.
In other words, the
“gentleman’s agreement” among cadets now takes precedence over high public
interest in the defense of the nation and in the money spent for each of them.
79.
It is basic in the Civil
Code that all agreements, written or verbal, are null and void if it violates
the law, good morals, good customs, public policy, and public safety.
80.
To the contrary,
under Commonwealth Act No. 1 that organized the Military Academy, under Section
30 and Section 31 thereof, it is the President of the Philippines who appoints
each cadet to the PMA and it is the Chief of Staff who directly controls and
supervises the PMA that all policies must first pass through the Chief of Staff
of the AFP.
81.
That power to
appoint carries with it the power to remove administratively.
82.
So that it is only
the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines who
has the power to remove a cadet upon a valid or legal cause.
83.
There is nothing
written in Commonwealth Act No. 1 that gives authority to the Honor Committee
as the sole body to determine the guilt or innocence of a cadet as to whether
he lied, he cheated, he stole, or he tolerate those who did.
84.
There is also
nothing in Commonwealth Act No.1 that authorizes the PMA to adopt the guilty
findings of the honor committee as a basis in recommending the dismissal or
discharge from the service of a guilty cadet.
85.
If there is none in
Commonwealth Act No.1 that authorizes such, the PMA is prohibited from
following blindly the findings of guilt by the Honor Committee of the cadets in
implementing honor violation cases that the PMA must implement what the Honor
Committee wants.
86.
At the same time,
PMA’s blind following to the Honor Committee’s finding of guilt as a basis in
terminating a “guilty” cadet or in assisting the act of ostracizing the guilty
cadet is ultra vires and unconstitutional
because the Constitution requires DUE PROCESS before being condemned of life,
liberty and property.
87.
Ostracizing is a
form of condemnation of life it being an act of human rights violation worse
than physical hazing and bullying.
88.
Therefore, it is
clear that the Honorable Court is obliged to declare the Honor Committee
proceedings as ultra vires or unconstitutional in so far as its declaration of
guilt to be used as the PMA’s basis in enforcing or recommending the separation
or enforcing ostracism of any cadet found guilty.
89.
It is therefore an
act of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the PMA to use the guilty
verdict of the honor committee as basis in recommending the discharge or
dismissal of a cadet.
90.
Then, assuming that
the honor committee procedures can be valid for the same may have had the
approval of the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the President of the Philippines,
the same can only be changed upon the approval by the Chief of Staff or the
President of the Philippines.
91.
In the case of
Cadet Cudia, there were two voting rounds that took place.
92.
The procedure used
by the Honor Committee in the case of Cadet Cudia was that after the secret
balloting in one round its chairman ordered all voters to the secret room without
the cadet recorders where the dissenter was asked to explain why he voted not
guilty and was eventually pressured to change his vote.
93.
In that room the
dissenter was made to cast a new vote of guilty and original ballot of the
dissenter was discarded and replaced with the guilty ballot.
94.
There was no record
of the change of votes from 8-1 to 9-0 that was mentioned in the formal report
of the honor com to the Commandant of Cadets.
95.
Cadet Cudia made
the Commandant aware of the 8-1 vote when he sought for reconsideration of his
separation from PMA and he got the reply “why only now?”
96.
All of these were
allowed by the PMA.
97.
If the PMA and the
Honor Committee of 2014 are not halted on this grave abuse of discretion that
is also a blatant violation against the Constitution and law, abuses will
continue to the prejudice of the taxpaying people, like petitioner Berteni
Cataluña Causing who represent them all in this case as they are situated alike.
98.
The taxpayers
deserve the services of cadets after underwriting their schooling for four (4)
years with a total expense of at least Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱2,500,000.00) so that it is against the interest of the public for the cadets
themselves to determine the separation from the service of any cadet.
99.
Power cannot be
presumed and by this time-honored doctrine it cannot be presumed that the Honor
Committee and the blindly-following PMA have the power to remove a cadet or
recommend any cadet for discharge upon the finding of guilt by the Honor
Committee.
100. In
fact, Honor Code violation is not among those listed as justifications for
attrition of cadets.
101. The
word file of the “Cadet Attrition” page of the PMA is hereby attached hereto as
ANNEX “G,” downloaded from its
website: http://www.pma.ph/?pageid=CadetAttrition.
102. With
all those material points stated above, it is prayed of the Honorable Supreme
Court issue a writ of prohibition
against the Honor Committee and the PMA to prohibit them permanently from using
the “guilty” verdict of the Honor Committee as basis in removing a “guilty”
cadet or ostracizing him or her, or as basis in recommending the discharge of a
cadet.
