LEGAL LOGIC BOOK SUMMARY 2.

Premise – the statement that serves as the

Dr. Francis Julius Evangelista and Atty. David basis or support of the conclusion.
Robert C. Aquino
Prepared by: Arellano, Charisse C. When a lawyer attempts to prove, justify
or defend a particular claim by connecting it to
one or more claims, he/she is making an
argument.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Arguments are categorized as either:
Logic – study of the principles and methods of
good reasoning. 1. Logical or illogical;
2. Valid or invalid;
- Science of reasoning which aims to 3. Sound or unsound; depending on the
determine and lay down the criteria of acceptability of the premises and the connection
good (correct) reasoning and bad between the premise and the conclusion.
(incorrect) reasoning.
- Probes into the fundamental concepts of
argument, inference, truth, falsity and To analyze the structure and arguments,
validity, among others. determine the following:
1. what are the issues and problems being raised;
It is by means of logic that we clarify our 2. what is the chief claim of the argument;
ideas, assess the acceptability of the claims 3. what are the bases and premises advanced to
and beliefs we encounter, defend and justify support the claim; and,
our assertions and statements, and make 4. what are the crucial assumptions implicit in
rational and sound decisions. one’s reasoning.
Psychology – also interested in and studies
reasoning but it is primarily concerned with how There are words or phrases that typically
people reason. This demands looking for patterns serve to indicate the premise or the conclusion of
of behavior, speech, or neurological activity that an argument.
take place in the process of reasoning. Common Conclusion Indicators: therefore, so,
thus, hence, etc.
Logic – studies the principles of good reasoning. Common Premise Indicators: because, since, for,
Its task does not merely describe how people inasmuch as, etc.
reason but to discover and make available those
criteria that can be used to test arguments for A word of caution, however, must be
correctness. added. Some of the arguments we will encounter
contain no indicators. Sometimes we are just
Logic in the Field of Law supposed to understand that an argument is
Logic, being the science of correct and being presented.
sound reasoning, is indispensable in the field of
law. The efficiency of practicing law depends on Recognizing Arguments
the quality of legal reasoning. Not all groups of statements are
arguments. An argument always has a
Legal reasoning – what we use when we apply
conclusion and a premise. One passage that is
laws, rules, and regulations to particular facts and
often mistaken is an explanation.
cases; it is what we use when we interpret
constitutions and statutes, when we balance
Explanation, Argument, Unsupported
fundamental principles and policies and when we
Opinions and Conditional Statements
evaluate evidences, and make judgments to
Distinguished
render legal decisions.
Legal Logic – should be placed at the center of Explanation- an attempt to show why
the legal curriculum because law profession something is the case.
relies so much on sound reasoning, and valid - Not meant to prove or justify the truth of
argumentation in order to justify a claim, defend a a particular claim
proposition, assess the strength of evidences and
render a judicious decision. Argument – an attempt to show that something
is the case
The rule, founded on logic, is a corollary
of the principle that general words and phrases in Unsupported Opinions – statements of belief or
a statute should ordinarily be accorded their opinion about what a speaker or writer happens
natural and general significance. to believe. Such statements can be true or false,
rational or irrational, but they are parts of
Legal Reasoning
arguments only if the speaker or writer claims that
Argument as an Expression of they follow from, or support, other claims.
Reasoning
Conditional Statements – contain an if-then
Argument – a claim put forward and defended relationship. These are not arguments because
with reasons. there is no claim that one statement is true
because of the other statement.
- Group of statements in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the Two Basic Components of Conditional
basis of another statement/s. Statement
Two Basic Elements in an Argument 1. antecedent (or the if-clause)
1. Conclusion – the statement that is being 2. consequent (or the then-clause)
claimed to be true.
Components of Legal Reasoning Often Used Concepts in Supporting and
Argument or Position
1. ISSUE: What is being argued?
- any matter of controversy or uncertainty 1. Burden of Proof – the duty of any party to
- a point in dispute, in doubt, in question, present evidence to establish his claim or
or simply up for discussion or consideration. As defense by the amount of evidence required by
such, it is always formulated in an interrogative law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil
sentence. case. Basic is the rule in evidence that the burden
of proof lies upon who asserts it, not upon him
2. RULE: What legal rules govern the issue? who denies, since by the nature of things, he who
Three Parts of Rules denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it.
1. a set of elements, collectively called a test; NOTE: In civil cases, the specific rule as to the
2. a result that occurs when all the elements are burden of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden
present (and the test is thus satisfied); of proving the material allegations of the
3. a casual term that determines whether the complaint which are denied by the answer; and
result is mandatory, prohibitory, discretionary, or the defendant has the burden of proving the
declaratory. material allegations in his answer, which sets up
new matter as a defense.
3. FACT: What are the facts that are relevant to
the rule cited? In administrative proceedings, the
burden of proof that respondent committed the
“Material” Facts – these are the facts that fit the acts complained of rests on the complainant.
elements of the rule. The rule would be satisfied
if the facts of the present case cover all the In medical negligence cases, it is
elements of the rule. settled that the complainant has the burden of
establishing breach of duty on the part of the
4. ANALYSIS: How applicable are the facts to the doctors or surgeons. It must be proven that such
said rule? breach of duty has a casual connection to the
resulting death of the patient.
This is the part where the argumentation Equipoise Doctrine – when the evidence of the
and illustration come out. This part is supposed to parties are evenly balance or there is doubt on
show the link between the rules and the facts we which side the evidence preponderates, the
presented to establish what we are claiming in our decision should be against the party with the
argument. The concern here is whether the burden of proof.
material facts truly fit the law.

