LEGAL LOGIC - An explanation is an attempt to show

why something is the case, while an

RAPHAEL PAOLO J. GALINDO Argument is an attempt to show that
Chapter 1 something is the case. The two have
to be distinguished because, unlike
LOGIC arguments, explanations are not meant
to prove or justify the truth of a
- The Study of the principles and particular claim.
methods of good reasoning.
- Argument should be distinguished
- It is a science of reasoning which from unsupported opinions.
aims to determine and lay down the Statements of belief or opinion are
criteria of good (correct) reasoning statements about what a speaker or
and bad (incorrect) reasoning. writer happens to believe.
- Arguments are also often confused
- The science of correct and sound with conditional statements. A
reasoning is indispensable in the field conditional statement contains an if-
of law. then relationship. It is made up to two
basic components: first is antecedent
and second is called the consequent.
Legal Reasoning

Argument as an Expression of
Example
Reasoning
Hubert Webb and company were
- Like any kind of reasoning is
acquitted by the Supreme Court ( Because )
expressed through arguments, and is it
the court found inherent inconsistencies in the
with arguments that logic is chiefly
evidences provided by the prosecution.
concerned.
The first sentence is an explanation
Argument
and the second sentence is an argument. In
- They usually think of some kind of which the speaker is not trying to prove the
quarrel or dispute in Logic however, truth of the statement Hubert Webb and
an argument is a claim put forward company were acquitted by the Supreme
and defended with reasons. To be Court – it is a fact that is not contestable nor
more precise, an argument is a group is the subject controversy instead the speaker
of statements in which one statement is trying to explain why they were acquitted.
is claimed to be true on the basis of
Any law that prohibits people from
another statement.
expressing their views is unconstitutional
Recognizing Arguments because our constitution guarantees the
freedom of speech.
- An argument is a group of statements,
but not all groups of statements are The second sentence is an
arguments. An argument always has a explanations that the reasons are usually the
conclusion and premise. causes or factors. That show how or why a
thing came to exist. In argument they are
Explanation V Argument intended to provide grounds to justify a claim
to show that it is plausible or true.
Component of Legal Reasoning acceptable? It is necessary for the conclusion
of legal argument to be grounded on factual;
- All legal reasoning follows a similar basis. That are meant to establish the truth of
pattern in order to prove, defend, or legal claim (conclusion) is questionable, the
justify its claim. There are essential conclusion itself is questionable.
components that must be present in
a legal argument. Second process - Deals with question of logic
is the reasoning of the argument correct or
1) Issue – Any matter of controversy logical? Does the conclusion of the argument
or uncertainly; an issue is a point in logically follow from its premises? These
dispute, in doubt, in question, or questions point ot the second criterion of a
simply up for discussion or sound legal argument: LOGIC the premises of
consideration. the argument must not only be factual but the
2) Rule – what legal rules govern the connection of the premises to the conclusion
issue to argue a legal case one must must be logically coherent and the main claim
be able to cite a rule and apply it to must be valid.
set of Facts?
3) Facts – What are the facts that are
relevant to the rule cited. The Chapter 2
purpose of legal analysis, we look
for material facts. These are the Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
facts that fit to the elements of the
rule. Concepts and principles in supporting an
4) Analysis – How applicable are the argument or positions
facts to the said rule? Our
Burden of Proof - The duty of any party to
argumentation and illustration
present evidence to establish his claim or
supposed to show the link between
defense by the amount of evidence required by
the rules and the facts we presented
law, which is preponderance of evidence in
to establish what we are claiming in
civil case.
our argument.
5) Conclusion – final element of legal Evidence – The means sanctioned by the
reasoning. The Conclusion is the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
ultimate end of a legal argument. It preceding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
is what the facts, the rule and the
analysis of the case amount to. “ The best evidence rule”

Two criteria in evaluating legal reasoning The rule 130 Section 3, of the Revised Rule of
Civil Procedure applies only when the content
- Truth and Logic of such document is the subject of the inquiry
1) Presentation of facts which
pertains to the questions of the Admissibility and Relevance – deemed
truth admissible if it is relevant to the issue and
2) Inference(deriving a legal claim more importantly, if it is not excluded by
or judgment from the given laws provision of law or and more importantly if is
and facts) which pertains to the not excluded by provision of law or the rule of
question of logic. court.