Cause for Writ of
Mandamus
103. What
is clear now is that there is no legal basis to remove Cadet Cudia from the
PMA, no legal basis to prohibit him from taking part in the graduation
ceremonies on 16 March 2014 if he completed his academic and other material requirements
for the baccalaureate course, no legal basis to prohibit him from receiving the
academic honors due him, no legal basis to deny from him the commission as a
new Navy ensign.
104. It
is equally clear that it is a ministerial obligation on the part of the PMA not
to remove Cadet Cudia from the PMA, to allow him to take part in the graduation
ceremonies on 16 March 2014 if he completed all the requirements of his
baccalaureate degree, to allow him to receive his academic honors and receive
his commission as a new Navy ensign.
105. With
this, it is being prayed of the Honorable Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the PMA to
direct it to include Cadet Cudia in the list of graduates of Siklab Diwa Class
2014 of the PMA, to allow Cadet Cudia to take part in the commencement
exercises if he completed all the requirements for his baccalaureate degree, to
award unto him the academic honors he deserves, and allow him to receive the
commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign.
106. Also,
it is prayed that a writ of mandamus
be issued to the Honor Committee to submit to the CRAB of the PMA all
its records of the proceedings taken against Cadet Cudia, including the video
footage of the deliberations and voting, for the purpose of allowing the CRAB
to conduct intelligent review of the case of Cadet Cudia.
107. It
is a ministerial duty of the Honor Committee to submit these records because
these are material to the conduct of the duties of the CRAB, being so because
the claim to confidentiality has not legal basis.
108. Further,
it is prayed of the Court to issue a writ
of mandamus to the PMA’s CRAB to conduct a review de novo of all the
records without requiring Cadet
Cudia to submit new evidence if it was physically impossible to do so.
109. The
mandate of the PMA’s CRAB is to review and not to find new evidence so that it
is ministerial for it to take a new examination of all the evidence used in
finding Cadet Cudia “guilty.”
110. This
is also clear in the order of the Chief of Staff of the AFP who directed the
PMA to “reinvestigate” and not to look for new evidence.
111. Nevertheless,
it is prayed that the PMA’s CRAB be directed to take into account the
certification signed by Dr. Costales and the new evidence consisting of the
affidavit of a military officer declaring under oath that the cadet who voted
“not guilty” revealed to this officer that this cadet was coerced into changing
his vote.
112. A
copy of this affidavit of the officer is attached hereto as ANNEX “H.”
113. It
is also prayed that the Supreme Court issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the PMA’s CRAB to give Cadet
Cudia the right to a counsel who is allowed to participate actively in the
proceedings as well as in the cross-examinations during the exercise of the
right to confront witnesses against him.
114. This
is being sought because while the CRAB allows Cadet Cudia to be represented by
a PAO lawyer, the CRAB is making the lawyer only as observer without any right
to intervene and demand for the respect of the rights of Cadet Cudia.
115. And
if the proceedings will be remanded to the Honor Committee by the CRAB, it is
also prayed of the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to enjoin the committee to allow Cadet
Cudia a representation of a counsel, it being a no-issue as a Constitutional
right of a respondent or an accused in any proceedings.
Cause for Writ of Certiorari
116. Now
coming to the certiorari issue, assuming that the Honor Committee exercised a de facto power as a quasi-judicial body,
the narration above clearly shows the grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the Honor Committee in issuing a guilty verdict of nine (9) votes for “guilty”
and zero (0) vote for “not guilty” when it was manipulated from eight (8) votes
for “guilty” and one (1) vote for “not guilty.”
117. Under
the rules of procedure of the Honor Committee, it is required to have a
unanimous nine (9) votes for “guilty” to find the cadet being charged as
“guilty.”
118. It
has already been widely announced in the media that the main complaint of Cadet
Cudia is that the initial voting was 8-1 and not 9-0 but the PMA and the Honor
Committee have never issued any statement whether this is false or true.
119. In
fact, an officer at the PMA executed an affidavit standing pat that the lone
dissenting voter, or the voter who voted “not guilty” at first, even revealed
to him about the result of the initial voting and that this lone dissent was
brought to a chamber and was compelled to change his “not guilty” vote.
120. This
affidavit and the certification of Dr. Costales deserved to be taken a good
look by the CRAB.
121. There
is nothing in the Honor Committee procedure that allows “chambering” to compel
the voting member to change vote, for or against the cadet being tried.
122. There
has been no order from the Chief of Staff or the President of the Philippines
sanctioning the honor committee procedure or approving any change thereof, in
compliance with Sections 30 and 31 of the Commonwealth Act No. 1.