5. CONCLUSION: What is the implication of 2. Evidence – the means sanctioned by the

applying the rule to the given facts? Rules of Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
- the ultimate end of a legal argument. It proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.
is what the facts, the rules and the analysis of the
case amount to. Best Evidence Rule – encapsulated in Rule 130,
Section 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure, applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry.
Evaluating Legal Reasoning
- The original document must be produced
Two General Criteria to Distinguish Correct whenever its contents are the subject of
from Incorrect Legal Reasoning inquiry. A photocopy, being a mere
1. Truth secondary evidence, is not admissible
2. Logic unless it is shown that the original us
unavailable.
Two Main Processes Involved in Legal
Reasoning Preponderance of Evidence – the weight,
1. presentation of facts which pertains to the credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on
question: deals with the question Are the either side and is usually considered to be
premises provided in the argument true or synonymous with the term “greater weight of
acceptable? evidence” or “greater weight of the credible
evidence”
2. inference (deriving a legal claim or judgment
from the given laws and facts) which pertains to
the question of logic 3. Admissibility and Relevance
When Evidence is Deemed Admissible – if it is
CHAPTER 2 FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS IN relevant to the issue and more importantly, if it is
LEGAL REASONING not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules
of Court.
The concept and principles in supporting
an argument or position are principally found As to relevance, such evidence must have such
under the Rules of Court and highlighter in a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in
numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. its existence or non-existence.

