Legal Technique and Logic (MTh 5:30-8:30)

Fructuoso, Josyl P. (2017-0561)

CHAPTER I
Introduction

Logic – the study of principles and methods of good reasoning; the science which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of good (correct) reasoning and bad (incorrect)
reasoning

Legal Reasoning – an expression of legal arguments which logic is chiefly concerned

Argument – a claim put forward and defended with reasons; a group of statements in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the basis of another statement/s; a conclusion and
premise
Components of an Argument:
1. Conclusion – a statement claimed to be true
2. Premise – a statement that serves as the basis or support of the conclusion

Explanation – an attempt to show why something is the case; not meant to prove or justify the
truth of a particular claim (dist. from args.)

Opinion – statements about what a writer believes which lacks premise (dist. from args.)

Conditional Statement – statement containing an antecedent (if-clause) and consequent (then-

clause) which no claim of truth exists

Fallacy – a mistake or error in thinking or reasoning

Components of Legal Reasoning

1. Issue – any matter of controversy or uncertainty; a point in dispute, in doubt, in
question, or simply up for discussion or consideration; in law, a legal
matter

2. Rule – legal rules that govern the issues; it has the following:
a) a set of elements, collectively called a test
b) a result that occurs when all the elements are present (and the test is thus
satisfied)
c) a causal term that determines whether the result is
i. mandatory
ii. prohibitory
iii. discretionary
iv. declaratory

3. Fact – relevant or “material” citations fitting the rule

 4. Analysis – application of the facts to the rule; brunt of the argumentation and
illustration linking the rules and facts
5. Conclusion – implication of applying the rule to the given facts; the summation of
facts, rules and analysis

Fallacy: Argumentum ad ignoratio elenchi – (means ignoring the refutation) the informal fallacy
of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose
conclusion) fails to address the issue in question; Gamido vs CA (251 S 101,1995)

Elements of Legal Arguments:

1. Logic – reasoning must be correct or logical
2. Truth – premises provided must be true or acceptable

Main Processes of Legal Reasoning:

1. Presentation of facts which pertains to the question of truth
2. Inference (deriving a legal claim/judgment from given laws and facts) which pertains to
the question of logic

CHAPTER II
Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning

Burden of Proof – duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the
amount of evidence required by law

Equipose Doctrine – when evidence of parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which
side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party
with the burden of proof.

Evidence – means sanctioned by the Rules of Court (RoC), of ascertaining in a judicial

proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
• Admissibility – relevance to the issue and not excluded by provision of law or RoC
• Relevance – a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or not

Best Evidence Rule – an original copy of a document is a superior evidence; applies only when
the content of such document is the subject of inquiry

Testimony – statements confined to personal knowledge

Hearsay Rule – a witness may not testify as to what he merely learned from others
• Exceptions
◦ entries in official records made in the performance of duty by public officers
◦ necessity
◦ trustworthiness
Expert Testimony – statements made by individual who are considered as experts in a particular
field

Order of Examination of a Witness:

1. Direct examination by the proponent – refers to the examination-in-chief of a witness by
the party presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue.
2. Cross-examination by the opponent – upon the termination of the direct examination, the
witness may be cross-examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct
exam, or connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy
and truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse and to elicit all
important facts bearing upon the issue
3. Redirect examination by the proponent – after cross-examination of the witness has been
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party calling him, to explain or supplement his
answers given during the cross; on redirects, questions on matters not dealt with during
cross, may be allowed by the court in its discretion
4. Re-cross-examination by the opponent – upon the conclusion of the re-direct exam, the
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct exam,
and also on such other matters as may be allowed by the court in its discretion

Stare decisis et non quieta movere – when a point has been settled by a decision, it becomes a
precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases
before the same court

CHAPTER III
Deductive Reasoning in Law

Deductive Reasoning – employed whether the correct rules of law were applied to the given
facts; whether the rules of evidence were properly applied in establishing
the facts

Inductive Reasoning – employed to determine the facts of the case and to establish them through
causal arguments, probability or scientific methods

Syllogism – a three-line argument consisting of two premises and a conclusion

Deductive Argument – claims implicitly or explicitly that conclusions follow necessarily from
their premises
• Invalid – conclusions that do not guarantee truth from the premises
• Valid – if premises are true, conclusion must necessarily be true