First process - Deals with the questions are Testimony of Witnesses – confined to
the premises provided in the argument true or personal knowledge, and therefore excludes
hearsay, a witness can testify only to those matters as may be allowed by the
facts which he knows of his personal court in its discretion.
knowledge which are derived from his own
perception except as otherwise provided under
the Rule of Court. Chapter 3

Expert Testimony – statements made by Deductive Reasoning in Law

individuals who are considered as experts in a Deduction and Induction – Logicians usually
particular field distinguish deductive from inductive
Examination reasoning. These forms of reasoning play
important roles in the legal system. Appellete
Under rules of court the order in which an courts, for instance, would determine whether
individual witness may be examined is as the correct rules of law were applied to the
follows. given facts or whether the rules of evidence
were properly applied in establishing the facts,
A) Direct Examination by the they employ deductive reasoning.
proponent
Refers to the examination-in-chief of a In cases when we want to determine the facts
witness by the party presenting him on of the case and to establish them through
the facts relevant to the issue casual arguments, probability or scientific
methods employ inductive reasoning.
B) Cross- Examination by the
opponent Example of Deductive Reasoning
The termination of the direct
- All misdemeanors are criminal
examination, the witness may be
offenses; Driving under the
cross-examined by the adverse party
influence of alcohol is a
as to any matter stated in the direct
misdemeanor. Hence, driving under
examination or connected with
the influence of alcohol is a criminal
sufficient fullness freedom to test his
offense.
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom
from the interest or bias to elicit all Conclusions of arguments are established by
important facts bearing upon the issue. the premises with absolute certainly.

C) Re-direct examination by the Example of Inductive Reasoning

proponent
- The car can’t start even though is
After cross examination of the witness
plenty of gasoline in the tank; and it
has been concluded, he may be re-
is likely that the battery is already
examined by the party calling him, to
exhausted.
explain or supplement his answers
given during the cross examination. Induction is that deduction moves from
general premises to particular conclusions.
D) Re-cross-examination by the from particular premises to general
opponent conclusion.
The conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may be Example of Deductive indicator words
re-cross-examine the witness on
1) Certainly - It is logical to conclude
matters stated in his re-direct
that.
examination, and also on such other
 2) Definitely - this logically implies that. Example
3) Absolutely – this entails that
4) Conclusively – it must be the case If it rains, the ground will be
that. wet. It rained. Therefore, the ground is
wet.
Example of Inductive indicator words

1) Probably – one would expect that Chapter 4

2) Likely – It is plausible to suppose
that Inductive Reasoning in Law
3) Chances are – it is reasonable to
Inductive arguments – arguments in
assume that
which the premises are intended to
Syllogisms – A three-line argument – that is provide support, but not conclusive
an argument that consists of exactly to evidence, for the conclusion.
premises and a conclusion
Inductive Generalization – An
Type of Syllogisms argument that relies on characteristics
of a simple population to make a claim
Categorical and Hypothetical
about the population as a whole.
Categorical Syllogism – composed of
categorical statements alone. Directly asserts Analogical Arguments – A
something or states a fact without any comparison of things based on
conditions. similarities those things share.

Hypothetical Syllogism – Both Chapter 5

categorical and hypothetical statements. A
compound statement which contains a Fallacies
proposed or tentative explanation.

- A type of argument that may seem to

be correct, but contains a mistake in
Conditional Syllogisms – A reasoning.
syllogism in which the major premise
is a conditional statement. - When premises of an argument fail to
support its conclusion, we say that the
Compound statement which asserts reasoning is bad; the argument is said
to be fallacious
that one member is true on condition
that the other member is true. - In a general sense, any error in
reasoning is a fallacy
Rule of Conditional Syllogism
- In a narrower sense, each fallacy is a
There are two valid forms of type of incorrect argument
conditional syllogism. When the
FALLACIES OF AMBIGUITY
minor premise affirms the antecedent,
the conclusion must affirm the 1) Equivocation
consequent. This form is called - Fallacy consists in leading an
MODUS PONENS opponent to an unwarranted
conclusion by using a term in its
 different senses and making it appear 2) Argumentum ad Misericordiam (
to have only one meaning. Appeal to Pity)