Rules of Court – an issuance of the High Court 4. Testimony of Witnesses – generally confined
that defines and governs the conduct of to general knowledge; and therefore excludes
proceedings before all courts of the land. hearsay.
Section 30, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Legis interpretado legis vim obtinet – that the
Evidence – a witness can testify only to those interpretation placed upon the written law by
facts which he knows of or comes from his a competent court has the force of law
personal knowledge, that is, which are derived
from his perception.
Hearsay Rule – testimony considered as CHAPTER 3 DEDUCTIVE REASONING IN
hearsay and may not be received as proof of the LAW
truth of what he has learned when a witness
testifies as to what he merely learned from others Deductive Reasoning Inductive Reasoning
either because he was told, or he read or heard When we want to
the same. determine the facts of the
Exception: case and to establish them
Entries in official records made in the through casual arguments,
performance of duty by a public officer. Reason: probability or scientific
necessity and trustworthiness methods
Arguments trying to Arguments trying to show
5. Expert Testimony – statements made by
prove the truth of their that their conclusions are
individuals who are considered as experts in a conclusions beyond any plausible or likely or
particular field doubt probable to be true given
the premise(s)
6. Examination
When our premises When our premises are
Order in Which an Individual Witness May Be
intend to guarantee the intended to provide good
Examined under the Rules of Court:
truth of our conclusion (but not conclusive)
a. Direct examination by his proponent – refers to
evidence for the truth of our
the examination-in-chief of a witness by the party
conclusion
presenting him on the facts relevant to the issue;
Generally, deduction Generally, induction moves
b. Cross-Examination by the opponent – Upon
moves from general from particular premises to
the termination of the direct examination, the
premises to particular general conclusions
witness, the witness may be cross-examined by
conclusions
the adverse party as to any matters stated in the
direct examination, or connected therewith, with
sufficient fullness and freedom to test his
Common Deductive Indicator Words:
accuracy and truthfulness and freedom from
certainly it is logical to
interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all
conclude that
important facts bearing upon the issue;
c. Re-direct examination by the proponent – After definitely this logically implies
the cross-examination of the witness has been that
concluded, he may be re-examined by the party absolutely this entails that
conclusively it must be the case
calling him, to explain or supplement his answers
that
given during the cross-examination. On re-direct
it necessarily follows
examination, questions on matters not dealt with
during the cross-examination, may be allowed by that
the court in its discretion.
Common Inductive Indicator Words:
d. Re-cross-examination by the opponent – Upon
probably one would expect that
the conclusion of the re-direct examination, the
likely it is plausible to suppose that
adverse party may re-cross-examine the witness
chances are it is reasonable to assume
on matters stated in his re-direct examination,
and also on such other matters as may be that
allowed by the court in its discretion.
Syllogisms
7. Dependence on Precedents
Stare decisis et non quieta movere – stand by the
Syllogism – deductive arguments are often
decisions and disturb not what is settled
- It means that “once this Court has laid expressed in this
– a three-line argument – that is, an
down a principle of law as applicable to a
argument that consists of exactly two premise
certain state of facts, it would adhere to
and a conclusion. This form of reasoning is what
that principle and apply it to all future
is lurking below the surface of most judicial
cases in which the facts are substantially
opinions and briefs.
the same as in the earlier controversy.”
- This doctrine is embodied in Article 8 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines which According to Cesare Beccaria, “In every criminal
states that judicial decisions applying or case, a judge should come to perfect syllogism:
interpreting the laws or the Constitution the major premise should be the general law; the
shall form part of the legal system of the minor premise, the act, which does or does not
Philippines. A doctrine formulated in a conform to the law; and the conclusion, acquittal
decision must be considered as a binding or condemnation.”
precedent in future cases whose facts
Principle of Syllogism: What is true of the
are identical or precisely similar to those
universal is true of the particular.
in which the precedent is established.
- Cannot be invoked where there is no
analogy between the material facts of the Deductive arguments may either be valid or
decision relied upon and those of the invalid.
instant case.
Invalid deductive arguments – conclusions Predicate of an affirmative statement –
which do not follow necessarily from their generally particular
premises Predicate of a negative statement – always
Valid deductive argument – argument in which universal
the conclusion really does follow necessarily from - In statements where the subject and the
the premises. predicate are identical, the predicate is
- An argument in which: if the premises are universal
true, then the conclusion must be true or
the truth of the premises guarantee the Parts of a Categorical Syllogism
truth of the conclusion. Categorical Syllogism – a deductive argument
consisting of three categorical statements that
Basic Question in Determining the Validity of together contain exactly three terms, each of
an Argument: Is the premise true? Or is the which occurs in exactly two of the constituent
conclusion true? statements.
Does the conclusion follow necessarily from the
premises? (Or do the premises guarantee the Three Kinds of Terms in a Categorical
truth of the conclusion) If the answer is yes, then Syllogism:
the argument is valid. If the answer is no, then the 1. Minor terms (S)– the subject of the conclusion
argument is invalid. (also called the subject term)
2. Major term (P) – the predicate of the
conclusion (also called the predicate term)
Types of Syllogisms 3. Middle term (M) – the term formulated in both
premises and serves to mediate between the
Two Types of Syllogisms minor and the major terms
1. Categorical Syllogism – a syllogism
composed of categorical statements alone Three Kinds of Statements in a Categorical
Categorical Statement – a statement that Syllogism:
directly asserts something or states a fact without 1. Minor premise – the premise which contains
any conditions. Its subject is simply affirmed or the minor term
denied by the predicate. 2. Major premise – the premise which contains
2. Hypothetical Syllogism – includes both the minor term
categorical and hypothetical statements 3. Conclusion – the statement the premises
Hypothetical Statements - a compound support
statement which contains a proposed or tentative
explanation. A compound statement consists of Rules for the Validity of Categorical
at least two clauses connected by conjunctions, Syllogisms
adverbs, etc., which express the relationship
between the classes as well as our assent to it. Rule 1: The syllogism must not contain two
negative premises.
Categorical Syllogisms When the premises are both negative,
the middle term fails to serve its function of
Properties of a Categorical Statement mediating between the major and minor terms.
Every categorical statement has quality Fallacy of exclusive premises – the violation of
and quantity as its properties. this rule