Types of Syllogism
1. Categorical – a syllogism composed of categorical statements alone; directly asserts a
fact without any conditions; simply affirmed or denied by the predicate

2. Hypothetical – includes both categorical and hypothetical statements; a compound

 statement which contains a proposed or tentative explanation
◦ Compound Statement – consists of at least two clauses connected by
conjunctions etc. expressing the relationship between classes as well as
our assent to it

Properties of a Categorical Syllogism

1. Quality – may be affirmative or negative i.e. “no,” “not,” “none,” “never”
2. Quantity – either universal i.e. “all,” “none” or particular i.e. “some,” “not all”
i. universal – what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is its whole extension
ii. particular – what is being affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part its extension

Rules in Determining the Quantity of the Predicate

1. Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular
2. Predicate is universal in statement where the subject and predicate are identical

Parts of a Categorical Syllogism

1. Terms
a) minor term (S) – the subject of the conclusion (also called the subject term)
b) major term (P) – the predicate of the conclusion (also called the predicate term)
c) middle term (M) – the term found in both premises and serves to mediate between the
minor and major terms
2. Statements
a) minor premises – the premise which contains the minor term
b) major premise – the premise which contains the major term
c) conclusion – the statement the premises support

Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogisms

• Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two negative premises

• Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal terms
• Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at least once
• Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is universal, the same term in the premise must also
be universal

Fallacy: Illicit Major – invalid because its major term is undistributed in the major premise but
distributed in the conclusion

Fallacy: Illicit Minor – invalid because its minor term is undistributed in the minor premise but
distributed in the conclusion

Three Kinds of Hypothetical Syllogism

1. conditional syllogism – major premise is a conditional statement
2. disjunctive syllogism
3. conjunctive syllogism

Rules for Conditional Syllogisms

 1. Modus Ponens – when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must
affirm the consequent
2. Modus Tollens – when the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion must
deny the antecedent

Fallacy: Denying the Antecedent – a conditional syllogism is invalid if the minor premise denies
the antecedent
Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent – the minor premise affirms the consequent

Enthymemes – an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated; a syllogism where not
all the parts expressed; stated incompletely, partly being “understood” or only “in
the mind”

Polysyllogisms – a series of syllogism in which the conclusion of one syllogism supplies a

premise of the next syllogism

CHAPTER IV
Inductive Reasoning in Law

Inductive Reasoning – gives truth or information more than what the premises are saying

Inductive Generalization – an argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to

make a claim about the population as a whole

Questions in Evaluating Inductive Generalizations

1. Is the sample large enough?
2. Is the sample representative?

Analogy – a comparison of things based o similarities those things share

Fallacy: False analogy – results from comparing two (or more) things not really comparable
overlooking important dissimilarities

CHAPTER V
Fallacies in Legal Reasoning

Fallacy – a mistake or error in thinking or reasoning

Kinds of Fallacies

1. Formal – those that may be identified through mere inspection of the form and structure
of an argument; found in deductive arguments having identifiable form
2. Informal – detected only through analysis of the content of the argument
Informal Fallacies

I. Fallacies of Ambiguity – misuse of vague or ambiguous language deliberately to mislead

i. Equivocation – consists in misleading to an unwarranted conclusion by using a term

in its different senses and making it appear to have only one meaning

ii. Amphiboly – consists in presenting a claim or argument whose meaning can be

interpreted in two or more ways due to its grammatical construction

iii. Improper Accent – misleading by placing improper emphasis on a word, phrase or

particular aspect of an issue or claim

iv. Vicious Abstraction – misuse of vague or abstract terms

v. Composition – wrongly inferring what holds true of the individuals automatically

holds true of the group made up of those individuals

vi. Division – wrongly assuming what is true in general is true in particular

II. Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence – problematic connection of premise between

conclusion due to logical irrelevance despite being
psychologically relevant

i. Argumentum ad Hominem – personal attack; ignores the issue by focusing on the

certain personal characteristics of an opponent

a) Abusive – attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality or

some shortcoming

b) Circumstantial – defending one’s position by accusing the critic of doing the same
thing

ii. Argumentum ad Misericordiam – appeal to pity; persuasion for acceptance of an

argument not based on strength but emotional
appeal to pity

iii. Argumentum ad Baculum – appeal to force; persuasion through threat or pressure

instead of presenting evidence

iv. Petitio Principii – begging the question; persuasion through unclear justification of
the premises in effect listeners are “begged” to accept