- The Appeal to pity is familiar in many

2) Amphiboly trials, whether they are civil or
- Fallacy consists in presenting a claim criminal.
or argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in two or more ways due to 3) Argumentum ad Baculum ( Appeal
its grammatical construction to Force)
- Fallacy consists in persuading others
3) Improper accent to accept a position by using threat or
- Fallacy consists in misleading people pressure instead of presenting
by placing improper emphasis on a evidence for one’s view point.
word, phrase or particular aspect of an
issue or claim. 4) Petitio Principii ( Begging the Q
uestions)
4) Vicious Abstraction - Arguments designed to persuade
- Consist in misleading the people by people by means of the wording of
using vague or abstract terms. one of its premises. There are the
arguments that are said to beg the
5) Composition questions.
- Fallacy consists in wrongly inferring
that what holds true of the individual A) Arguing in Circle
automatically holds true of the group Begging-the questions fallacy states
made up of those individuals or “ assumes as a premise the very
thing that should be proven in the
6) Division conclusion”
- The Fallacy consists in wrongly
assuming that what is true in general is B) Question-Begging Language
true in particular. Fallacy consists in discussing an issue
by means of language that assumes a
FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE position of the very question at issue
in such a way as to direct the listener
1) Argumentum ad Hominem ( to the same conclusion.
Personal Attack)
C) Complex Question
- Fallacy ignored the issue by focusing Fallacy consists in asking a question
on certain personal characteristics of in which some presuppositions are
an oppounent buried in the question.

A) Abusive D) Leading Question

• Abusive Argumentum ad - Fallacy consists in directing the
hominem this fallacy attacks the respondent to give a particular to a
argument based on the arguers question at issue by the manner in
reputation, personality or some which the question is asked.
personal shortcoming.
FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT
B) Circumstantial EVIDENCE
• Fallacy consists in defending
one’s position by accusing his or 1) Argumentum ad Antiuum ( Appeal
her critic or other people of doing to the Ages)
the same thing. - Fallacy attempts to persuade others of
a certain belief by appealing to their
feelings of reverence or respect for
 some tradition, instead of giving - Statutes should be given, whenever
rational basis for such belief possible, a meaning that will not bring
them in conflict with the constitution.
2) Argumentum ad Verecundiam ( It bears repeating that whenever a law
Appeal to Inappropriate Authority) is in conflict with the constitution, the
- Fallacy consists in persuading others latter prevails.
by appealing to people who command
respect or authority but do not have Laws vis-à-vis Laws
legitimate authority in the matter at
hand. - When two statutes are contrary tenor
or of different dates but are of equal
3) Accident theoretical application to a particular
- Fallacy consist in applying a general case, the case designed therefore
rule to a particular case when specially should prevail over the other.
circumstances suggest that an
exception to the rule should apply. General Laws vis- a-vis Special Laws

4) Hasty Generalization ( Converse Generalia specialibus non derogant

Accident) – Statutes treating a subject in general
- Fallacy consists in drawing or terms and another treating a part of the
universal conclusion from insufficient same subject in particularly detailed or
particular case. specialized manner

5) Argumentum ad Ignorantiam ( Generalis clausula non porrigitur

Arguing from Ignorance) ad ea quae antea specialiter sunt
- Fallacy consists in assuming that a comprehensa
particular claim is true because its - If both statutes are irreconcilable, the
opposite cannot be proven. general statute must give way to the
special or particular provisions as an
6) False Dilemma exception to the general provisions.
- Fallacy arises when the premise of an
argument presents us with a choice Laws vis-à-vis Ordinances
between two alternative and assumes - An ordinance is the local legislative
that they are exhaustive when in fact measure passed by the local legislative
they are not. body of a local government unit

Rules of Interpretation and Construction

Chapter 6
Rules of Legal Reasoning - Interpretation, in the legal sense, refers
to how a low or more importantly a
provision thereof, is to be properly
Rules of Collision applied.
- Conflicting provisions as far as the
treatment and application of a right. Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda
- For words are presumed to have been
Provisions vis-à-vis Provisions employed by the lawmaker in their
- Statute, conflicting clauses and ordinary and common use and
provisions may arise. If such situation acceptation.
may occur the statute must be
construed as a whole and attempts Rules of Judgment
must first be made to reconcile these - The constitution vests judicial power
conflicting provisions in order to in one Supreme Court and in such
attain the intent of law. lower courts as may be established by
law- judicial power, by its nature. Is
Laws vis-à-vis the Constitution the power to hear and decide causes
 pending between parties who have the
right to sue and be sued in the courts
of law and equity

Cardinal Requirements

a) There must be a right to a hearing,

which included the right to present
one’s case and submit evidence in
support thereof;
b) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented;
c) The decision must have some basis to
support itself;
d) The evidence must be substantial
e) 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;
f) 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
g) The board or body should in all
controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner as would
allow the parties to know the various
issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.

Rules of Procedure

Rules of procedure, be it at the judicial or

quasi- judicial level refers to the process of
how a litigant would protect his right through
the intervention of the court or any other
administrative body.