0% found this document useful (0 votes)
159 views19 pages

(Pampo) : Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer Evangelista and Aquino Book

This document summarizes key concepts from Chapters 1 and 2 of a book on legal technique and logic. Chapter 1 introduces logic as the study of good reasoning and explains the importance of logic in law. It defines legal reasoning as an argument with a claim supported by reasons. Components of legal reasoning include the issue, applicable rules, relevant facts, analyzing how facts relate to rules, and reaching a conclusion. Arguments must cite applicable rules and consider all relevant facts to have weight. Chapter 2 outlines fundamental concepts in legal reasoning, including burden of proof, evidence standards, admissibility and relevance of evidence, rules for witness testimony, expert testimony, examination of witnesses, and reliance on legal precedence through stare decisis.

Uploaded by

vivian cavida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
159 views19 pages

(Pampo) : Legal Technique and Logic Reviewer Evangelista and Aquino Book

This document summarizes key concepts from Chapters 1 and 2 of a book on legal technique and logic. Chapter 1 introduces logic as the study of good reasoning and explains the importance of logic in law. It defines legal reasoning as an argument with a claim supported by reasons. Components of legal reasoning include the issue, applicable rules, relevant facts, analyzing how facts relate to rules, and reaching a conclusion. Arguments must cite applicable rules and consider all relevant facts to have weight. Chapter 2 outlines fundamental concepts in legal reasoning, including burden of proof, evidence standards, admissibility and relevance of evidence, rules for witness testimony, expert testimony, examination of witnesses, and reliance on legal precedence through stare decisis.

Uploaded by

vivian cavida
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER

EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

CHAPTER 1. (PAMPO)
INTRODUCTION
Logic-is the study of the principles and methods of good reasoning.
-is the science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of
good (correct) and bad (incorrect) reasoning.
Reasoning as to:
PSYCHOLOGY LOGIC
Studies how people reason Studies the principle of good reasoning
Studies the patterns of behavior, speech It does not merely describe how people
or neurological activity reason but discover and make available
those criteria that can be used to test
arguments for correctness.

Importance of Logic in practicing Law


The efficiency of practicing law depends on the quality of legal reasoning. This is
a profession that relies so much on sound reasoning and valid argumentation in order to
justify a claim,defend a proposition, assess the strength of evidences and render a
judicious decision.
Legal Reasoning-argument as an expression of reasoning.
Argument-is a claim put forward and defended with reasons.
-group of statements in which one statement is claimed to be true
(CONCLUSION) on the basis of another statement/s. (PREMISE)
Argument logical/valid/sound
Illogical/invalid/unsound
Note:
Argument has ALWAYS a conclusion and a premise
Not all groups of statements are arguments
Conclusion indicators:
 Therefore
 So
 Thus
 Hence, etc
Premise indicators:
 For
 Because
 Since
 Inasmuch as, etc.
Explanation v. Argument
Explanation Argument
is an attempt to show why something is is an attempt to show that something is
the case the case
is not meant to prove/justify the truth of a is meant to prove or establish
particular claim
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

Ex. Ex.
A was acquitted by the Supreme Court Any law that prohibits people from
because the latter found inherent expressing their views is unconstitutional
inconsistencies in the provided evidence because our constitution guarantees
by the prosecution. freedom of speech.
Intention: to explain by offering an Intention: to prove by providing reasons
account of why some event has occurred. or evidences for accepting a claim as
true.

Unsupported Opinions- statements about what a speaker or writer believes. It can be


true or false, rational or irrational. These are part of arguments ONLY if the speakers or
writers assert that they follow from, or support other claims.
Conditional statements- contain an if-then relationship and cannot be classified as
argument because there is no claim that one statement is true supported by the other
statement.
Components of conditional statements:
1. Antecedent (if-clause)
2. Consequent (then-clause)
Components of Legal Reasoning: (IRFAC)
1. ISSUE- what is being argued
2. RULE- what legal rules govern the issue
3. FACT-what are the facts relevant to the cited rule
4. ANALYSIS- how applicable are the facts to the said rule
5. CONCLUSION-what is the implication of applying the rule of the given facts
Note:
An argument has no weight UNLESS it says exactly which rule is being relied upon.
Sound reasoning demands that facts to be considered should not be one-sided.
Criteria for evaluating Legal Reasoning:
1. Truth
2. Logic
Note:
If the premises that are meant to establish the truth are questionable, then the
conclusion itself is questionable.

