ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
COURSE SYLLABUS
Course Title: Legal Technique and Logic Instructor:
No. of Units: 2 units Prof. Aldrich Fitz U. Dy
Semester/ SY: 1st Year 2nd Semester
Department/Track:
Pre-requisites:
I. COURSE DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
This course shall delve into the study of logic and reasoning, and its application in the legal
field. The students will be introduced to fundamental concepts such as syllogism, arguments,
explanation, inference, truth, falsity, fallacies, among others. More importantly, the students
shall be taught the application of these concepts in everyday legal practice.
The course seeks to guide the students in crafting legal theories and formulating legal
arguments, which will undoubtedly become a part of their everyday life in law practice. In
addition, the course will also deal into approaching legal case matters.
At the end of the semester, students are expected not only to learn and develop the art of
formulating legal arguments, but also have an understanding on how to approach legal
problems in everyday life.
Methodology
Recitation will be the primary mode of instruction. As the course involves how to formulate
legal arguments and theories and their application in cases and scenarios, it is important that
sessions be devoted to engaging the class in a robust discussion of the theories and their
application to cases and scenarios.
Cases will be assigned from time to time and students will be required to conduct research on
a particular legal matter. Students are expected not only to study the materials and conduct the
required research, but also keep abreast of current events.
II. COURSE OUTLINE:
Week/Session Topic
I. Introduction
a. What is Logic?
b. What is Legal Reasoning?
1/ 4
c. Components of Legal Reasoning
• Aquino and Evangelista, Legal Logic, pp. 1 to 19.
II. Fundamental Concepts in Legal Reasoning
a. Law
b. Jurisprudence
c. Opinions
d. Evidence
• Aquino and Evangelista, Legal Logic, pp. 20 to 30
• Cesar L. Villanueva, Comparative Study of the Judicial Role and its Effects
on the Theory of Judicial Precedents in the Philippine Hybrid System, 65 Phil.
Law Journal 42(1990). http://plj.upd.edu.ph.comparative-study-of-
the-judicial-role-and-its-effect-on-the-theory-on-judicial-
precedents-in-the-philippine-hybrid-legal-system/
• Carpio Morales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27, 10
November 2015
III. Deductive Reasoning
a. Syllogisms
i. Categorical Syllogisms
ii. Hypothetical Syllogisms
b. Rules governing Categorical Syllogisms
c. Rules governing Conditional Syllogisms
d. Polysyllogisms
e. Enthymemes
• Aquino and Evangelista, Legal Logic, pp. 31 to 57
• Ruggero J. Aldisert, Stephen Clowney, Jeremy D. Peterson, Logic for
Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer, University of Pittsburg
Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 (2007)
IV. Inductive Reasoning
a. Inductive Generalizations
b. Analogical Arguments
• Aquino and Evangelista, Legal Logic, pp. 58 to 77
• Ruggero J. Aldisert, Stephen Clowney, Jeremy D. Peterson, Logic for
Law Students: How to Think Like a Lawyer, University of Pittsburg
Law Review, Vol. 69, No. 1 (2007)
V. Fallacies in Legal Reasoning
a. Formal and Informal Fallacies
b. Fallacies of Ambiguity
i. Equivocation
ii. Amphiboly
iii. Improper Accent
iv. Vicious Abstraction
v. Composition
vi. Division
c. Fallacies of Irrelevance
i. Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
ii. Ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity)
2/ 4
iii. Ad Baculum (Appeal to Force)
iv. Petitio Principii (Begging the Question)
d. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
i. Ad Antiquum (Appeal to the Ages)
ii. Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Inappropriate Authority)
iii. Accident
iv. Hasty Generalization
v. Ad Ignoratiam (Arguing from Ignorance)
vi. False Dilemma
• Aquino and Evangelista, Legal Logic, pp. 78 to 124
• Gurrea vs. Lezama, G.R. No. L-10556, 30 April 1958 (see dissent).
• Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane vs. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen ,
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008
• Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. The Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 70481, December 11, 1992
• People of the Philippines vs. Amarela, G.R. Nos. 225642-43,
January 17, 2018
VI. Application of Concepts/How to Write Legal Arguments and
Counter-Arguments
• Gerald Lebovits, Cracking the Code to Writing Legal Arguments: From
IRAC to CRARC to Combinations in Between, New York State Bar
Association Journal, Vol. 82, No. 6 (July/August 2010)
VII. Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court
• Falcis vs. Civil Registrar General, G.R. No. 217910, 3 September
2019
VIII. Professional Ethics and Responsibility
• Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility
• Canon 8, Code of Professional Responsibility
• Rule 8.01, Code of Professional Responsibility
• Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility
• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility
• Rule 10.02, Code of Professional Responsibility
• In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism against J. Mariano
Del Castillo, A.M. 10-7-17-SC, 10 October 2010
• Social Justice Society vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 156052, 13 February
2008
III. REFERENCES AND OTHER MATERIALS
Principal Reference:
“Legal Logic” by Atty. David Robert Aquino and Francis Julius N. Evangelista.
The students may look at other source materials.
3/ 4
IV. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND GRADING SYSTEM
Course Requirements Grade Breakdown Description
Recitation/Quizzes/Paper 30%
Midterm Examination 30%
Final Examination 40%
V. COURSE POLICIES
In addition to those contained in the ALS Catalogue, the following policies shall
be observed in class:
• No computers and gadgets will be allowed during class.
• Papers will strictly observe the following format: Book Antiqua, single space, Font
Size 14.
4/ 4
