Try ‘compassionate justice’
PMA Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia’s petition before the Supreme Court and his intention to appeal to the Office of the President that he be included in the March 16 commencement exercises of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) have been rendered moot and academic when the graduation rites were held without any action from the high court and President Aquino.
Recourse to the Supreme Court may only be allowed if there is no other appeal or any adequate remedy available to an aggrieved party in the ordinary course of law. Since Cudia has the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President—in fact he had manifested his intention to appeal to the President who directed the chief of staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to investigate Cudia’s case—the Supreme Court may no longer entertain his petition.
But the bigger question is will the Office of the President or any court for that matter interfere or reverse a decision of the PMA Honor Committee on an issue that has been traditionally resolved by their peers or fellow cadets/cadettes? To be sure, there would be demoralization in the PMA if the committee’s decision were reversed by higher authorities.
Such reversal would be tantamount to saying that the committee made grave and serious errors in deciding the Cudia case. And it will certainly affect not only the committee’s past decisions but also its actions in future cases it will resolve. It will also open the floodgates to appeals from its decisions, political interventions, and/or reversal of decisions based on emotions.
The better remedy is for the PMA to give Cudia’s case a second look and be guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in various cases where it reversed itself on the ground of “compassionate justice” and granted judicial clemency to some judges previously dismissed for gross misconduct or ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court said that while it has been “unsparing in wielding the rod of discipline against members of the Judiciary who fall short of the exacting standards decreed by the Code of Judicial Conduct,” there are “certain significant facts that spur us to consider his plea for judicial clemency and reexamine with compassion the penalty imposed on him… (for) justice without compassion is no justice at all.” (Patricio Junio v Judge Pedro Rivera, A.M. No. MTJ-91-565, Oct. 5, 2005).
And so it should be in Cudia’s case, which should be decided solely by his peers. After all, Cudia does not deny the fact that he lied, which caused his dismissal from the PMA. His only complaint is the harshness of the penalty imposed upon him; this could still be reconsidered by the Honor Committee by rendering compassionate justice that could give him a chance to redeem himself and save the image of the PMA as a revered and well-respected military institution of the country.
—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL
Las Piñas City