123. Hence,
bringing the dissent to a chamber and compelling him to change vote is a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, assuming that
the Honor Committee can be given a de facto authority as a quasi-judicial body.
124. Because
of this, it is prayed of the Honorable Court to declare as null and void the
proceedings of the Honor Code that resulted in the guilty vote of 9-0.
125. Actually,
even by looking at the charges stated above and the evidence submitted against
the evidence, the grave abuse of discretion in concluding that Cadet Cudia is
guilty is nothing less than a biased judgment.
126. This
biased judgment is reinforced by the fact that three successive honor violation
cases were filed against Cadet Cudia, that while he was declared “not guilty”
in the first two, the committee ensured that in the third and final case Cadet
Cudia was to be declared “guilty” as manifested by compulsion employed against
the dissenting vote.
127. What
is noticeable in the honor violation report, in relation to the delinquency
report, as against the explanations made by Cadet Cudia, it was clear that the
accuser, the judges in the persons of the honor committee members, and Cudia
himself were all having vague ideas as to when should be considered as actual
dismissal and without factual finding as to what really was the actual time of
dismissal.
128. In
fact, it appears that everybody was not even sure what was the exact time of
dismissal, what should be considered as the time of dismissal as to whether it
should be the dismissal inside the room or the dismissal after the grade of the
section of Cadet Cudia was given by Professor Costales.
129. In
fact, even Professor Costales in her certification cannot categorically state
as to what was the exact time the bell rang, whether five (5) minutes before
the time, and what was the exact time when she dismissed Cudia and three other
cadets with the giving of their section grade.
130. Section
grade meant the grade of all of them classmates in that section.
131. With
clear failure of establishing the actual time of reference, it necessarily
follows that nobody can be said to have lied.
132. One
can be said to have lied only if that one person knew that what he stated was
false.
133. So
how can Aldrin say he knew it was not actually 1500H that he was finally
dismissed by Professor Costales if to begin with there was no clear time
reference in his mind, and in the minds of the accuser and the honor committee
voters and investigators?
134. On
14 November 2013 the class with Dr. Costales was for a long examination (LE)
and the protocol of dismissing the class fifteen (15) minutes before the class
had to end was not observed.
135. During
long examinations, the time of dismissal was usually five (5) minutes before
the class was set to end.
136. So
that as to the first of the Honor Code standard question, “Do you intend to
deceive?”, the only answer in times of confusion is “no.”
137. Of
course, no confused mind is capable of acting to deceive at the same time.
138. And
as to the second of the Honor Code standard question, “Do you take undue
advantage?,” the only answer in times of confusion is also “no”.
139. Of
course, no confused mind is capable of acting to think of taking undue
advantage at the same time.
140. And
if to analyze it, confusion happened in a manner analyzed below.
141. Major
Hindang had in his mind that the protocol of dismissal time of the class usually
happened before the schedule.
142. Major
Hindang was not clear though in accusing Cadet Cudia as to why Cadet Cudia
perverted the truth because Hindang’s accusation was only worded this way: that
Cudia perverted the truth by stating that the OR432 class was dismissed 1500H.
143. While
Hindang stated in the accusatory language that Cadet Cudia perverted the truth
by stating that OR432 class ended at 1500H, Hindang did not state what was the
truth or the true time of dismissal.
144. Major
Hindang did not mention whether the truth he was relying on was 15 minutes
before the schedule or 5 minutes before the schedule.
145. The
accusatory language was open-ended designed to trap the one being accused.
146. Then
Major Hindang made an accusation during the deliberation of the honor committee
that Cadet Cudia still passed by another place before going to the 5th
period class, so that they also said that Cadet Cudia lied for saying that
Cadet Cudia and his two classmates went directly to the 5th period
class after receiving the section grade from Dr. Costales.
147. Then
there was an issue as to what should be considered as the time of dismissal,
whether the time the actual class ended or the actual time Dr. Costales handed
out the section grade and finally allowed Cadet Cudia and two others to leave
for the next class.
148. And
if there was confusion as to what should “dismissal of class” mean, then nobody
can be said to have lied if one chose the time when the professor let go of the
cadets.
149. Again,
this is because one can be said to have lied is one’s mind was not confused.
150. If
at all, the answer chosen may be wrong, but to be wrong is one thing and to be
false is another thing.
151. To
call it “wrong” means it is not correct; but to call it “false” means it is not
true.
152. “Wrong”
refers to opinions that are not accepted as correct; while “false” refers to
claim of facts that are not true.
153. In
sum, misconception out of confusion reigned in the minds of Major Hindang and
the committee members so that there was want of reason and want of logic.
