CONSTI LAW I other hand, what did the professor say?

There was
June 18, 2018 an investigation on this matter. What did Dr.
Costales say?
[CUDIA VS. PMA]
They were dismissed daw Sir on time.
 We have here Cudia, he was a very promising
student, just like all of you are. Atty. Gil: According to Dr. Costales, she never
 Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 dismisses her classes late. In fact, she dismissed it
 He was supposed to be awarded as the Class 10-15 minutes earlier. So that was her version, and
Salutatorian and even received the Philippine Navy later on, that excuse reached and that became a
Saber because he was the top navy cadet graduate report. It reached the Honor Committee because
 What happened, however, was that he did – according to those who complain, this was a
something happened, and he said something, and violation of what? What did they violate? What did
he was disowned by the person who said was Cudia violate by saying that “I was not late, it was
concerned and then patong-patong na ang mga lies her fault”? What did he violate?
by this Cudia
The Honor Code, sir.
RECITATION:
Atty. Gil: And what was the provision in the Honor
Atty. Gil: What happened on November 14, 2013? Code that was violated?

There was a class. Lying.

Atty. Gil: What class? Under what subject? Who Atty. Gil: Lying. They were lying daw. He was lying.
was the professor? That is giving a statement that perverts the truth. In
his written explanation he said that “It was not my
Under Professor Costales fault. The professor dismissed us late” but
apparently, the professor as well as katong mga
Atty. Gil: What did Cudia et, al as well as his other other witnesses – the other classmates, said that
classmates do? What happened to them? they were not dismissed late. Apparently, it was
found out that they consulted with this Dr. Costales
They were in the class, Sir. And they were after class. In other words, the class was dismissed
dismissed late. early. It’s just that they were the ones who
conferred with this Dr. that’s why they were late for
Atty. Gil: So they were there in this class. The 2 minutes. Now, the Honor Committee found them
class of Dr. Costales. Cudia claimed that they were what? What was the verdict of the Honor
dismissed late by the professor. That is why the Committee?
next class ENGLISH 412 they were late, for how
many minutes? Guilty sir.
2 minutes.
Atty. Gil: And when the recommendation reached
Atty. Gil: 2 minutes. And because of this 2 minutes, this Vice Admiral Abogado, what was the penalty
dili siya maka-graduate sa PMA. meted out on Cudia?
Now, they went to their class and now what
happened? They were given this DR (Delinquency He was meted for dismissal, sir.
Report) issued by this professor because they were
late for 2 minutes. And this DR reached Cudia so Atty. Gil: Dismissal from?
that he would be able to explain himself. And so,
contesting this Delinquency report kay late daw siya From the PMA, sir.
for 2 minutes. He said that the reason he was late
was? What was the reason? Atty. Gil: Anyway, the recommendation there was
to dismiss him from the academy because he lied.
They were dismissed late, Sir. He violated the Honor Code. So his sister went to
facebook, and this became the national sensation,
Atty. Gil: They were dismissed late daw by who? among other things, for lying daw, for a simple lie,
By Dr. Costales. In other words, he blamed the he was dismissed from the school. And then there
professor. He was late because they were was an investigation because of that dismissal.
dismissed late by the professor. And then, on the There was an investigation, among others, on this
verdict. Nagpatabang siya sa Public Attorneys freedom. Where the Court emphasized, again,
Office. He went to the Office of the President, the repeatedly in all the cases assigned the four
Office of the President recommended the essential freedoms. The institution of higher
investigation on this matter. And when it was learning has the freedom to determine who may
reviewed by that committee, it was found out that teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught
the actual findings of that Honor Committee was and who may be admitted to study. In other words,
consistent. There was nothing wrong with it. it can determine kung kinsa pwede ma-admit ug
Therefore, the recommendation stood. So the case kung kinsa dili pwede ma-admit from the school.
reached the Supreme Court. Arguing, among And that is a prerogative pursuant to its academic
others, that 1) He should not be dismissed from the freedom by the Constitution. Part of that freedom is
institution because according to him he has the right to impose disciplinary measures. In fact, the Courts
to education, among other things. On the other recognized that these measures can even extend
hand, PMA argues that it is an institution of higher after graduation for any act done by the student
learning; therefore, it can discern for itself and set prior thereto.
