You are on page 1of 2


Formal fallacy:

Negative premise, positive conclusion (2011 decision)

Major: There was no declaration of psychological incapacity from a proper doctor

Minor: There were no proper test that were conducted to be declared psychologically incapacitated

Conclusion: Therefore, the court held that there was no need for test and declaration form a doctor to be

Called psychologically incapacitated

Discussion: Both premises of the argument of the petitioner was denied by the court because the court
argued that there can never be a declaration psychological incapacity id there is no proper examination by
a proper doctor and no test conducted to the accused. Hence a fallacious argument of negative premises
to a positive conclusion.

Undistributed middle (2015 decision)

Major: There is no requirement for one to be declared psychological incapacity, personally examined by
a physician

Minor: There is a declaration of Psychological incapacity even if it’s just a testimony, as long as the
evidence is strong to prove it so.

Conclusion: Therefore there is no proof requirement from a doctor so long as the evidence is strong
against the accused.

Discussion: the term “psychological incapacity” was not distributed in the conclusion making the
argument fallacious.

Deposition kalaw v Fernandez :

We disagree with the findings for the court because The Supreme Court took pains to stress in Kalaw. It is
not accurate to say that the Supreme Court relaxed the psychological incapacity guidelines in Kalaw.
Article 36 cases should not be decided based on a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations and
emphasized that courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis. The court failed to
recognized that it is strongly needed to prove the characteristics of Psychological Incapacity which are
gravity of the parson that cannot fulfill its duties in his/her marriage, the clear evidence to prove as to why
there is a psychological incapacity and the incapacity must be incurable or if curable it would be beyond
the means of the party involve.
In this case the court only relied on the testimonies of the petitioners and other members of the family
there was no actual doctor to prove the incapacity of the respondent and it was not proven to be
incurables. The respondent addictiveness to mahjong doesn’t make it incurable because the respondent
didn’t only function her duties as a mother and not as a wife therefore the courts should have not change
their decision on the year 2011 case, the evidence was lacking to prove the respondent’s psychological