154. In
other words, it was a grave abuse of discretion on the part of the PMA to take
the guilty verdict as the gospel truth automatically and dismiss or to
recommend the dismissal of Cadet Cudia.
155. Commissioner
Etta Rosales of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) described the entire
incident as a product of inaccuracy, not lying.
156. Of
course, inaccuracy is one thing and lying is another thing.
157. To
prove the existence of the statement of the CHR chief, a word file of the news
report of Rappler.com entitled “CHR probes PMA cadet dismissal, examines honor
system” is attached hereto as ANNEX “I”,
downloaded from this website: http://www.rappler.com/nation/52551-commission-human-rights-cudia-probe-pma.
158. Clearly
then, it was a grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of that quasi-judicial
power to adjudge.
Application for Very
Urgent
Temporary
Restraining Order
159. The
graduation day is on 16 March 2014.
160. Today,
when this petition is filed, is 10 March 2014.
161. Then,
the PMA shall determine the top honor graduates academically between today and
16 March 2014.
162. Practically
no sufficient time is left for the Court to let this petition be heard first
before giving the final reliefs being prayed for.
163. Practically,
there is no more time under the ordinary course of the law to be able to catch
up with the graduation and the commissioning of new officers for the AFP from
the PMA.
164. Petitioners
Cadet Cudia and his father, mother and the entire family, as well as his foster
parent, have done every available administrative remedy going back and forth to
the PMA and to the AFP General Headquarters at Camp Aguinaldo, but to no avail.
165. They
have no other recourse but the Last Bulwark for the people, the Supreme Court.
166. The
lack of time and the lack of means as well as the secrecy of the documents in
the hands of the Honor Committee physically made it impossible for the
petitioners to secure all certified true copies of the documents.
167. The
Court nevertheless can take judicial notice of the publications posted by
Rappler.com that these publications existed and the publications of the PMA on
its official website for the purpose of determining minimum sufficiency for the
Court to act on the prayers, particularly the date of graduation on 16 March
2014.
168. The
Court can also take judicial notice of these facts stated above because these
are public knowledge now and are capable of unquestionable demonstration.
169. In
view of the undeniable extreme urgency of the issues, it is being prayed of the
Honorable Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the PMA to
enjoin it to do the following acts:
i. INCLUDE
1st Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia in the list of graduating class
of Siklab Diwa 2014 if all the material requirements for his baccalaureate degree
have been completed in time for 16 March 2014 commencement exercises;
ii. AWARD
1st Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia all the academic honors he
deserves;
iii. COMMISSION
1st Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia as the new ensign of the
Philippine Navy if all the material requirements for his baccalaureate degree
have been completed in time for 16 March 2014 commencement exercises;
iv. PROHIBIT
all the cadets of the PMA from ostracizing 1st Class Cadet Aldrin
Jeff P. Cudia;
v. For
the Honor Committee to SUBMIT
forthwith and without delay to the PMA’s Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB)
all the records of the proceedings done against Cadet Cudia, including the
video footage, audio records, and minutes of the proceedings;
vi. For
the PMA’s CRAB to REVIEW all the
records and evidence of the proceedings, including the video footage, even
without new evidence, and make a report of its completed proceedings to this
Court in two (2) days from receipt of the TRO;
vii. For
the PMA’s CRAB to LOOK INTO the
certification signed by Dr. Maria Monica Costales and the affidavit signed by
the officer;
viii.
For the PMA’s CRAB
to ALLOW Cadet Cudia to be
represented by a counsel who has rights to take part in the proceedings and
cross-examine the witnesses against him; and
ix. For
the PMA to CEASE and DESIST from
approving the “guilty” verdict of the Honor Committee as the basis for
separating or expelling Cadet Cudia from the Academy or from recommending his
dismissal thereof.
170. These
temporary reliefs being prayed for as part of the TRO being applied for may be
granted without prejudice to the final rulings of the Honorable Court of all
the issues raised above.
171. After
all, when the application for TRO is granted the PMA is not left without a
remedy for it always can initiate court martial proceedings against 1st
Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia.
172. Because
of the extreme urgency of the
need for the TRO, it is being prayed of the Honorable Court, through the Chief
Justice or otherwise, that the same TRO being prayed be issued upon the filing
of this petition.
173. To
God be the Glory.
The Prayers
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Court that upon the receipt of this
Petition a Status Quo Ante Order
(SQAO) or a Temporary
Restraining Order be issued to direct the following:
1. INCLUDE 1st Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia in the list of graduating class of Siklab Diwa 2014 if all the material
requirements for his baccalaureate degree have been completed in time for 16
March 2014 commencement exercises;
2.