Quality: the quality may be affirmative or Rule 2: There must be three pairs of univocal
negative. terms.
Negative statement – a statement that has the The terms in the syllogism must have
terms “no,” “not,” “none” and “never”. exactly the same meaning and must be used in
Affirmative Statement – in the absence of such exactly the same way in each occurrence.
qualifiers, the statement is affirmative. Equivocal term – a term that has different
meanings in its occurrences
Quantity: the quantity of a statement is either
universal or particular. Univocal term – has the same meaning in
Universal Statement – when what is being different occurrences
affirmed or denied of the subject term is its whole
extension. Fallacy of equivocation – violation of the
Particular Statement – when what is being second rule
affirmed or denied of the subject is just a part of Equivocation usually occurs in the middle
its extension. term.

Quantifiers that Help Determine the Quantity Rule 3: The middle term must be universal at
of the Statement least once.
For universal statements: The reason for this rule is that when the
all every each no none middle term is particular in both premises it might
For particular statements: stand for a different portion of its extension in
Some almost all most several each occurrence and, thus, be equivalent to two
few not all many terms, and, therefore, fail to fulfill its functions of
uniting or separating the minor and major terms.
Quantity of the Predicate Fallacy of particular middle – the violation of
The predicate term has its own quantity this rule
which is not identical to nor dependent on the Exception: Even if the middle term is particular
quantity of the subject term. in both premises, but it is quantified by “most” in
both premises and the conclusion is quantified by
“some,” the syllogism does not violate this third
rule. This is so since the combined extension of Polysyllogism – series of syllogisms in which the
the middle term is more than a universal. conclusion of one syllogism supplies a premise of
the next syllogism.
Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is - typically, polysyllogisms are used
universal, the same term in the premise must because more than one logical step is needed to
also be universal. reach the desired conclusion
Fallacy of Illicit Minor – violation of the rule
when the minor term is universal in the conclusion
but particular in the premise CHAPTER 4 INDUCTIVE REASONING IN LAW
Fallacy of Illicit Major – violation of the rule
when the major term is universal in the conclusion Inductive arguments
but particular in the premise - arguments in which the premises are
The rationale behind this rule is that in a intended to provide support, but not conclusive
deductive argument the conclusion should not go evidence, for the conclusion
beyond what the premises state. Thus, the - unlike deductive arguments which draw
conclusion must not be wider in extension than out truth or information already contained in the
the premises. premises, inductive arguments give us truth or
information more than what the premises are
Hypothetical Syllogisms – syllogisms that saying.
contain a hypothetical statement as one of its - what is claimed in the conclusion goes
premises. beyond the evidence found in the premises. It is
Hypothetical Syllogisms are of three kinds: for the reason that inductive arguments do not
Conditional syllogism claim their conclusion is certain or that their
Disjunctive syllogism premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion
Conjunctive syllogism - claim that their conclusion, based on the
In legal reasoning, we often encounter premises, is likely or probably be true.
conditional arguments. Hence, the focus is on - what we chiefly employ in determining
conditional syllogisms. the facts of the case