CHAPTER 2.(MENDOZA)
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN LEGAL REASONING
 These concepts and principles are principally found under the:
a. Rules of Court- is an issuance of the High Court that defines and governs
the conduct of proceedings before all courts of the land.
b. Highlighted in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court.

CONCEPTS

 Burden of Proof
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

- It is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense
by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of
evidence in civil case.
- Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies upon him who
asserts it, not upon him who denies, since by the nature of things, he who
denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.
- In civil cases: PLAINTIFF- has the burden of proving the material allegations
of the complainant which are denied by the answer, and the
DEFENDANT- has the burden of proving the material allegations in his
answer, which sets up new matter as a defense.
- In administrative proceedings: burden of proof rests on the COMPLAINANT.
- In medical negligence cases: COMPLAINANT has the burden on establishing
breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons.

 Evidence
- Is the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
- The “best evidence rule” as encapsulated in Rule 130, Section3, of the
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry.
- Under the best evidence rule:
a. Original document- must be produced.
b. Photocopy- being a mere a secondary evidence, is not admissible unless
it is shown that the original is unavailable.
- Preponderance evidence is the weight, credit and value of the aggregate
evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the
term: “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence.”

 Admissibility and Relevance


- Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue more importantly,
if it is not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of Court.
- As to relevance, such evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue
as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.

 Testimony of the Witness


- Testimony is generally confined to personal knowledge; and therefor excludes
hearsay.
- Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules in Evidence, states that a witness
can testify only to those facts which he knows of or comes from his personal
knowledge, that is, which are derived from his perception.

 Expert Testimony
- Expert testimony refers to statements made by individuals who are
considered as experts in a particular field.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

- Note that under the Rules of Court, the opinion of a witness on a matter
requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he shown to
possess, may be received in evidence.

 Examination
- The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witnesses is an important
aspect of evidence which appellate courts can rely on because of its unique
opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and
attitude, during the direct and cross examination by the counsels.
- Please note that under the Rules of Court the order in which an individual
witness may be examined is as follows:

a. 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.

b. Cross-examination by the proponent


- 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
examination, 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

c. Re-direct examination by the proponent


- After the 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-examination, questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination, may be allowed by the court in its discretion,
and

d. Re-cross-examination by the proponent


- Upon the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the adverse party may
recross-examine the witness on matters stated in his re-direct examination,
and also on such other matters. As may be allowed by the court in its
discretion.

 Dependence on Precedence
- “Stare decisis et non quieta movere”
- Stated differently, Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Stand by the decisions
and disturb not what is settled. This is the bedrock of what we now refer to as
precedents.
- It is a general rule that, when a point has been settled by a decision, it
becomes a precedent which should be followed in subsequent cases before
the same court.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

 PESCA vs PESCA
- The High Court found no merit in the petition. The “doctrine of stare decisis,”
ordained in Article 8 of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.

CHAPTER 3.(SILVA)
DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW

Deduction and Induction

When appellate courts would determine whether the correct rules of law were applied to
the given facts or whether the rules of evident were properly applied in establishing the
facts, they employ DEDUCTIVE REASONING.

In cases when we want to determine the facts of the case and to establish them through
causal arguments, probability or scientific methods, the reasoning chiefly relied upon is
INDUCTIVE.

In other words, we are reasoning deductively when our premises intend to guarantee
the truth of our conclusion while we reason inductively when our premises are
intended are intended to provide good (but not conclusive) evidence for the truth of our
conclusion.

Inductive arguments simply claim that their conclusions are likely or probable given
the premises offered. If the premises are true then the conclusion will very likely, or
probably, be true; but the truth of the premises cannot absolutely rule out the possibility
that the conclusion will be false. In other words, the conclusion might turn out to be false
even though the premises are true.