AWARD 1st Class Cadet
Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia all the academic honors he deserves;
3.
COMMISSION 1st Class
Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia as the new ensign of the Philippine Navy if all the
material requirements for his baccalaureate degree have been completed in time
for 16 March 2014 commencement exercises;
4.
PROHIBIT all the cadets of the PMA
from ostracizing 1st Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia;
5.
For the Honor Committee to SUBMIT
forthwith and without delay to the PMA’s Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB)
all the records of the proceedings done against Cadet Cudia, including the
video footage, audio records and minutes of the proceedings;
6.
For the PMA’s CRAB to REVIEW all the
records and evidence of the proceedings, including the video footage, even
without new evidence, and make a report of its completed proceedings to this
Court in two (2) days from receipt of the TRO;
7.
For the PMA’s CRAB to LOOK INTO the
certification signed by Dr. Maria Monica Costales and the affidavit signed by
the officer;
8.
For the PMA’s CRAB to ALLOW Cadet
Cudia to be represented by a counsel who has rights to take part in the
proceedings and cross-examine the witnesses against him; and
9.
For the PMA to CEASE and DESIST from
approving the “guilty” verdict of the Honor Committee as the basis for separating
or expelling Cadet Cudia from the Academy;
And
after due notice and hearing, it is prayed that the Court issue a Writ of Prohibition to prohibit
the PMA and Honor Committee to use the “guilty” verdict of the latter’s
proceedings as basis for separating
or expelling from the academy and for ostracizing 1st Class
Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia and all the other cadets in the future.
Also,
after due notice and hearing, it is prayed of the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to:
1. direct
the PMA to include Cadet Cudia in the list of graduates of Siklab Diwa Class
2014 of the PMA, including inclusion in the yearbook;
2. direct
the PMA to allow Cadet Cudia to take part in the commencement exercises if he
completed all the requirements for his baccalaureate degree;
3. direct
the PMA to award unto Cadet Cudia the academic honors he deserves, and the
commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign;
4. direct
the Honor Committee to submit to the CRAB of the PMA all its records of the
proceedings taken against Cadet Cudia, including the video footage and audio
recordings of the deliberations and voting, for the purpose of allowing the
CRAB to conduct intelligent review of the case of Cadet Cudia;
5. direct
the PMA’s CRAB to conduct a review de
novo of all the records without
requiring Cadet Cudia to submit new evidence if it was physically
impossible to do so;
6. direct
the PMA’s CRAB to take into account the certification signed by Dr. Costales,
the new evidence consisting of the affidavit of a military officer declaring
under oath that the cadet who voted “not guilty” revealed to this officer that
this cadet was coerced into changing his vote, and other new evidence if there
is any;
7. direct
the PMA’s CRAB to give Cadet Cudia the right to a counsel who is allowed to
participate actively in the proceedings as well as in the cross-examinations
during the exercise of the right to confront witnesses against him; and
8. direct
the Honor Committee in case of remand of the case by the CRAB to allow Cadet
Cudia a representation of a counsel.
And finally, it is prayed of the Honorable Court to issue
a Writ of Certiorari
declaring the proceedings done by the Honor Committee as ultra vires and NULL and VOID as an exercise of grave abuse of
discretion, in case it is warranted that its conduct of the proceedings can be
recognized as a quasi-judicial function de
facto or de jure and in case it
is not inconsistent with the mandate of the PMA’s CRAB and if the CRAB is
recognized as a valid creation by the PMA.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances
are likewise prayed for. Manila. 10 March 2014.
RENTA PE CAUSING SABARRE CASTRO &
ASSOCIATES
Unit 1, No.
2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila
By:
BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING
IBP No.
928535 / 06-01-2014 / Manila IV
PTR No.
2529536 / 06-01-2014 / Manila
Roll No.
60944/MCLE No. IV – 0007338 issued 10 August 2012
Cc:
1st
Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia
Holding Room, Philippine Military
Academy
Fort Gregorio del Pilar, Loakan Road,
Baguio City
THE
COMMANDANT & THE SUPERINTENDENT
Philippine
Military Academy
Fort Gregorio del Pilar, Loakan Road,
Baguio City
HONOR
COMMITTEE and Members
led
by Honor Committee Chairman First Class Cadet Mogol
Philippine Military Academy
Fort Gregorio del Pilar, Loakan Road,
Baguio City
CADET
REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD (CRAB)
Philippine Military Academy
Fort Gregorio del Pilar, Loakan Road,
Baguio City
Comments