MY PRIMARY ARGUMENTS VS SUPREME COURT ON CUDIA CASE

MY PRIMARY ARGUMENTS VS 
SUPREME COURT ON CUDIA CASE



                  With due respect to the Court En Banc, it committed errors as follows:

(1) In overlooking that SECRET BALLOTING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH CHAMBERING so that if it was established by the Supreme Court that the voting on Aldrin Jeff Cudia’s case was done by secret ballots, chambering can never be allowed;


(2) Claim of “New Practice” of chambering has no proof and not written in the Honor System procedure or the “Procedure During Formal Investigation,” which, according to the CHR report cited by the Supreme Court as Footnote No. 199,  said:


“Here, the Committee (voting members) engages in an open and thorough discussion of the merits and demerits of the case.  The presiding officer then aligns the different circumstances, mitigating and aggravating and once again present the evidences to the voting members for examination.  After which, the Presiding Officer will ask the Voting Members if all of them are ready, satisfied and ready to vote.  Just one member (not) ready to vote will postpone the voting and continue the deliberation until all doubts are cleared.

“Voting is done by secret ballots. After deliberation, the blank ballot sheets are distributed to each of the voting members who then signify his vote by writing ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’ and justify why he write the said vote.  The Presiding Officer counts the ballots and announces the result to the Committee”


(3) In rejecting the CHR’s findings of facts taken with full formalities and solemnities while doing the opposite by giving full faith even without any supporting evidence to mere allegations of Cadet Lagura, particularly on the claim that Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 since their first year practiced “chambering”;


(4)  In accepting with 100% faith the affidavit of Lagura when Lagura stated two inconsistent positions: (a) He said in Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 7 that after the votes were collected and counted and showed a result of eight (8) for “guilty” and one (1) for “not guilty” they were told to go inside the chamber where he listened to all other voters explaining to him their “guilty” votes: and (b) he said in Paragraph 10 of the same affidavit that only two cadets, Cadet Mogul and Cadet Arlegui, were with him inside the chamber;


(5)  In not noting the “next-to-impossible” claim of Lagura in Paragraph 5 of his affidavit where Lagura claimed that he voted “not guilty” comfortably because he did with a reservation in his mind that they will still be discussing their verdicts if they arrive at 8-1 or 7-2 vote – It is “next-to-impossible” for this claim of Lagura to have happened because no person can be assured that the vote shall be 8-1 or 7-2.


(6) In ruling that Cadet Cudia can go for his career or school anywhere except for the PMA but the Supreme Court did not order the PMA to remove the statement “on indefinite suspension” at the end of the transcript of records (TOR) and give him clearance to enroll somewhere else in order to graduate with a baccalaureate degree.
Post a Comment

Popular Posts