It is sometimes said that the basic difference between deduction and induction is that
deduction moves from general premises to particular conclusions, whereas induction
moves from particular premises to general conclusions.

Although this is generally the case, it is wrong to use this as a basis of


distinguishing deduction from induction since there are deductive arguments that
move from particular to general and inductive arguments that move from general to
particular. Thus, what makes an argument deductive or inductive is not the pattern of
particularity or generality in the premises and conclusion. Rather, it is the type of
support the premises are claimed to provide for the conclusion.

A phrase such as “it necessarily follows that” almost always indicates that an arguments
is deductive. Here are some common deductive indicatorwords:

Certainly Definitely
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

Absolutely This logically implies that


Conclusively This entails that
It is logical to conclude that It must be the case that

There are some common inductive indicatorwords:

Probably One would expect that


Likely It is plausible to suppose that
Chances are It is reasonable to assume that

When no indicator words are present to help us decide whether an argument is


deductive or inductive, we just have to base our judgment on the content of the
premises and conclusion of the argument.
Syllogism
- is a three-line argument—that is, an argument that consists of exactly two premises
and a conclusion.

The principle of syllogism is surprisingly straightforward: What is true of the universal is


true of the particular.

Valid argument
- is an argument in which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true, no valid
argument can have all true premises and a false conclusion.

The basic question is: Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the premises?

If YES, then the argument is valid.


If NO, the argument is invalid.

It should be noted that the terms “valid” or “invalid” do not apply to inductive arguments
since inductive arguments, in the first place, do not claim that their conclusion follows
from the premises with strict necessity.

Types of Syllogism

Types of deductive arguments:

a. Categorical syllogism is a syllogism composed of categorical statements alone


while a hypothetical syllogism includes both categorical and hypothetical statements.

Categorical statement is a statement that directly asserts something or states a fact


without any conditions. Its subject is simply affirmed or denied by the predicate.

b.Hypothetical statement is a compound statement which contains a proposed or


tentative explanation
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

A compound statement consists of at least two clauses connected by conjunctions,


adverbs, etc. which express the relationship between the classes as well as the assent
to it.

The clauses are simple statements or statements that contain one subject and one
predicate.

Categorical Syllogisms

Properties of a Categorical Statement

Quality: the quality of the statement may be affirmative or negative.

A statement that has the terms “no,” “not,” “none” and “never” is negative. In the
absence of such qualifiers, the statement is affirmative.

Quantity: the quantity of a statement is either universal or particular.

The statement is universal when what is being affirmed or denied of the subject term is
its whole extension; the statement is particular when what is being affirmed or denied
of the subject is just a part of its extension.

For universal statements we usually have:

All No
Every None
Each

For particular statements we have:

Some
Almost all
Most
Several
Few
Not all
Many
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

Quantity of the Predicate


The predicate term has its own quantity, which is not identical to nor dependent on the
quantity of the subject term.

Predicate of an affirmative statement is generally particular.

However, in statements where the subject and the predicate are identical, the predicate
is universal.

The predicate of a negative statement is always universal.

Parts of a Categorical Syllogism

Categorical Syllogism is a deductive argument consisting of three categorical


statements that together contain exactly three terms, each of which occurs in exactly
two of the constituent statements.

3 Kinds of terms in a categorical syllogism:


a. Minor term (S) – the subject of the conclusion (subject term)
b. Major term (P) – the predicate of the conclusion (predicate term)
c. Middle term (M) – the term found in both premises and serves to mediate between
the minor and major terms

3 Kinds of statements in a categorical syllogism:


a. Minor premises – the premise which contains the minor term
b. Major premise – the premise which contains the minor term
c. Conclusion – the statement the premises support

Rules for the Validity of Categorical Syllogism

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.

Hypothetical Syllogism is a syllogism that contains a hypothetical statement as one of


its premises.

3 Kinds:
a. Conditional syllogism is a syllogism in which the major premise is a conditional
statement.

Conditional Statement is a compound statement which asserts that one member (the
then clause) is true on condition that the other member (the if clause) is true.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

Antecedent is the if clause or its equivalent.