Conditional Syllogisms Deductive reasoning – not applicable on cases

Conditional syllogism – syllogism in which the where there is no established law, or binding
major premise is a conditional statement precedent, or clear statue to provide the major
premise of our legal argument.
Conditional statement – a compound statement
which asserts that one member (the then clause) Inductive Generalizations
is true on condition that the other member (the if Inductive Generalization – the simplest and
clause) is true. most common type of inductive reasoning
- an argument that relies on
Antecedent – the if clause or its equivalent characteristics of sample population to make a
claim about the population as a whole. This claim
Consequent – the then clause or its equivalent is a general claim that makes a statement about
The conditional syllogism can be symbolized by all, most, or some members of a class, group, or
the following: set.
A – for antecedent - uses evidence about a limited number
C- for the consequent of people or things of a certain type (the sample
~ - for the negation of the statement population), to make a general claim about a
> - for “implies” larger group of people or things of that type (the
- for “therefore” population as a whole).

Rules for Conditional Syllogisms Evaluating Inductive Generalizations

Two Valid Forms of Conditional Syllogisms Two Important Questions We Must Ask When
1. Modus ponens – when the minor premise It Comes to Determine Whether Inductive
affirms the antecedent, the conclusion must Generalizations Are Strong or Weak:
affirm the consequent. 1. Is the Sample Large Enough?
The size of the sample population is an
2. Modus tollens – when the minor premise essential factor in determining whether the
denies the consequent, the conclusion must deny conclusion about the population as a whole is
the antecedent justified or not.
Fallacy of Denying the Antecedent – a “Large enough” sample – when it is clear that
conditional syllogism is invalid id the minor we have not rushed to judgment, that we have not
premise denies the antecedent formed a hasty generalization.
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent – the The quantity of the whole population is
minor premise affirms the consequent needed to be considered in determining the
sufficiency of the quantity of the sample.
Enthymemes
Enthymeme – the kind of argument that is stated 2. Is the Sample Representative?
incompletely, part being “understood” or only “in A sample is representative if there is
the mind” diversity in our sample (that is, the various
- argument founded on a syllogism subgroups of the whole population are
although not all parts of the syllogism are represented in the selected respondents).
expressed One way to ensure sufficient relevant
diversity is by making the sample random.
Polysyllogisms
Random sample – one in which all members of Formal and Informal Fallacies
the target have an equal opportunity to be in the
sample. Two Main Groups of Fallacies
Formal Fallacies Informal Fallacies
Analogical Arguments Those that may be
- another type of inductive argument most identified through
commonly used in law mere inspection of the
Analogy – a comparison of things based on form and structure of
similarities those things share. an argument
Analogies Arguments by Analogy Those that can be
Found only in
detected only through
compare two or go one step further. They deductive arguments
analysis of the
more things claim that another similarity that have identifiable
content of the
exists, given the similarities forms
argument
already recognized. As long as its form
simply point out claim that certain similarities violates the rules of
a similarity are evidence that there is logic regardless of the
another similarity (or other content of the
similarities) argument

Application of Analogical Reasoning

1. Legal counsels employ analogical reasoning in Three Categories of Informal Fallacies:
coming up with a new legal claim based on firmly
established precedents. 1. Fallacies of Ambiguity – committed because
of a misuse of language.
Analogical Reasoning as a Three Step - contain ambiguous or vague language
Process (according to Edward Levi): which is deliberately used to mislead people.
1. establish similarities between two cases
2. Fallacies of irrelevance – do not have a
2. announce the rule of law embedded in the first
case problem with language but with the connection of
3. apply the rule of law to the second case the premise and conclusion.
- occur because the premises are not
logically relevant to the conclusion.
2. Legal practitioners also rely heavily on - misleading because the premises are
analogical reasoning when settling disputed psychologically relevant, so the conclusion may
factual issues. seem to follow from the premises although it does
not follow logically.
3. It also serves as the basis of what we know as
“circumstantial evidence” 3. Fallacies of insufficient evidence – like the
second category of fallacies, do not have a
problem with language but with the connection of
Evaluating Analogical Arguments the premise and conclusion
- the difference is that these occur not
Fallacy of False Analogy – one of the fallacies because the premises fail to provide evidence
of reasoning. strong enough to support the conclusion.
- results from comparing two (or more) Although the premises have some relevance to
things that are not really comparable. It is a matter the conclusion, they are not sufficient to cause a
of claiming that two things share a certain reasonable person to accept the conclusion.
similarity on the basis of other similarities, while
overlooking important dissimilarities. Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation – this fallacy consists in leading
Criteria in the Evaluation of an Analogical an opponent to an unwarranted conclusion by
Argument using a term in its different senses and making it
1. Relevance of similarities appear to have only one meaning.
2. Relevant dissimilarities between the entities - ambiguity comes from changing
being compared meanings of the word.