the standards in order to maintain quality of its Now, we go to the issue on the Honor Code. What
education as well as determine who can study as is so important about this Honor Code? You are a
well as graduate from that institution. And also, PMA student and you have to abide by this Honor
Cudia argued that the dismissal from the academy Code.
is too much or too severe a penalty for lying.
So here, there was a discussion because there are RECITATION:
two balancing interests here. One interest is that of
the student – us. We are arguing or it is in our Atty. Gil: What is this Honor Code?
position that when we enroll in this institution we
expect, in the ordinary course of things, graduate ta Rules and regulations set by the school.
on time. We have this contract with the school. On
the other hand, we have to comply with the Atty. Gil: Set by? What school?
provisions of the contract, and also it can set for
itself, standards. Now, here, the Court recognized The PMA.
that indeed there is a contractual relationship
between a school and a student so this was the Atty. Gil: And? What is it?
argument of Cudia. True, once a school-student
relationship is contractual in nature. You are bound And it must be observed by the students.
with that contract. You are supposed to honor what
is said in that contract. Kung naakabutang dira that Atty. Gil: All rules and regulations are in the Honor
you cannot be dismissed for violation of the Honor Code?
Code, then it must be followed. Once admitted, your
enrollment is not only semestral daw in duration but The Honor Code is a set of basic and fundamental
for the entire period he/she is expected to complete ethical and moral principles.
it. And the obligation now of the school is to afford
its student a fair opportunity to complete, of course, Atty. Gil: Okay. And? It also sets what kind of
they seek to pursue. What is different with the standard?
student is this fair opportunity. In other words, that
opportunity cannot be arbitrarily taken from him. So It is the minimum standard for cadet behavior and
the question here is, was that opportunity removed serves as the guiding spirit behind each cadet’s
from Cudia arbitrarily. This relationship is reciprocal. action.
The school undertakes to provide students
education sufficient enough to enable them to Atty. Gil: It is the minimum standard. Kaning Code
pursue higher education or profession. On the other na ni mao jud daw ni imong i-follow. Mao ni ang
hand, the students agree to abide by the academic standard that you should embody as a student of
requirements of the school and to observe its rules PMA and it is his responsibility, in fact, to maintain
and regulations. So now, makita nato that the its standard of honor. He/She, this student of the
relationship is not only one-sided for the school to PMA, is absolutely bound to this Honor Code. And
have this obligation to let you graduate as you why did the Supreme Court stress the importance of
please because as a student we also have this this Code? Because it is your foundation, the
obligation to observe the academic requirements of cadet’s foundation for character development. The
the school, its rules and regulations. So, pagbasa Court emphasized here that they cannot socius
nimo sa decision murag kay Cudia man siya, but members of the PMA who are liars could be the
then later on, you read the provisions on academic seeds for rebellion and this Honor Code is a way for
the cadets to internalize in a substantive way and Atty. Gil: Anyway, that was not really what the
when you are a cadet, a student of this school, you Supreme Court said but yes, there is that aspect.
become subject to this Honor Code and to their own Now the Court said that indeed Cudia here lied. And
system. In fact in their Honor Code, naa’y his acceptance of the obligation of the Honor Code
statement, “We the cadets do not lie, cheat, steal, – that is if he violates it there are proper sanctions –
nor tolerate among us those who do” So, the first warrants the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the
tenet daw of the Honor Code “We do not lie…” PMA. Therefore, there’s no more dispute to reason
cadets violate daw this Code by lying if make an when he entered the academy by contract he risked
oral or written statement which is contrary to this. this dismissal or this sanction when he entered the
Aside from lying, what else did Cudia do? He said academy.
na late siya because of the call of the professor, So the Court did not reverse the dismissal of Cudia.
laten on when he was asked to explain, daghan He was dismissed freely from the PMA. That’s
kayo siyag gipang mention “actually I qualify this Academic Freedom.
statement...” “actually this, and this” “I said the word
class because a group of people who were Amendments and Revisions
dismissed in a sense because of this..”
How do we amend or revise the Constitution?
RECITATION: And that is in Article XVII.