Consequent is the then clause or its equivalent.

b. Disjunctive syllogism
c. Conjunctive syllogism

Rules for Conditional Syllogism

2 VALID forms:
a. Modus ponens is when the minor premise affirms the antecedent, the conclusion
must affirm the consequent.
b. Modus Tollens is when the minor premise denies the consequent, the conclusion
must deny the antecedent.

2 INVALID forms:
a. Fallacy of denying the antecedent is when the minor premise denies the
antecedent.
b. Fallacy of affirming the consequent is when the minor premise affirms the
consequent.

Enthymemes is a kind of argument that is stated incompletely, part being “understood”


or only “in the mind.”

Polysyllogisms is a series of syllogism in which the conclusion of one syllogism


supplies a premise of the next syllogism.

CHAPTER 4. (LABADOR)
INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW

Inductive Argument
 Tries to show that their conclusions are plausible or is likely or probably true
 arguments wherein the premises provide good but not conclusive evidence
 gives conclusions more than what the premises are saying
 used when there is no established law or clear statute which enables us to
fashion general rule
 chiefly employed in determining the facts of the case
 example
 people vs. paguntalan
-there’s no direct evidence of conspiracy
-pieces of evidence collectively indicate that paguntalan and his
companions
acted in concert
-direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy
Types:
 inductive generalization
o argument that relies on characteristics of a sample population to make a
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

claim about the population as a whole.


o uses evidence about a limited number of people or things to make a
general claim
o evaluating inductive gen:
 is the sample large enough?
-as a rule of thumb, the more examples you find the stronger your
argument
 is the sample representative?
-there must be diversity among the samples to make strong
argument
-ways:
1. make sample random
2. make random interview in a common meeting place
o generalization of this type should be appropriate to the evidence offered
o example:
instead of uttering a conclusion that, "most Malaysian are good in
business," use, "many Malaysians are good in business."
 analogical arguments
o what is analogy?
 a comparison of things based on similarities those things share
 compare two or more things
 point out similarity
o analogical arguments
 claims that another similarity exists, given the similarities already
recognized in an ordinary analogy
 process of reasoning from the particular to the particular
 3 steps process:
o establish similarities bet 2 cases
o announce the rule of law embedded in the first case
o apply the rule of law to the 2nd case
 used when settling disputed factual issues
 circumstancial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
o there is more than 1 circumstance
o the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven
o the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
 criteria in evaluating analogical arguments
 relevance of similarities
o the similarities must be related to the conclusion
 relevant dissimilarities
o these could weaken the arguments conclusion even
there are similarities
o see example on p. 91-93
Common inductive indicator
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

 probably
 likely
 chances are
 one would expect that
 it is plausible to suppose that
 it is reasonable to assume that

CHAPTER 5. (TABONES)
FALLACIES IN LEGAL REASONING

What is a fallacy?
A fallacy is not a false belief but a mistake or error in thinking and reasoning. A passage
maybe composed of entirely true statements or beliefs but it is a fallacy if the kind of
thinking or reasoning used in that passage is illogical or erroneous.

For Judges and lawyers, they fallacy to describe something that is not supported by the
facts.

Fallacy, for logicians and in legal profession, it describe an error in reasoning rather that
a falsity in a statement or claim. Illogical and incorrect ways of reasoning.

What are the two main groups of fallacies?


1. Formal fallacies – are those that may be identified through mere inspection of
the form and structure of an argument. This can be found only in deductive arguments
that have identifiable forms.
2. Informal fallacies – are those that can be detected only through analysis of the
content of the argument.

Fallacies of Ambiguity

1. Equivocation – this fallacy consists in leading an opponent to an unwarranted


conclusion by using a term in its different senses and making it appear to have
only one meaning. In a good argument, the words or phrases used must retain
the same meanings throughout the argument, unless we specify that we are
shifting from one meaning of a word to another. Ambiguity comes from changing
meanings of the word.