CHAPTER 5 FALLACIES IN LEGAL 2. Amphiboly – this fallacy consists in presenting

REASONING a claim or argument whose meaning can be
interpreted in two or more ways due to its
Fallacy – in logic, it is not a false belief but a grammatical construction.
mistake or error in thinking and reasoning. - ambiguity comes from the way the
- a passage may be composed of entirely sentence is constructed.
true statements or beliefs, but it is a fallacy if the
kind of thinking or reasoning used in that passage 3. Improper Accent – this fallacy consists in
is illogical or erroneous. misleading people by placing improper emphasis
on a word, phrase or particular aspect of an issue
or claim.
- found not only in advertisements and
headlines 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.
 - occurs when vague words are misused.
Vague words are misused when these words are 3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
very significant in the premises used to establish - this fallacy consists in persuading
a conclusion. others to accept a position by using threat or
pressure instead of presenting evidence for one’s
How to deal with this kind of fallacy? view.
First, we need to sense if our opponent is - the strength of this fallacy lies on the
attempting to support a particular claim with a fear that it creates to people which leads them to
statement containing a vague word. If this is the agree with the argument.
case, we must challenge the acceptability of the
premises on the grounds that you cannot assess 4. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
the evidential value of the support as long as the - arguments which are designed to
meaning of the vague term remains unspecified. persuade people by means of the wording of one
You may disagree with your opponent about the of its premises.
appropriateness of the precision that he or she - Even thought the conclusion is clearly
may assign to it, but you are at least in a position not justified by the premises, the listener is, in
to evaluate the argument. effect, “begged” to accept it.

5. Composition – this fallacy consists in wrongly Four Different Types of Petitio Principii
inferring that what holds true of the individuals (Begging the Question)
automatically holds true of the group made up of
those individuals. A. Arguing in Circle – this type of begging-the-
question fallacy states or assumes as premise
6. Division – this fallacy consists in wrongly the very thing that should be proven in the
assuming that what is true in general is true in conclusion.
particular. This circular argument makes use if its
- reverse of the fallacy of composition. conclusion to serve as its premise. In short, the
argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion.
Fallacies of Irrelevance Thus, its premise fails to provide evidence since
it is not different from the conclusion and as
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal questionable as the conclusion it purports to
Attack) – this fallacy ignores the issue by support.
focusing on certain personal characteristics of an
opponent. B. Question-Begging Language – this fallacy
- Instead of addressing the issue consists in “discussing an issue by means of
presented by an opponent, this argument makes language that assumes a position of the very
the opponent the issue. question at issue, in such a way as to direct the
- It shifts attention from the argument to listener to that same conclusion.”
the arguer; instead of disproving the substance of - prematurely assumes that a matter that
what is asserted, the argument attacks who made is or may be at issue has already been settled.
the assertion.
C. Complex Question – this fallacy consists in
Two Kinds of Argumentum ad Hominem asking a question in which some presuppositions
A. Abusive – called abusive argumentum ad are buried in that question.
hominem - another term used to refer this fallacy is
- this fallacy attacks the argument based loaded question, which suggests, like the term
on the arguer’s reputation, personality or some “complex,” that more than one question is being
personal shortcoming. asked in what appears to be a single question.