a) Arguing in Circle – assumes as a premise the very thing that should be proven in
the conclusion
 b) Question-Begging Language – discussing an issue by means of language that
assumes a position of the very question at issue, in
such a way as to direct the listener to that same
conclusion

c) Complex Question – asking a question in which some presuppositions are buried

in that question; aka loaded question

d) Leading Question – directing the respondent to give a particular answer to a

question at issue by the manner in which the question is
asked

III.Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence – premises fail to provide evidence strong enough to

support conclusion to cause a reasonable person its
acceptance

i. Argumentum ad Antiquum – appeal to the ages; persuasion through a certain belief by

appealing to their feelings of reverence or respect for
some tradition, instead of rational basis for such belief

ii. Argumentum ad Verecundiam – appeal to inappropriate authority; persuasion by

appealing to people who command respect or
authority but do not have legitimate authority in the
matter at hand

iii. Accident – applying a general rule to a particular case when circumstances suggest
that an exception to the rule should apply

iv. Hasty Generalization – converse accident; drawing a general or universal conclusion

from insufficient particular case

v. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam – arguing from ignorance; assuming that a particular

claim is true because its opposite cannot be proven

vi. False Dilemma – arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice
between two alternatives and assumes that they are exhaustive
when in fact they are not

CHAPTER VI
Rules of Legal Reasoning

Rules of Collision – rules governing single or two laws dealing with the same subject matter but
with conflicting provisions as far as the treatment and application of a right
Interpretare et concordare legis legibus est optimus interpretandi
To interpret and to harmonize laws with laws is the best method of interpretation

Ut magis valeat quam pereat

That construction is to be sought which gives effect to the whole statute – its every word

Lex specialis derogat lex generalis

If two laws govern the same factual situation, a law governing a specific subject matter
(lex specialis) overrides a law governing only general matters (lex generalis)

Lex posteriori derogat priori

A later law repeals an earlier (law); a maxim meaning that a legal rule arising after a
conflicting legal rule, the younger law overriding the older law

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogat

A later law repeals an earlier one because it is the latter legislative will

Generalia specialibus on derogat

A general law does not nullify a specific or special law

Generalia clausula non porrigitur ad ea quae antea specialiter sunt comprehensa

A general clause does not extend to those things which are previously provided for
specially

Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda

In doubtful matters the more liberal (constructions) are to be preferred

Interpretation – refers to how a law or more importantly a provision thereof, is to be properly

applied; simple reliance on the contents of the law

Construction – reliance on material that is extant from the law itself

Ambiguity – a condition of admitting two or more meanings, of being understood in more than
one way, or referring to two or more things at the same time

Rules of Interpretation and Construction

• If the language of the law is clear, then there is no need for either interpretation or
construction.
• If the law admits two or more interpretation, then we need to first interpret the law. If
interpretation is not enough, this is the time when we attempt to construe the meaning of
the law.
• Where the words and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, its meaning and
the intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed, and
where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction.
Rules of Judgment

• The only entity empowered by the Constitution to interpret and construe the laws is the
judicial branch of the government (doctrine of judicial supremacy)

• Requisites of judicial review:

1. an actual and appropriate case and controversy exists
2. a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
3. the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and
4. the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of the case

• Cardinal Requirements of Administrative due process

1. there must be a right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and
submit evidence in support thereof;
2. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. the decision must have some basis to support itself;
4. the evidence must be substantial;
5. the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent
consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate; and
7. the board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner as would allow parties to know the various issues involved and the reason for
the decision rendered.

• Only when a law is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning may the court interpret or
construe.

• The intent of the Legislature to be ascertained and enforced is the intent expressed in the
words of the statute.

• If legislative intent is not expressed in appropriate manner, the courts cannot by

interpretation speculate as to an intent and supply a meaning not found in the phraseology
of the law.

Rules of Procedure – process of how a litigant would protect his right through the intervention
of the court or any other administrative body

• Words should be considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly accepted and most
obvious signification, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to
forced subtle construction.
• Rules of procedures should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment
of justice.

• When strong consideration of substantive justice are manifest, the application of the
rules may be relaxed in exercise of its equity jurisdiction.

• In absence of persuasive reason to deviate, rules of procedure must be faithfully

followed.

• The liberality of application of the rules of procedure may not be invoked if it will result
in the wanton disregard of the rules or cause undue delay in the administration of justice.