2. Amphiboly – this fallacy consists in presenting a claim or argument whose


meaning can be interpreted in two or more ways due to its
grammaticalconstruction. Ambiguity comes from the way the sentence is
constructed.

3. Improper Accent – this fallacy consists in misleading people by placing


improper emphasis on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue or claim.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

This can be found not only in advertisements and headline but also in other very
common forms of human discourse.

4. Vicious Abstraction – this fallacy consists in misleading the people by using


vague or abstract terms. There is nothing wrong with vague words per se as we
often use them as a part of our linguistic style. This fallacy occurs when vague
words are misused.

5. Composition – this fallacy consists in wrongly inferring that what holds true of
the individuals automatically holds true of the group made up of those individuals.

6. Division - this fallacy consists in wrongly assuming that what is true in general is
true in particular. This is the reverse of the fallacy of composition.

FALLACIES OF IRRELEVANCE(ABREA)
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
 Ignores the issue by focusing on certain personal characteristics of an
opponent.
 This argument makes the opponent the issue.
 It shifts attention from the argument to the arguer; instead of disproving
the substance of what is asserted, the argument attacks the person who
made the assertion.
TWO KINDS OF ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM
A. ABUSIVE
 attacks the argument based on the arguer’s reputation, personality
or some personal shortcoming.
 This is very common in the courtrooms as well as in election
campaigns where people employ techniques such as name calling
and mudslinging to persuade others to their side.
 Attempt to persuade people by banking on the psychological impact
of their arguments.
 It is important to separate our evaluation of a person from our
evaluation of the merit of that person’s ideas or arguments.
 The personality, character or background of the person should not
count when we assess the strength of his or her arguments.
B. CIRCUMSTANTIAL
 Consist in defending one’s position by accusing his or her critic or
other people of doing the same thing.
 Also called tu quoque which means “you’re another” or you yourself
do it.
 Can sometimes be used to as an effective defense
 Valid defense in matters of provocation
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

 Occurs when the argument moves from in rem to an argument


alleging wrongness or improper conduct on the party who has
alleged wrongdoing on our part.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
 Is familiar in many trials, whether they are civil or criminal.
 Judge is persuaded to accept an argument not for its strength but because
of the counsel’s emotional appeal to pity.
 Convinces the people by evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy
when such feelings, however understandable, are not logically relevant to
arguer’s conclusion.
 Use as closing speech to add persuasive force to their case.
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
 Consist in persuading others to accept a position by using threat or
pressure instead of presenting evidence for one’s view.
 The strength of it lies o the fear that it creates to people which leads them
to agree with the argument.
 Appears in many personal injury cases.
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
 Beg the question
 Even though the conclusion is clearly not justified by the premises, the
listener is, in effect, “begged” to accept it,
 Appears as evidential support, but seems to be an evidence is a form of
the conclusion in disguise
TYPES OF PETITIO PRINCIPII
A. Arguing in Circle
 “assumes as a premise the very thing that should be
proven in the conclusion”
 makes use of its conclusion to serve as its premise.
 Truth of its conclusion.
 Its premise fails to provide evidence since it is not
different from the conclusion and as questionable as the
conclusion it purports to support.
 When the conclusion appears as a premise, it is usually
stated in different words or in different form.
 Particularly difficult to detect if the questionable premise
and the conclusion are widely separated in the argument.
 Simply pretends to establish a claim, but it really falls
short of proving its conclusion since the strength of the
premise depends on the truth of the conclusion which
cannot be assumed.
B. Question – Begging Language
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

 “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.”
 Assumes that a matter that is or may be at issue has already
been settled.
 The listener is subtly being “begged” to infer a particular
conclusion, although no good reasons are being presented
for doing so.
 Technique of persuasion by using slanted or loaded
language in their discourse.
C. Complex Question
 Asking a question in which some presuppositions are buried
in that question.
 LOADED QUESTION
 “complex” more that one question is being asked in what
appears to be a single question.
 One of the questions is explicitly expressed but the others
are implicit
 When respondent answers a complex or loaded question, he
or she somehow affirms a questionable assumption
contained in the question.
 Begs the question when the unasked question is still an
open one or when the question improperly assumes that a
series of different questions has the same answer.
D. Leading Question
 In directing the respondent to give a particular answer to a
question at issue by the manner which the question is asked.
 Involves asking only one question.
 Contains an unsupported claim, in that it unjustifiably
assumes a position on what is probably a debatable, or at
least an open issue.
 In effect, asking another to assume the same position on the
issue, yet fails to provide any adequate justification for the
respondent to do so.
 Questioner therefore is simply begging the respondent to
come to the same conclusion.
 Arguer makes us accept a conclusion based on a premise
that is assumed by the conclusion.