B. Circumstantial – this fallacy consists in D. Leading Question – this fallacy consists in

defending one’s position by accusing his or her directing the respondent to give a particular
critic or other people of doing the same thing. answer to a question at issue by the manner in
- this is also called tu quoque which which the question is asked.
means “you’re another” or you yourself do it. - usually involves asking only one
- can sometimes be used to as an question. This question contains an unsupported
effective defense. claim, in that it unjustifiably assumes a position on
- a valid defense in matters of what is probably a debatable, or at least an open,
provocation. issue. The questioner is, in effect, asking another
- occurs when the argument moves from to assume the same position on the issue, yet
in rem to an argument alleging wrongness or fails to provide any adequate justification for the
improper conduct on the party who has alleged respondent to do so. The questioner therefore is
wrongdoing on our part. simply begging the respondent to come to the
same conclusion.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to
Pity) Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
- familiar in many trials, whether they are
civil or criminal. 1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to the
- The judge is persuaded to accept an Ages) – this fallacy attempts to persuade others
argument not for its strength but because of the of a certain belief by appealing to their feelings of
counsel’s emotional appeal to pity. reverence or respect for some tradition, instead
- this fallacy convinces the people by of giving rational basis for such belief. This is
evoking feelings of compassion and sympathy illogical since pointing out that a particular
when such feelings, however understandable, practice has the status of a tradition sheds no light
are not logically relevant to the arguer’s on whether it should be followed or not.
conclusion.
2. Argumetum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to end in view of ensuring that justice and equity is
Inappropriate Authority) – this fallacy consists upheld. Interpretare et concodare legis legibus
in persuading others by appealing to people who est optimus interpretandi.
command respect or authority but do not have
legitimate authority in the matter at hand. 1. Provisions vis-à-vis Provisions – if there are
An authority in a particular field is one conflicting clauses and provisions in a statute, the
who has sufficient knowledge of the matters statute must be construed as a whole and
belonging to that field, is qualified by training or attempts must first be made to reconcile these
ability to draw appropriate inferences from that conflicting provisions in order to attain the intent
knowledge, and is free from any prejudices or of the law.
conflicts of interest that would prevent him or her - the clauses and phrases of a statute
from formulating sound judgments. must not be taken separately but in relation to the
statute’s totality. Unless clearly repugnant,
3. Accident – this fallacy consists in applying a provisions of the statutes must be reconciled.
general rule to a particular case when Ut magis valeat quam pereat – construction is to
circumstances suggest that an exception to the be sought which gives effect to the whole of the
rule should apply. statute – its every word.
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse Accident) –
this fallacy consists in drawing a general or 2. Laws vis-à-vis the Constitution – statutes
universal conclusion from insufficient particular should be given, whenever possible, a meaning
case. that will not bring them conflict with the
- As such it is also known as converse Constitution. It bears repeating that whenever a
accident because its reasoning is the opposite of law is in conflict with the Constitution, the latter
the fallacy of accident – we take a particular case prevails.
(which may be an exception) and make a general NOTE: As the fundamental law of the land, all
rule or truth out of that. laws must take its cue from the Constitution.
- it is called hasty generalization since it Moreover, the powers to enact laws is a grant by
moves carelessly or too quickly from the the Constitution to the legislative branch of
insufficient evidence to the conclusion. government pursuant to the sovereign will of the
people which ratified it.
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantium (Arguing from
Ignorance) – this fallacy consists in assuming 3. Laws vis-à-vis Laws – where two statutes are
that a particular claim is true because its opposite of contrary tenor or of different dates but are of
cannot be proven. equal theoretical application to a particular case,
- means using the absence of evidence the case designed therefor specially should
against a claim as justification that it is true or prevail over the other. It is the accepted rule of
using the absence of evidence for a claim as statutory construction that a specific proviso of
evidence that it is false. It is treating the absence the statute prevails over a general proviso. It is
of evidence as if it were the presence of evidence. also the rule that when there is a conflict between
two clauses or sections of the same statute, effect
6. False Dilemma – this fallacy arises when the must be given to the last in the order of position,
premise of an argument presents us with a choice the latter overriding the earlier.
between two alternatives and assumes that they Every statute must be so construed and
are exhaustive when in fact they are not. harmonized with other statutes as to form a
Alternatives are exhaustive when they uniform system of jurisprudence.
cover all the possibilities (meaning, these are the
only choices we have). By making the non- Interpretare et concodare legis legibus est
exhaustive alternatives appear exhaustive, the optimus interpretandi – the best method of
arguer is able to force the person to choose the interpretation is that which makes law consistent
alternatives presented in the argument. with other laws.
- often derives from the failure to
distinguish contradictories from contraries. Leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant -
Contradictories exclude any gradations between uphold the statute of later date, being a later
extremes. There is no middle ground between a expression of legislative will.
term and its negative. Contraries allow a number
of gradations between their extremes. There is 4. General Laws vis-à-vis Special Laws
plenty of middle ground between a term and its
opposite. Generalis specialibus non derogant. Statutes
treating a subject in general terms and another
treating a part of the same subject in particularly
CHAPTER 6 RULES OF LEGAL REASONING detailed or specialized manner.