Atty. Gil: What category? What was the term used Before going to that topic, we left the question last
in the Code? meeting as to when the 1987 Constitution took
effect. So, we’re left with a case De Leon vs.
… Esguerra here that was the main issue.

Atty. Gil: Quibbling. Creating a false impression in When did it take effect? It is very important for us to
the mind or for the listener by cleverly wording what know the date when the Constitution took effect
he says omitting relevant facts or telling a partial because there are many things they have to
truth. So, there is this background he could’ve lied, consider. If the Constitution has not or has taken
he could’ve quibbled. Now, to determine if there is a effect as of that day.
violation now of the Honor Code, two elements
must be presented: 1) there must be an act – he [DE LEON VS. ESGUERRA]
already committed it, the statement and also the
peripheral explanation as well as the qualification,  We have here two Barangay Officials who were
etc. 2) the intent pertinent to it – do you really intend fighting for the same position.
to lie? So, in order to determine that, you answer  So in the Barangay Elections held in May 17,
the question: “Did you really intend to deceive?” 1982, De Leon was elected as the Barangay
“Did you intend to take undue advantage?” If you Captain and several other people was elected
answer NO to both questions you are doing the as the Barangay Councilmen pursuant to BP
honorable thing. But, if you say YES to either or 222 or the Barangay Election Act and they were
both questions then you are not doing the to serve for a 6-year term. Definitely until May
honorable thing. So the Court found out here, even 1988.
if this is factual matter, as a rule the Court does not  Now, the OIC Governor in their locality issued
deal with factual matters. It only deals with issues of on February 9, 1987 a memorandum
law, etc. But here, the Court itself went for the
records and determined that there was really this RECITATION:
lying and quibbling done by Cudia. Therefore, this
Honor Code system, as we said earlier, is the Atty. Gil: What was this memorandum?
primary means in achieving your character
development. You cannot, therefore, build proper It was a memorandum that appointed another
character if you violate this Code. The Court said Barangay Captain.
that there is now a violation. Is dismissal from the
academy the appropriate penalty for that? Is it too Atty. Gil: Who is that?
much? Is it too unjust and cruel a punishment?
It was …
No, it is not unjust and cruel because the school
has the academic freedom to choose who may be Atty. Gil: So, it’s Florentino G. Magno. Take note
taught in the school. that the designation would start on February 8, 1987
within the term pa of De Leon because he was to
serve pa until 1988. Of course, suko siya, how can I
be removed – when I am elected – by this OIC
Governor by this mere memorandum which is even
dated on February 9, 1987.
What was the basis by which this OIC Governor
anchored? Asa man based ang memorandum ni
Governor?

The Provisional Constitution.

Atty. Gil: He based his memorandum on the

provisions of the Provisional Constitution particularly
Art III Section 2. If that appointment is made within
the period within one year from February 25, 1986 it
would be “All elective and appointive officials and
employees under the 1973 Constitution shall
continue in office until otherwise provided by
proclamation or executive order or upon the
designation or appointment of their successors, if
such appointment is made within a period of one
year from February 25, 1986” Meaning February 25,
1987. When was the memorandum issued?

February 8, 1987.

Atty. Gil: It was on February 8, 1987. So is it within

the one year based on this Provisional Constitution
provision?

Yes.

Atty. Gil: Okay. So there are now these two public

interest. De Lean says “I should be able to stay on
this position until 1988 because I was elected for 6
years” The OIC Governor says, on the other hand, I
made this appointment pursuant to the provision of
the Provisional Constitution which is valid if I made
this appointment within one-year from February 25,
1986 and since I made it February 8, 1987, it is
within that period. Who now should be followed?
Should we follow the provision in the Provisional
Constitution or do we follow the argument of De
Leon?

De Leon, Sir.

Atty. Gil: What is the issue in this case?

Whether or not the 1987 Constitution was ratified on

February 11, 1987 or February 2, 1987

Atty. Gil: What is the effect if it is ratified on

February 2?

The effect sir is that the Provisional Constitution

which allows Esguerra to appoint until the year after
is nullified.