FALLACIES OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (BERMIDO-SALCEDO)

1. Argumentum ad Antiquum(Appeal to the Ages)


LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

- attempts to persuade others of a certain belief by appealing to their feelings


or reverence or respect for some tradition, insteadof giving rational basis for
such belief.
- illogical since pointing out that a particular practice has the status of a
tradition sheds no light on whether it should be followed or not.

2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)


- consist in persuading others by appealing to people who command respect or
authority but do not have legitimate authority in the matter at hand
- Authority in a particular field is one who has sufficient knowledge of the
matters belonging to that field, qualified by training or ability to draw
appropriate inferences from that knowledge, and is free from any prejudices
or conflicts of interest that would prevent him or her from formulating sound
judgments.
- Biased one is also considered as inappropriate authority because they may
be qualified in a particular field by training, ability and position, yet they are so
vitally “interested” in or affected by the issue at stake that there would be
good reason to treat their testimony with suspicion

3. Accident
- consist in applying a general rule to a particular case when circumstances
suggest that an exception to the rule should apply
- occurs when general rules (usually have their exceptions) are applied to
special circumstances
- application of general rule is inappropriate because of the situation’s
“accidents,” or exceptional facts

4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident)


- consists in drawing a general or universal conclusion from insufficient
particular case
- also known as converse accident because its reasoning is the opposite of the
fallacy of accident – we take a particular case (which may be an exception)
and make a general rule or truth out of that
- the premises used to support its conclusion may be acceptable and relevant
but they are not enough or adequate to establish it
- it is called hasty generalization since it moves carelessly or too quickly from
the insufficient evidence to the conclusion
- formulation of a general rule is a hasty generalization only when the situation
leading to the formulation of a general rule are special, not general.
(Saunders)

5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Arguing from Ignorance)


- consists in assuming that a particular claim is true because its opposite
cannot be proven
- using the absence of evidence against a claim as justification that it is tru or
using the absence of evidence for a claim as evidence that it is false.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

- treating the absence of evidence as if it were the presence of evidence

6. False Dilemma
- arises when the premise of an argument presents us with a choice between
two alternative and assumes that they are exhaustive (cover all the
possibilities or these are the only choices that we have) when in fact they are
not
- derives from the failure to distinguish contradictories (exclude any gradations
between extremes, no middle ground between a term and its negative) from
contraries (allow a number of gradation between their extremes, plenty of
middle ground between a term and its opposite)
- treating contraries as if they were contradictories
 Contradictories (a term and its negative)
- one of the two extremes must be true and the other is false
 Contraries (a term and its opposite)
- it is possible for both extremes to be false

CHAPTER 6.(VIVIAN)
RULES OF LEGAL REASONING

Rules of Collision

Provisions
Vis-à-vis Provisions

1. Two laws dealing with the same subject matter but with conflicting provisions
 Judiciary to reconcile or harmonize the conflicting laws or uphold one over the
other

Basic Principle of Interpretation – Words must be given their literal meaning and
applied without attempted interpretation where the words of a statute are clear, plain
and free from ambiguity

2. Conflicting clauses and provisions in a statute


 Statute must be construed as a WHOLE (Ut magis valeat quampereat)

3. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a general on
which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former.
 Particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must affect
only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of
the particular enactment

4. Where the instrument is susceptible of two interpretations, one (invalid and illegal)
and another (valid and legal)
 The valid and legal interpretation should be adopted.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

Laws
Vis-à-vis the Constitution

1. Statutes in conflict with the Constitution.


 Constitution prevails.