Rules of Collision Generalus clausula non porrigitur ad ea quae

NOTE: A basic principle of interpretation is that antea specialiter sunt comprehensa. If both
words must be given their literal meaning and statutes are irreconcilable, the general statute
applied without attempted interpretation where must give way to the special or particular
the words of a statute are clear, plain and free provisions as an exception to the general
from ambiguity provisions.
Laws and rules should not be interpreted 5. Laws vis-à-vis Ordinances – if there is
in such a way that leads to unreasonable or conflict in an ordinance and a statute, the
senseless consequences. In such a case, it is ordinance must give way observing the well-
very important to first remember that the first settled rule that a substantive law cannot be
order of business is to find ways in which one can amended by a procedural law. In case of
reconcile these conflicting provisions in order to discrepancy between the basic law and a rule or
arrive at a proper application of the law with the regulation issued to implement the law, the basic
law prevails because said rule or regulation Rules of Judgment
cannot go beyond the terms and provisions of the
basic law. Judicial power – the power to hear and decide
causes pending between parties who have the
Ordinance – the local legislative measure right to sue and be sued in the courts of law and
passed by the local legislative body of a local equity.
government unit. - vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Substance Requirements for a Valid
Ordinance: Judiciary – vested with the power to annul the
1. must not contravene the Constitution or any acts of either the legislative or executive or both
statute; when not comfortable with the fundamental law.
2. must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. must not be partial or discriminatory; Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy – Supreme
4. must not prohibit but may regulate trade; Court and all other lower courts have the power
5. must be general and consistent with public to construe and interpret the law.
policy; and
6. must not be unreasonable. Requisites of Judicial Review
1. an actual and appropriate case and
Rules of Interpretation and Construction controversy exists;
2. a personal and substantial interest of the party
Interpretation – refers to how a law or more raising the constitutional question;
importantly a provision thereof, is to be properly 3. the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the
applied. earliest opportunity; and
4. the constitutional question raised is the very lis
Basic Rule: If the language of the law is clear, mota of the case.
then there is no need for either interpretation nor
construction. Rules of Procedure

Verba legis – the word of the law. It refers to the Rules of Procedure – be it at the judicial or
plain meaning of the law. quasi-judicial level refers to the process of how a
- the law is couched in simple and litigant would protect his right through the
understandable language that a normal person intervention of the court or any other
would understand. administrative body.
- all rules of procedure take its cue or its
If the law admits of two or more bearings from the Rules of Court.
interpretation, then we need first to interpret the - should be viewed as mere tools
law. If interpretation is not enough, this is the time designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.
when we attempt to construe the meaning of the - must be faithfully followed in the
law. absence of persuasive reason to deviate
therefrom.
Interpretation Construction NOTE: Administrative rules of procedure are
relies on the contents relies on material that generally given a liberal construction.
of the law is extant from the law In civil proceedings, the rules are
itself different and even more so in criminal actions.
refer to materials refer to materials The nature of the action determines the kind of
utilized as intrinsic utilized as extrinsic proceedings it will follow.
aids aid Yet, be it an administrative, civil or
refers to the drawing process of using criminal proceeding, the rules should be read and
of the true nature, tools, aid, references, interpreted first.
meaning and intent of extant from the law in
the law through an order to ascertain its
examination of its nature, meaning and
provisions intent
limits the person to allows the person to
what the law itself utilize other reference
provides through an materials or tools in
examination of its order to ascertain the
language, words, true meaning of the
phrases and style law
may only be allowed if
the process of
interpretation fails or
is inadequate to
thresh out the
meaning of the law

Semper in dubiis benigniora praeferenda – For

words are presumed to have been employed by
the lawmaker in their ordinary and common use
and acceptation.