Laws
Vis-à-vis Laws

1. Where two statutes are of contrary tenor or of different dates but are of equal
theoretical application to a particular case
 Effect must be given to the last in the order of position, the latter overriding the
earlier.

2. Between a common law principle and a statutory provision


 Statutory provision prevails.

3. In case of amendatory laws whose repealing clauses are not clear or vague as to its
effect to its predecessor law.
 The later law repeals the earlier one (Leges posteriors priorescontrariasabrogant)

General Laws
Vis-à-vis Special Laws

1. If both statutes are irreconcilable


 The general statute must give way to the special or particular provisions as an
exception to the general provisions. (Generalia clausula non porrigitur ad
eaquaeanteaspecialiter sunt comprehensa)

2. In case of conflict between a general provision of a special law and a particular


provision of a general law
 The latter will prevail

Laws
Vis-à-vis Ordinances

1. Municipal ordinances v. laws of the state


 Laws of the state are superior

2. Conflict between an administrative order and the provisions of the Constitutions


 Latter prevails.

3. Conflict between a statute and an administrative order


 Former prevails.
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

4. Conflict between an ordinance and a statute


 Ordinance must give way observing the well-settled rule that a substantive law
cannot be amended by a procedural law

5. In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to
implement said law
 The basic law prevails because said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the
terms and provisions of the basic law.

Rules of Interpretation and Construction:(Magnayon)

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


properly applied.

2. Rule: If the language of the law is clear, then there is no need for either interpretation nor
construction. (VerbaLegis or Word of the law). It means that the law is couched in simple
and understandable language that a normal person would understand

3. Rule: If the law admits of two or more interpretation, then we need to interpret the law. If
interpretation is not enough, then attempt to construe the meaning of the law.

4. Interpretation Vs. Construction –


a. the former simply relies on the content(intrinsic aids) of the law while the latter relies
on material(extrinsic aids)that is extant from the law itself.
b. The former refers to the drawing of the true nature, meaning and intent of the law
through an examination of its provisions while the latter is the process of using tools,
aid, references extant from the law in order to ascertain its nature, meaning and
intent.
c. The former limits the person to what the law itself provides through an examination of
its language, words, phrases and style while the latter allows the person to ulitize
other references materials or tools in order to ascertain the true meaning of the law.
d. Before one can construe, one must first interpret.

5. In National Federation of Labor v Eisma, the Court held that the first and fundamental
duty of Courts is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has
been demonstrated that application is impossible or inadequate without them.

6. Words should be read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly accepted and
most obvious signification, according to good and approved usage and without resorting
to forced and subtle construction.

7. Rules of interpretation and construction also apply to contracts. If the contract Is to be


determined to be ambiguous, then the interpretation of the contract is left to the court.

8. Plain Meaning Rule = which assumes that the intent of the parties to an
instrument/contract is embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are clear and
LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC REVIEWER
EVANGELISTA AND AQUINO BOOK

unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the express language of the
agreement.

RULES OF JUDGEMENT

1. Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law. Hence, only the Supreme Court and all other lower courts have the
power to construe and interpret the law.

2. Requisites to exercise Judicial Power:


a. An actual and appropriate case and controversy exists
b. Personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question
c. Exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity
d. The constitutional question raised is the very lismota of the case

3. Article 9, Civil Code : No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the
silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws

4. Rule: If legislative intent is not expressed in some appropriate manner, the courts cannot
by interpretation speculate as to an intent and supply a meaning not found in the
phraseology of the law. In other words, the court cannot assure some purpose in no way
expressed and construe the statute to accomplish supposed intention.

5. Rules of Procedure = refers to the process of how a litigant would protect his right
through the intervention of the court or any other administrative body

6. Administrative rules of procedure are generally given a liberal construction. The intention
is to resolve disputes brought before such bodies in the most expeditious and
inexpensive manner possible.

7. In administrative rules, if the internal rules are silent on a particular procedure of justice,
it can usually be remedied by the provision that allows suppletory application of the
Rules of Court

You might also like